Synthesize (3 Documents, Quote & Video)

--After the defeat over France by the British, Britain became very powerful and wealthy. People were very proud to be British and wanted to be British. It was almost a privilege. Many things such as taxes, power and freedom of speech brought struggles and greed among colonists.
In the video, colonists stuck together in any circumstance. For example, "United we stand, divided we fall." Once they are broken apart they are no longer strong enough to stick together.

--The circular letter of the Boston Committee proved effective. Grievances among colonists started small uprisings throughout. The colonists were very angry with the conditions due to Britain's rule over them. Britain insisted on cutting of ties with Boston and thought it would be beneficial but it ended up not going the way they thought it would. After receiving such a great revenue from them they were used to the fact that they had extra money, but it made Boston unhappy and also Britain since Boston had great resources. The Act "fill[ed] the colonists with indignation." Boston had written the letter to all the surrounding colonies to let them know that if it could happen to them then it could happen to any of the other surrounding colonies. If one colony is affected then all the colonies suffer. If Britain ever decides to pretty much be selfish and cut off ties with any colonies who do not co-operate, then uprisings may occur.

--The Letter from the New York Committee of 51 is in response to the "cry for help" from Boston. New York shows great compassion for Boston but they are unable to help. The citizens of New York had put together a Committee of 51 persons to help sister colonies that ever need help. This just shows that the colonies really do work together to make America "United." The sister colonies are there for other sister colonies.

--The quote, “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.” The people that are united have the same belief and understanding in the change that they want to obtain from the government. When the citizens realized that their liberty was stripped away by the controlling of the British, they understood they they needed to fight to win back their liberty and freedom.

Text Analysis- Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death

--Who is writing?
The writer of this primary document is Patrick Henry, an upset colonist who was trying to get his voice out there.

--Who is the audience?
The audience of the document is mostly the king, or "President" as Patrick Henry calls him, and the colonists.

--Who do the writers represent?
The writer is representing a man who thinks more highly of patriotism that any man. He really knows what he wants and is trying to persuade others of his position. In my opinion he is representing change.

--What is being said, argued and/or requested?
Patrick Henry is very displeased with the conditions of his home colony and is trying to make a point to the king that, if necessary, the colonists were of enough number that they could start a war with the British and pretty much outnumber them. Although Henry sounds like he is opposed to war, he states, "The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat sir, let it come." The Christianity among the colonists, Henry believes, will supply them with enough friends and colonists to fight the battle and that God will provide that for them.

How is it being said, argued and/or requested?
--When reading this document, I noticed that Patrick Henry repeated himself when stating what he felt very passionate about, for example, "[...] --we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!" The document is being stated in a very passionate and opinionated manner. It is also very persuasive in the sense that he is directing it toward the king.

What proof, and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
--Basically, Patrick Henry wanted liberty not only for himself, but for the whole colony, and what better way then this? He clearly shows his concern and care over this matter and wants change just as much as he wants life. He states that, "Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence ans insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!" Everything that they have tried to do to change the British minds has gone unnoticed or has failed. War was the only way out when it came to freedom and liberty. Therefore, Patrick Henry was threatening that he either wanted liberty RIGHT THEN, or death during war.

Summary- Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence, 1774

----I am very unsure of who is writing this document, but they are writing in response to Boston's mistreatment and the cruel and unjust conditions. They are showing their concern and seem to be hasty in the way they are writing. The Act of the British Parliament sounds to me like a negative thing. Some Acts "fill[ed] the inhabitants [of Boston] with indignation." The Act is trying to cut off all ties and trade with Boston and barely keeping them alive is what I gathered. The authors show their concern at the end of the document by saying, "[...] we are still determined to maintain to the utmost of our abilities the rights of America, we are, gentlemen."

Summary- Letter from the Ney York Committee of Fifty-One, 1774

----The author(s) of this document are the people of the New York Committee writing in response to the Boston Committee of Correspondence's cry for help. The Boston Committee had written a letter to the New York Committee asking for their advice and help in the colony. The kind citizens and the Committee immediately show their care and concern by saying that the letter from the Boston Committee was immediately taken into consideration. "Our citizens have thought it necessary to appoint a large committee, consisting of fifty-one persons to correspond with our sister colonies on this and every other matter of public moment." The citizens of New York put together this committee not only to aid Boston, but for any other incident in the colonies as well. I gathered that the tone of this document was very considerate, compassionate and caring. Although the New York Committee was unable to be of any assistance, they surely revealed their sorrow and condolences through this writing.

Summary- Resolutions of the Continental Congress, 1764

----It sounded to me like this Resolution took place in Great Britain. The authors of this document, the people of the Congress, are directing it toward the poor colonists and they are stating that the way that they expect the colonists to be and act. At the beginning the tone was very sincere and understanding toward the colonists, but toward the end it seemed to look more at the negative aspect. The Congress is thinking of setting up an establishment that has order and liberty of the people, and it sounds like they want it to be an "of the people, for the people" kind of thing. Representatives of the people are chosen by themselves and no taxes are imposed on them. The document states, "That the increase in prosperity, and happiness of these colonies, depend on the full and free enjoyment of their rights ans liberties, and an intercourse with Great Britain mutually affective and advantageous." It seems like they just want the colonists to be happy and are thinking of their well-being in the colonies.

Essay #1 Reflection

---While writing about Bacon's Rebellion, I learned a lot more about the subject then I ever did just reading the story. When reading, sometimes we often just read to get it done. But when we are reading to find information, we dig deeper to find that perfect quote or summary of our thoughts. This "digging" results in a collection of knowledge about the topic. I was able to relate this information to a modern example of rebellion: 9/11. I found the writing process very helpful and useful. I now see why it is so important to write more that just one draft. You are able to look back and see what changes you have made and what changes need to be made.

