The French Revolution

    ,

Is Rebellion for the Good or Bad?

          The essential question we studied this unit was "is rebellion ever acceptable? And how should the government respond?"  This question was arrised when we studied a rebellion of the farmers against  the government for imposting a Whiskey Tax.  Rebellion happens for many reasons, and some are acceptable while others are not.  To learn more about the topic of rebellions and government, in class we did activities like watching a video and doing a back channel on the Whiskey Rebellion and reading about the Bill of Rights Institute.  

          Rebellion can be acceptable if it's for the right reason and the people rebelling are doing it to make a difference, but rebellion can also be wrong.  The farmers rebelled because of a series of events.  First, they did not get paid for fighting in the Revolutionary War on the American side.  And when they started their farms, they couldn't pay the taxes to help pay back the war debt and the farms were going to be taken away from the government.  The tax was a whiskey tax, when the people who make the whiskey have to pay a tax and the people who made the whiskey were the farmers.  The famrers were very mad that they had to pay taxes with the money they didnn't get from fighting, so they rebelled.  The farmers believed that rebellion was acceptable at that time because of their reasons leading up to the rebellion.  This rebellion showed that the Federal government wasn't powerful enough even to keep peace within its own borders, so it questioned how they will project the country from war.  The country should have responded by realizing that they aren't being fair and if their own country rebels, then they won't be able to stand against other countries.  When people within the same county are fighting, the government should take it asa sign to help make the relationships better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUKKJfQynEE&feature=youtu.be

          My opinion is that rebellion is only acceptable if it's for a good reason and if it will make the relationship between the government and people in the country better.  Also if people do rebel, thent he government of the country will be smart enought to try to fix the reason the people were rebeling over.  If people in the U.S.A. rebelled against the country and the government, the people rebeling must have a good reason.  As a resident of the U.S.A. I would only believe rebellion would be acceptable if there was a positive outsome and people had good reasons for rebellion.  

High Morale or Big Victories?

The topic we recently covered in class was the second half of the Revolutionary War, which was Saratoga through Yorktown.  In class, we discussed the question, Did the Americans win the war because they had high morale or because of a few big military victories?  To answer this question, we watched videos, answered questions and took notes.  We studied a few topics, including battles in Trenton, Princeton, Saratoga, Valley Forge and topics like brutality in the South and Yorktown.  The Revolutionary War was made up of many battles, and some of the battles the Americans won and some they did not.  The battles are about not just who wins them, but each side’s morale level as well.  Some battles gave the Americans high morale and some were just big military victories.  I believe that the Americans won the war because of their big military victories.

Maintaining high morale is important for any team or army in anything, especially battles in a war.  At Valley Forge, the American soldiers faced many difficulties.  One difficulty was the cold and lack of food,  and people were freezing or starving to death at a rate of 10 per day.  Also, they only had enough food for 8 days to last the whole winter.  Not only the soldiers, but the horses were also starving to death and so they were running out of horses for transportation.  Another difficulty was that there were no hospitals and when a Typhus epidemic came, many soldiers died.  Lastly, many officers went home for the winter.  But through all these difficulties, the soldiers struggled together and grew closer together and were training together while the British in Philadelphia were partying and not training.  This event helped maintain high morale.  Philadelphia also helped maintain their high morale in the beginning because it is a legendary place for the Americans.  Philadelphia is where the Declaration of Independence was written.  But the Americans did end up losing Philadelphia and that really made their morale take a dip.  The event in Saratoga was put into the category of maintaining high morale and winning big military victories.  Saratoga was a turning point in the war because the Americans defeated a large portion of the British army, and it led to French alliance and the British surrendering.  British morale took a beating during the event in Charleston.  Over 5,000 Americans became prisoners and were put on prison ships that were hot, contaminated with germs, crowded and lacking food.  While some events really helped moral, more hurt it and for that reason, winning big military victories was the reason why the Americans won the war.

The Americans had big military victories and that is why they won the war.  One big battle was the Battle at Saratoga.  Although Saratoga was a turning event for high morale, it also helped raise the amount of big military victories.  At Saratoga, the Americans defeated the British army and the British surrendered.  Also, this led to French alliance for the Americans.  The French provided the Americans with a lot that helped them win further battles, like in Yorktown