---One MAJOR thing that I learned through this writing process was to NOT write my introduction first! I honestly never knew h0w helpful this was, or to even do it. Writing an outline first was also very helpful. Although, the only thing it helped me do was get started. Getting started is always the hardest part for me and it takes a a very long thinking process. The outline helped me get some ideas and topics but I didn't really really use them in the same order. When writing about history, on of the most important thing to do is to annotate. Annotating gets your "I say" going and also aids you in the process of starting a thesis. The next paper will be SO much easier because now I know exactly what to do and how to do it.

---When I glance back at "My Writing Philosophy", I see that the way I wrote my essay refers back to this. I do in fact tend to keep my writing simple and some might say it's too "vague". But no matter what grade I get on this assignment, I will still be pleased with my own work and motivation. I feel well accomplished with my piece of writing and feel that I did a great job on completing it.

BR- Rhetorical Analysis for Source 2

Source:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm


Author:
The author of this article is John Pike who is a one of the world's leading experts on defense, space and intelligence policy, and is Director of GlobalSecurity.org. Pike is noted for his ability to translate complex information into something more simple and easy to read. He provides insight and understanding about worldly affairs.

Audience:
The audience of this article is intended for the simple, young-minded. Pike simplifies intense discussions and world events into an easy read for the audience.

Tone:
The tone of Pike’s writing is straightforward and very informative. His intensions are to get out all the information and facts about the subject in a relatively trouble-free manner. I found his writing very pleasing and understandable.

Purpose:
The purpose of this writing is to inform readers of exactly what happened during Bacon’s Rebellion. It is not for the reader to be confused, but rather to be up to date with the subject itself.

Ethos:
The credibility of the writing was, I believe, the fact that Pike told the story from beginning to end and it seemed as though he did not leave out any subtopics that lead up to the next big event. He gave it character by using his own writing style and adding in a few views of others.

Pathos:
I did not in fact see or feel the emotion of the author. He was simply telling the story with facts and such and did not input his own views. However, he did make it an interesting read.

Logos:
The logic to this article is that there was a power struggle between two people during Bacon’s Rebellion 1676 and each incident that happened at that time lead up to the next. All to discover after Bacon’s death that Governor Berkeley seized many of Bacon’s followers and took back complete control of the order in Virginia.

BR- Rhetorical Analysis for Source 1

Source:
Bacon's Rebellion
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914836
The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jul., 1900), pp. 1-10 (article consists of 10 pages)
Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture


Author:
This article was written by the Quarterly Historical Magazine in July of 1900. The exact author(s) are unknown.

Audience:
It was written to be directed toward the people back in the 1900s to inform them of what significance Bacon’s Rebellion played in their history.

Tone:
To me the tone was very interesting. It was mostly informative telling about Indian and Virginian relations.

Purpose:
The purpose of this article was to explain in detail the descriptions of the fight between the English and the Indians. The part that I used for my paper was very useful.

J-STOR would only let me view the first page of the article so I am not clear as to what the ethos, pathos, and logos are.

Bacon's Rebellion: Final Draft

----- Although wars seem to be mostly in history books, it may be a surprise to some that they are still going on today. Between countries like the United States and Iraq, miscommunications have lead to attacks and some still believe that President George Bush is responsible for the bombing of the twin towers in New York City on September 11th 2001. The same states of affairs are present in Virginia, 1676 during Bacon’s Rebellion. Some argue that the Governor of Virginia, William Berkeley, was at fault for the attacks on the colonies committed by the Native Americans. The government had made peace treaties with the Indians about what land was rightfully theirs and they both respected their boundaries. and they both respected their boundaries. But when and they both respected their boundaries. But when But when the poor settlers complained about Indians and the need for land, the government denied them because the Native Americans were useful to the government with their fur trade that made a great income. Just as the Virginians relied on the Indians for trade and wealth, the United States also depends on places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia for our crude oil. Without this our country would not be the same. Peace in America and in Virginia are said to have been destroyed by George Bush and Nathaniel Bacon. The citizens of the United States put their trust in President Bush and believed he would keep them safe. The Virginians also trusted in William Berkeley when it came to government affairs and keeping the colonies protected. Both these men did just what they said they would do, but they had issues with cooperation on the Indian’s and terrorist’s part.

-----The angry colonists of the 17th century were against two groups: the Indians and the colonists' own rich leaders. The colonies were very displeased with the way William Berkeley was running the government. Servants and even blacks joined in the rebellion according to Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff in A Young People's History of the United Sates, "Then white servants and black slaves joined the rebellion. They were angry, too- mostly about the huge gap between rich and poor" (Zinn and Stefoff, 36). The economy of Virginia was horrible because taxes were high and the cost of tobacco was extremely low and by the 1670s rich landowners had possession of a majority of eastern Virginia. The Government wanted to obtain more power and wealth and therefore brought over masses of indentured servants, which then resulted in a need for land. Since Bacon and his band of men received no help from the government, they "rebelled" against it and began planning schemes and methods of attack. As stated by the Quarterly Historical Magazine, "Bacon assumed command of the volunteers, and, being denied a commission from Governor Berkeley, marched out against the Indians without one" (Bacon's Rebellion 1). When it comes to the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, most of us would readily agree that Bacon had a vast amount of farmers, servants, blacks, and colonists on his side. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how the Indians, who were not as intelligent or as big in number, were able to go almost unnoticed and take the lives of so many of them. Whereas some are convinced that Bacon had over five-hundred men, others maintain that he had one-thousand or more. In my own opinion, no matter what the number of troops Bacon had, he was still outnumbered in smarts when it came to the Indian’s overlooked intelligence. According to Document #6, "For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of danger; which they might easily enough do, with out any detriment to there designes". Bacon saw the Indians as unpredictable and a threat to the colonies which ignited Bacon’s wrath toward the Indians. In the book, Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael J. Puglisi maintains that, "...suspicions ran high against all Indians, regardless of their status with the colonists" (Puglisi, 78). Because of the Natives' unruly behavior and unnoticeable distinctions between good and bad, Bacon was given more incentive to attack the Indians in an angry rage. As the Royal Commissioners stated in Document #13, "Bacon had gone over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends .... the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies, for at that time it was impossible to distinguish one nation from another, they being deformed with paint of many colors... So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all the Indians ... we will spare none." Retaliation was almost expected by the Natives. According to what the Royal Commissioners said in Document #4 , "... a Party of those abused Sasquahanocks 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." Basically, the Indians killed out of revenge, but the Virginians killed out of voracity. Although the author does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that the Indians ran off in a panic after committing their murders. Without speaking the Virginians language, killing out of revenge was all the Indians could do. In a way, the Indians were mere bystanders, waiting and watching as the Virginians executed their friends and loved ones in fuming incursions. What were they to do? The Indians were never warned as to what was going to occur. The only warning they were given was the first strike of death.

----- In my eyes, accounts of Indian attacks are plainly out of revenge. As far as I can see, the Indians never attacked without incentive. When the Indians didn’t get the pay or respect that they had earned, the only way they knew as “fair” was to strike and kill. According to John Pike, “The trouble began in July 1675 with a raid by the Doeg Indians on the plantation of Thomas Mathews, located in the Northern Neck section of Virginia near the Potomac River. Several of the Doegs were killed in the raid, which began in a dispute over the nonpayment of some items Mathews had apparently obtained from the tribe. The situation became critical when, in a retaliatory strike by the colonists, they attacked the wrong Indians, the Susquehanaugs, which caused large scale Indian raids to begin” (Bacon’s Rebellion 2). Yet again, the Indians are undistinguishable to the colonists, and by mistake they attacked the wrong ones. This is the foremost rationale as to why the raids kept taking place between both the Natives and the Virginians. As Bacon continued his invasions of attack on the Indians and tensions rose, Governor Berkeley's correlation with the Natives was demised. Bacon had demolished the good relations that Berkeley had with the Natives, and thus brought forth further battering. According to the Royal Commissioners in Document #4, "Berkeley had rebuked [Bacon] at the time, mildly but firmly, reminding him that he was the governor of Virginia, and that attacking friendly Indians was just one way to produce what everyone wanted to avoid, namely, [in Berkeley's words] a Generall Combination of all Indians against us." Although others may disagree with me, I believe that the relations between the Indians and colonists, and Iraq and the United States were damaged simply by miscommunications and prejudgment. President Bush had plans to attack Iraq but they beat him to it. In almost the same manner, Bacon had plans to attack the Indians, but the Indians had already started raids against them. If Nathaniel Bacon hadn’t have started the rebellion, would Jamestown have changed as drastically as it did? If President Bush hadn’t have meddled with Iraq relations, would the terrorists have bombed the twin towers and taken the lives of our fellow citizens? In my opinion, the bombing of the twin towers in New York City has strengthened our country and it opened our minds to a state of affairs we were never aware of. I believe that almost the same conditions apply to Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. The colonies were never able to take any action or speak up about how much they despised the government for not equally distributing wealth until Nathaniel Bacon stepped in. Their eyes were also opened to new beginnings and the colonies weren’t the same after Bacon’s death.

-----All in all, through the clashing and disagreement between Bacon and Berkeley, one thing remained: the Native Americans were left scratching their heads. They were the true, rightful owners of the land, and in my own views of Bacon’s Rebellion, Nathaniel Bacon was wrong in the way that he tried to seize property from them. Alternatives such as agreements and trades would have been more productive. Wars solve nothing and only lead to more conflict. This is obviously apparent in the complicated story of Bacon’s Rebellion. Bacon was only sent to Virginia by his father in hopes that he would mature. Bacon not only matured, but he found himself amongst all the chaos that was previously happening before the rebellion started. According to writer John Pike in his text about Bacon’s Rebellion, “The numerous problems that hit the colony before the Rebellion gave rise to the character of Nathaniel Bacon. Due to the nature of the uprising, Bacon's Rebellion does seem at first glance to be the beginnings of America's quest for Independence. But closer examination of the facts reveals what it really was: a power struggle between two very strong personalities. Between them they almost destroyed Jamestown” (Bacon’s Rebellion 2). If I had to choose one word to describe Bacon’s Rebellion it would be greed. Bacon and Berkeley never actually resolved their issues and I feel great remorse for William Berkeley and think that he handled things the best way he could. His laws were no longer effective when it came to respected policies, and this was all due to Nathaniel Bacon. Some may think that Bacon started something great and momentous, and others may believe that all he did was bring strife and friction to the colonies. But I believe that Bacon did both these things. Although he did cause harm to many, he also proved that anyone can make a stance and change what they believe is going to make things right.




Work Cited:

1.) Title: Bacon's Rebellion 1
Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jul., 1900), pp. 1-10
Publisher(s): Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914836

2.) Title: Bacon’s Rebellion 2
Publisher: John Pike
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/bacon.htm

Bacon's Rebellion: Draft #2

-----Our nation’s history is filled with cruel injustice that was done through the hands of our leaders. The year 1676 contains events that made memorable and influential marks in history. Such events occurred because of a man named Nathaniel Bacon. These affairs are titled as "Bacon's Rebellion". This uprising took place in the Virginia colonies in the 1700s. Bacon and other followers were discontent with government conditions and decided to take matters into their own hands. The government made peace treaties with the Indians about what land was rightfully theirs. When poor settlers complained about Indians and the need for land, the government denied them because the Native Americans were useful to the government because of their fur trade that made great income. Also, some Indians were used as spies for the colonies' advantage. But this peace would soon be destroyed by Bacon. Although he was a wise, courageous, and generous person, he burned with hatred towards the poor Indians. The colonists saw great leader potential in Bacon and were sure he would lead them into wealth and out of a state of poverty.

-----These angry colonists were against two groups: the Indians and the colonists' rich leaders. Servants and even blacks joined in the rebellion as stated in A Young People's History of the United Sates, "Then white servants and black slaves joined the rebellion. They were angry, too- mostly about the huge gap between rich and poor" (Zinn and Stefoff, 36). The economy of Virginia was horrible because taxes were high and the cost of tobacco was extremely low and by the 1670s rich landowners had possession of a majority of eastern Virginia. The Government wanted to obtain more power and wealth and therefore brought over masses of indentured servants, which then resulted in a need for land. Since Bacon and his band of men received no help from the government, they "rebelled" against it and began planning schemes and methods of attack. As stated by the quarterly historical magazine, "Bacon assumed command of the volunteers, and, being denied a commission from Governor Berkeley, marched out against the Indians without one" (Bacon's Rebellion). When it comes to the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, most of us would readily agree that Bacon had a vast amount of farmers, servants, blacks, and colonists on his side. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how the Indians, who were not as intelligent or as big in number, were able to go almost unnoticed and take the lives of so many of them. Whereas some are convinced that Bacon had over five-hundred men, others maintain that he had one-thousand or more.

-----One huge problem that the Virginians faced were the Native Americans. They inhabited most of the land that Bacon wanted possession of and were sharp with devious tactics. According to Document #6, "For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of danger; which they might easily enough do, with out any detriment to there designes" (47 Documents, #6). Bacon saw the Indians as unpredictable and a threat to the colonies. In the book, Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael J. Puglisi maintains that, "...suspicions ran high against all Indians, regardless of their status with the colonists" (Puglisi, 78). Because of the Natives' unruly behavior and unnoticeable distinctions between good and bad, Bacon was given more incentive to attack the Indians in an angry rage. As explained in Document #13, "Bacon had gone over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and feel upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends .... the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies, for at that time it was impossible to distinguish one nation from another, they being deformed with paint of many colors... So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all the Indians ... we will spare none." The dispute between the Native Americans and the Virginians continued through the entire rebellion.

-----Because of the Virginians greed and ravenous mind-set, the Indians of course retaliated. As this quote from Document #4 affirms, "... a Party of those abused Sasquahanocks 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 thier Custome is) ran off into the woods." As this states, the Indians killed out of revenge. But the Virginians killed out of voracity. Although the author does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that the Indians ran off in a panic after committing their murders. Without speaking the Virginians language, killing out of revenge was all the Indians could really do. In a way, the Indians were mere bystanders, waiting and watching as the Virginians executed their friends and loved ones in fuming incursions. What were they to do? The Indians were never warned as to what was going to occur. The only warning they were given was the first strike of death.

----- As Bacon continued his invasions of attack on the Indians and tensions rose, Berkeley's correlation with the Natives was demised. As stated in Document #4, "Berkeley had rebuked [Bacon] at the time, mildly but firmly, reminding him that he was the governor of Virginia, and that attacking friendly Indians was just one way to produce what everyone wanted to avoid, namely, [in Berkeley's words] a Generall Combination of all Indians against us." (needs quotes and a conclusion)

Work Cited:

1.) A Young People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff (Page 36)

2.) Title: Bacon's Rebellion
Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jul., 1900), pp. 1-10
Publisher(s): Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914836

3.) Title: The History of Bacon’s and Ingram’s Rebellion, 1676
Source: 47 Documents (Document #6)
Author: Unknown

4.) Whether They be Friends or Foes, Michael J. Puglisi (Page 78)

5.) Title: True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, 1676 (excerpt)
Source: 47 Documents (Document #13)
Author(s): Royal Commissioners

6.) Title: A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, 1676 (excerpt)
Source: 47 Documents (Document #4)
Author(s): Royal Commissioners

Bacon's Rebellion- Draft #1

-----Our nation’s history is filled with cruel injustice that was done through the hands of our leaders. The year 1676 contains events that made memorable and influential marks in history. Such events occurred because of a man named Nathaniel Bacon. These affairs are titled as "Bacon's Rebellion". This uprising took place in the Virginia colonies in the 1700s. Bacon and other followers were discontent with government conditions and decided to take matters into their own hands. The government made peace treaties with the Indians about what land was rightfully theirs. When poor settlers complained about Indians and the need for land, the government denied them because the Native Americans were useful to the government because of their fur trade that made much income. Also, some Indians were used as spies for the colonies' advantage. But this peace would soon be destroyed by Bacon. Although he was a wise, courageous, and generous person, he burned with hatred towards the poor Indians. The colonists saw great leader potential in Bacon and were sure he would lead them into wealth and out of a state of poverty.

-----These angry colonists were against two groups: the Indians and the colonists' rich leaders. Servants and even blacks joined in the rebellion as stated in A Young People's History of the United Sates, "Then white servants and black slaves joined the rebellion. They were angry, too- mostly about the huge gap between rich and poor" (Zinn and Stefoff, 36). The economy of Virginia was horrible because taxes were high and the cost of tobacco was extremely low and by the 1670s rich landowners had possession of a majority of eastern Virginia. The Government wanted to obtain more power and wealth and therefore brought over masses of indentured servants, which then resulted in a need for land. Since Bacon and his band of men recieved no help from the government, they "rebelled" against it and began planning schemes and methods of attack. When it comes to the topic of Bacon's Rebellion, most of us would readily agree that Bacon had a vast amount of farmers, servants, blacks, and colonists on his side. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how the Indians, who were not as intelligent or as big in number, were able to go almost unnoticed and take the lives of so many of them. Whereas some are convinced that Bacon had over five-hundred men, others maintain that he had one-thousand or more.

-----One huge problem that the Virginians faced were the Native Americans. They inhabited most of the land that Bacon wanted possession of and were sharp with devious tactics. According to Document #6, "For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of danger; which they might easily enough do, with out any detriment to there designes." Bacon saw the Indians as unpredictable and a threat to the colonies.

-----In the book, Whether They Be Friends or Foes, Michael J. Puglisi maintains that, "...suspicions ran high against all Indians, regardless of their status with the colonists" (Puglisi, 78). Because of the Natives' unruly behavior and unnoticeable distinctions between good and bad, Bacon was given more incentive to attack the Indians in an angry rage. As explained in Document #13, "Bacon had gone over the [James] River with his forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and feel upon the Indians and killed some of them[which] were some of our best Friends .... the people [would not] understand any distinction of Friendly Indians and Indian Enemies, for at that time it was impossible to distinguish one nation from another, they being deformed with paint of many colors... So the common cry and vogue of the Vulgar was, away with these Forts, away with These distinctions, we will have war with all the Indians ... we will spare none." The dispute between the Native Americans and the Virginians continued through the entire rebellion.

-----Because of the Virginians greed and ravenousness, the Indians of course retaliated. As this quote from Document #4 affirms, "... a Party of those abused Sasquahanocks 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 thier Custome is) ran off into the woods." As this states, the Indians killed out of revenge. But the Virginians killed out of voracity. Although the author does not say so directly, he aparently assumes that the Indians ran off in a panic after commiting their murders. Without speaking the Virginians language, killing out of revenge was all the Indians could really do. In a way, the Indians were mere bystanders, waiting and watching as the Virginians executed their friends and loved ones in fuming incursions.

-----

Work Cited:

1.) A Young People's History of the United States, Howard Zinn and Rebacca Stefoff (Page 36)

2.) Document #6 From the 47 Documents

3.) Whether They be Friends or Foes, Michael J. Puglisi (Page 78)

4.) Document #13 From the 47 Documents

5.) Document #4 From the 47 Documents

Respnse to Olaudah Equiano

The atrocities committed by the whites of importing ships containing black slaves are unimaginable. Sometimes hundreds of slaves were crammed onto a boat being imported from Africa to South and North America. The demand for slaves at this time must have been very high according to the depictions of this time period. Olaudah Equiano was one very lucky black slave in the eighteenth century. He was imported from Africa and had to endure harsh conditions on the journey. I can't even imagine being packed into a confined space with so many people for a long period of time. It was so bad that Equiano recalls the smell being so "dangerous" that some had to get outside for air. Being without proper food, water and commodities caused most to die before they even reached their destination. I don't understand the Europeans/whites reasoning for the mistreatment of the slaves. The live slaves were so weak and brittle by the time they reached wherever they were destined to go. How did the whites think that they were going to do any labor if they could barely walk? I was so disgusted by the way the blacks were mistreated.

I really don't understand why the Europeans felt such a great gap between themselves and other races that they considered themselves superior. I hate the fact that the whites just expected the blacks to work without food or proper maintenance of health. If the whites were SMART they would have fed them and honored the fact that they have someone to do EVERYTHING for them for free! The whites are just arrogant, rude fools. They would have totally benefited from properly taking care of their slaves. If the slaves felt a sense of belonging and contentment with their owner they most likely would have done a considerably larger amount of work and the owners would have no issues with them.

Text Analysis: Liberty of the Press

Leah Vickers
10/15/08
Rhetorical Analysis

AUTHOR:
The author of this primary document was not specified. But on the first page, third paragraph, he talks about England and how it has a limited monarchy. He makes an indication that he may be an English man by stating, "But in a limited monarchy, as England is, our laws are known, fixed, and established." By saying "our" laws, he testifies that he himself might be from England himself. This is the only indication that I am aware of in the document. Another reason why I believe the author is an English man is because throughout the text he mainly sides with the limited monarchy and portrays the absolute monarchy as being wrong or faulty. And as he said, a limited monarchy exists in England.

AUDIENCE:
The audience of the document is not quite clear to me. My guess would be that the document is directed towards the people who might be joining a colony that possesses a limited or an absolute monarchy. The author is informing them of the atrocities and also the virtuous things that come with each monarchy involving Liberty of the Press.

TONE:
The main tone of this piece of writing is authoritative. The way the author pieces together his thoughts is also informative to the reader. He started off with the importance of Liberty of the Press and began into the two types of monarchies that either included or denied Liberty of the Press. The authoritative tone comes from the way he tells the reader of the consequences of abusing the liberty. "...for if such an overgrown criminal, or an impudent monster in iniquity, cannot immediately be come at by ordinary Justice, let him yet receive the lash of satire, let the glaring truths of his ill administration, if possible, awaken his conscience, and if he has no conscience, rouse his fear by showing him his deserts, sting him with dread of punishment, cover him with shame, and render his actions odious to all honest minds."

PURPOSE/CONTEXT:
The purpose of the document was to tell readers of the importance of Liberty of the Press to a limited monarchy and the unimportance to an absolute monarchy. Since an absolute monarchy's government is determined solely by the ruler, there was so liberty of press. No one in an absolute monarchy was able to express any words publicly without a penalty. Such liberty was considered inconsistent with the constitution. The only laws in an absolute monarchy were those of the prince. And they weren't even considered laws, just a wills. A limited monarchy respects liberty of the press and it is incorporated and interwoven with the constitution. An offense against the law was an offense against the constitution. The author writes, "It is indeed urged that the liberty of the press ought to be restrained because not only the actions of evil ministers may be exposed, but the character of good ones traduced." Basically he is saying that in the limited monarchy where liberty of the press is practiced, anyone can say anything at anytime. This means that the evil ministers are able to persuade people into wrong thinking and it is pretty much okay. Although if this did happen, he would be considered an abuser of the right of press and would then be punished in some way. They believed that "Truth will always prevail over falsehood." Meaning, whatever is true and right will be known over anything that is slander or of wrong-doing. The author argues, "I believe every honest Briton of whatever denomination, who loves his country, if left to his own free and unbiased judgment is a friend to the liberty of the press and an enemy to any restraint upon it." Liberty of the press was intended to be used as a way of expressing praise, flattery, or tribute, and if you abuse the right you are considered an enemy of the liberty.

Why were Native Americans viewed as a threat to Nathaniel Bacon in the 17th century during Bacon's Rebellion?

Hypothesis: Why were Native Americans viewed as a threat to Nathaniel Bacon in the 17th century during Bacon's Rebellion?

ISSUES

I. The Indians were more intelligent than the Virginians thought they were.

---A. The Indians had an advantage in the war against the Virginian colonists because they knew their way around the woods.

------1. As stated in Document #6, "For the Indians quickly found out where about these Mouse traps were sett, and for what purpose, and so resalved to keepe out of danger; which they might easily enough do, with out any detriment to there designes."

------2. Bacon saw most Indians to be hostile and dangerous.

---B. The Indians inhabited land that Bacon wanted possession of.

------1.Instead of negotiation with the Indians, Bacon lead a raid of poor farmers to fight and kill them off.

------2. Indians soon retaliated out of anger.

------3. A quote from Dcument #4 states, "... a Party of those abused Sasquahanocks 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 thier Custome is) ran off into the woods."

THEY SAY DISCUSSION

II. Bacon was fairly wealthy and owned land, but he still insisted on taking over Native American territory and claiming the land for his own.

---A. The poor colonists who aided in the rebellion saw Nathaniel Bacon as a leader headed toward wealth in a state of poverty. Bacon and the angry colonists saw nothing wrong with killing off Indians to get out of that state of poverty and to live free and rich lives.

-------1."Another said that the Indian problem was the original cause of Bacon's Rebellion, but that poor people had joined because they wanted to seize and share the wealth of the rich" (Zinn and Stefoff, 39).

--------2."There has been a tendency in American history to see relations between Indians and American colonists purely in terms of conflict and separation" (Puglisi, 76).

THESIS/I SAY

III. I believe that the Indians were mere innocent people at the beginning of the rebellion. They had done nothing wrong other than trying to defend their territory.

------1. English started trusting the Indians less and less, even if they were on good terms.

----------a. "...suspicions ran high against all Indians, regardless of their status with the colonists" (Puglisi, 78).

--------------i. This quote could not depict any better the way things were between English and Native Americans.

------2. The Indians only retaliated because they felt threatened toward the English, who intruded on land that did not belong to them.

----------a. "...and as more and more homes went up in flames, some colonists sought to vent their frustrations on the Praying Indians of Deer Island" (Puglisi, 81).

--------------i. The colonists had no proof that the Indians had done this, but if the colonists hadn't done anything to upset the Indians, why would they suspect them in the first place? The Indians were obviously threatened and upset and acted out of anger.

Bacon's Rebellion Outline

Topic: Bacon's Rebellion- Who is Nathaniel Bacon?
-Why this event happened
- How did it start?

Idea of support: Who is William Berkeley
-What is his position
- What are his views?

Idea of support: Indian's views/where they stand in the issue

Idea of support: Poor farmer's perspective

Conclusion: Was the rebellion really necessary?
-What did the English gain?

I SAY:
I am choosing to side with the Indians because they really had no say in what was going on. At first they were simply innocent bystanders.

J-STOR Citations

I have included the citations below that I found to be quite informative and useful when it comes to Bacon's Rebellion. I thought that the J-STOR Highline library was very helpful and practical. It wasn't too complicated or overwhelming at all. I typed in my search, for example, "Bacon's Rebellion" and then "William Berkeley" on the next line. From now on I think I will try searching related topics and use the information in my essay. It is good to get a great variety of information that all ties together in one piece of writing. The one thing that bothered me is that most of the documents that came up were untitled, so I didn't really know the main topic.


1.) Searched: Bacon's Rebellion (William Berkeley)
Found:
Title: Sir William Berkeley, Virginian Economist
Author(s): Harold Lee Hitchens
Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Apr., 1938), pp. 158-173
Publisher(s): Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1923496


2.) Searched: Nathaniel Bacon
Found:
Title: Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Diarmaid MacCulloch
Reviewed Title(s): The Papers of Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey. Vol. III: 1586-1595
Reviewed Authors(s): Nathaniel Bacon; A. Hassell Smith; Gillian M. Baker
Source: The English Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 431 (Apr., 1994), pp. 438-439
Publisher(s): Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/574072

3.) Searched: Nathaniel Bacon
Found:
Title: Bacon Family
Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Apr., 1902), pp. 267-271
Publisher(s): Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1915005

Responses to John Winthrop's Arbella Sermon

1.) “The definition which the scripture gives us of love is this: ‘Love is the bond of perfection.’ [I]t is a bond or ligament. . . . There is no body but consists of parts and that which each part so contiguous to others as thereby they do mutually participate with each other, both in strength and infirmity, in pleasure and pain. . . . Christ and his church make one body. The several parts of this body, considered apart before they were united, were disproportionate and as much disordering as so many contrary qualities or elements, [however, when united], it is become the most perfect and best proportioned body in the world[.]”

-This quote, to me, is simply a metaphor of the actual church body. Together all parts (or services) performed by each individual in the church form together to make one body or community. Each part compliments the other. If one part or piece was missing then the community would not be "...most perfect and best proportioned...[.]" Just as if a piece was missing from a puzzle it would not be complete. Or if humans were missing a part of their body, like a piece of the brain, our entire bodies would be effected from it. If each person in the body were to contribute in some way then the entire community of people would benefit, thus bringing "commonwealth" to the body.


2.) “Whatsoever we did or ought to have done when we lived in England, the same must we do, and more also, where we go.”

-When the puritans lived in England they saw their lives as sinful and of unworthy nature. When they ventured to form a new colony they not only wanted to start fresh but they wanted to make their lives more holy and pure. They planned to do the same things they did when they lived in England but just in a more holy manner. I don't believe that they moved away to a new colony to start a new life, they simply wanted to make theirs undiluted. Obviously by the name "puritans" we know that they wanted to make things pure. Their lives might have been okay back in England, but it was not pure enough in God's eyes.

3.) “Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with him for this work. We have taken out a commission, the Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these actions . . . . Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath he ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, [and] will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it.”

-Basically, the puritans only wanted to do what was right and what God had intended them to do. They just wanted the Lord to bring them peace wherever they were to travel. If they were in a predicament I'm assuming they would not act on impulse, but first ask God if what they are about to do is holy enough or in his sight. If they hear an answer to their call upon the Lord then they will act as directed by him. Whether it be to go forth or stay put. Everything had to be "pure" according to the puritans. Living predestined lives meant that all the puritans had to be careful of what they say and do. No one knew who would be chosen as the predestined ones so to play it safe they worked at being pure as a community.

4.) “[W]hen he shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding [colonies], ‘the Lord make it like that of New England.’ For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us[.]”

-When Winthrop had the idea of "a city upon a hill" he most likely took into consideration the fact that other colonies would look up to them. The puritans were to set the example of all that is pure and holy to other newly developed colonies. Metaphorically speaking, the city on the hill made the puritans closer to God. Not only in a physical sense, but in a spiritual way also. Living at the top of a hill kept the puritans away from the sinful quality of the world below. They were also kept from temptations and turmoil that commonly brewed between the English and Native Americans. This new territory became a safe haven for the English that allowed them to pursue their holy-driven life.

College Fair

Leah Vickers
10/6/08
College 100

NATIONAL COLLEGE FAIR WORKSHEET/ASSIGNMENT

1)
A public college: The University of Washington, Tacoma. There is great diversity at this college, but sadly they do not a have an interior design program for me.

A private college: Gonzaga University is a private, Catholic college located in Spokane Washington. I found it interesting that they have an average class size of only 23. That is very small for college. They do have an art program, but nothing with interior design.

A rural college: A rural college would be one like the University of Wyoming. They seem to have a smaller campus and less options than most colleges. The only reason why I looked at this one is because I have some family in Wyoming.

A traditional large university: A large University might be one like the University of Washington. They are a college mostly for people who want to go into the field of medicine.

A small alternative college: I don’t really know the meaning of a small “alternative” college. But I am guess something like the Aveda Institute in Seattle since they aren’t a traditional college. They are more of an educational cosmetology school. It looks like a great career opportunity to me. Most positions in the field receive average salaries in the $35,000-$50,000 per year range.

2)
One major that I am particularly interested in is interior and industrial design. The colleges that I found with extraordinary programs in this area were Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design in Colorado, The University of the Arts in Philadelphia, and The Art Institute of Seattle. The Rocky Mountain College of Art and Design really impressed me with their program. They handed me a brochure specifically about their interior design program and what it has to offer. They have small class sizes and a great “green design” program all about creating environments that enhance health. Half of the entire school is involved in interior design.
What I liked about The University of the Arts was the fact that they have many different art programs; which is good if I decide to change my mind on my major. They also have a list of the many success stories of the people who have attended. They went on to be in TV shows and some became famous singers.
I mostly liked The Art Institute of Seattle because it is a lot closer to home and they have great interior and industrial design programs. They have about 41 locations in the US and seem to be a great successful school.

3)
I attended one workshop at the College Fair and found it to be pretty much common sense. It was all about financing your education and ways to get scholarships and such. It was mostly facts and numbers. I eventually got too bored of it and left.

4)
Altogether the College Fair was a pretty overwhelming experience, but I’m glad that I went for I know I would regret it if I did not. I never knew that so many colleges existed! I like the fact that there are so many options with career choices. The only question I would like answered is if there are any other types of college fairs in the area around this time of year. I really wish we had more time at the fair since I didn’t even get a chance to really explore all the other colleges and majors.
The next thing to do now is to get in contact with the colleges and ask more questions about them. I need to do more self-evaluating and decide what I want to major in so I can decide on a college.

They Say 2: Bacon's Rebellion

There are many different views about the first known rebellion of the English colonies; otherwise known as Bacon’s Rebellion. What I know from reading about it is that Bacon’s Rebellion was an event in the 17th century led by a man named Nathaniel Bacon. Bacon was a fairly new planter in the colony and was very unhappy with the conditions of the government on the coast of Virginia. According to the essay “Whether They be Friends or Foes” written by Michael J. Puglisi, “The frontier colonists were apparently dissatisfied with the conditions of the government efforts to protect their new settlements” (77). Howard Zinn and Rebacca Stefoff, the writers of “A Young People’s History of the United States” wrote, “It was not a war of American colonists against the British. Instead, Bacon’s rebellion was an uprising of angry, poor colonists against two groups they saw as their enemies. One was the Indians. The other was the colonists’ own rich and privileged leaders” (35). According to Zinn and Stefoff, “Bacon’s Rebellion came about because of a chain of oppression in Virginia” (38). Basically the authors are stating why the rebellion was started.

Bacon was a considerably wealthy man and though he was new to the colony, he had extremely high hopes of leading a band if over 500 men to defeat the Indians. As Zinn and Stefoff stated, "He probably cared more about fighting the Indians than about helping the poor" (37). According to Puglisi, Bacon "received an appointment to the Governor's council at the age of twenty-nine" (77). William Berkeley had appointed Bacon and later on accused him of being a traitor.

There were many disputes between the English and the Indians. As Document #2 "A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia" written by the Royal Commissioners, states "...certain Doegs and Susquahanok Indians on the Mary-lands side, stealing some Hoggs from the English at Potomakeon, on the Virginian shore... were pursued by the English in a Boate, beaten or kill'd and the hoggs taken from them..." In the actual document, the Indians had taken hogs from the English because they reported that the English had pretty much cheated them on a deal so the Indians "...took his hogs for Satisfaction." Basically the Indians were upset and retaliated by stealing from the English. The English men then hunted the Indians down and beat and killed them. They then confronted the King whom "... pleaded Ignorance and Slipt loos..." so the English shot and killed him with a pistol.

In "A Young People's History of the United States", Zinn and Stefoff stated that "More than half the colonists who came to North America came as servants" (41). After their indenture as a servant was up they were basically free to live like normal human beings. All in all, Bacon's Rebellion lead to the fact that it was better to not ignore the Indians because it would frustrate whites living near the frontier. Bacon's Rebellion did not last long after his death at the age of twenty-nine, shortly after he was appointed by Berkeley.

They Say: Bacon's Rebellion

There are many different views about the first known rebellion of the English colonies; otherwise known as Bacon's Rebellion. What I know from reading about it is that Bacon's Rebellion was led by a man named Nathaniel Bacon, who was a fairly new planter in the colony, and was very unhappy with the conditions of the government on the coast of Virginia. According to the essay "Whether They be Friends or Foes" written by Michael J. Puglisi, "The frontier colonists were apparently dissatisfied with government efforts to protect their new settlements" (77).

Howard Zinn and Rebecca Stefoff, the writers of "A Young People's History of the United States", wrote "It was not a war of American colonists against the British. Instead, Bacon's rebellion was an uprising of angry, poor colonists against two groups they saw as their enemies. One was the Indians. The other was the colonists' own rich and privileged leaders" (35).

According to Zinn and Stefoff, "Bacon's Rebellion came about because of a chain of oppression in Virginia" (38).

Bacon was a considerably wealthy man and though he was new to the colony, he had extremely high hopes of leading a band of over 500 men to defeat the Indians. As Zinn and Stefoff stated, "He probably cared more about fighting the Indians than about helping the poor" (37).According to Puglisi, Bacon "received an appointment to the Governor's council at the age of twenty-nine" (77). William Berkeley had appointed Bacon and later on accused him of being a traitor.

I really love the way Zinn and Stefoff wrote the story of Bacon's Rebellion. It was as if they had intended it to be for simple minds like myself that like things to be strait to the point and not in an old English style. I found it interesting in "A Young People's History of the United States" that "More than half the colonists who came to North America came as servants" (41). Then as soon as their indenture as a servant was up they were basically free to live like normal human beings. All in all, Bacon's rebellion lead to the fact that it was better to not ignore the Indians because it would frustrate whites living near the frontier.

Bacon's Rebellion did not last long after his death at the age of twenty-nine.

"'Political Economy' of the Body" Quote 3

When I read this quote I thought of the man as a person of equal value to the king but with less power. The man still has power over others but is working under the king. To me this quote means that people are all of equal importance. This is shown by using the word symmetrical. The man is a symmetrical "inverted figure of the king."
Power is centralized in a certain head figure and that power is handed down to the next level.

"'Political Economy' of the Body" Quote 2

To me this quote means to imply that labor is not possible without a productive and subjected body. It is the force of production that leads to power and domination. If you are not of productive nature you will never accomplish anything you strive for. If the military was not productive in making weapons and artillery then they would not have the power or domination that they would need in war.

"'Political Economy' of the Body"

Just as we as a body are forced to carry out tasks by our government, so are slaves of the old days. Through the government we are forced to carry out tasks and perform our daily duties in order to sustain everyday living. Things such as school, which leads to an education, which leads to a job, which leads to a career, which then leads to working almost every day of your life. In my opinion, we are all slaves in a way; we are trained and tortured through life with the hand of the government over us in hopes of someday being successful.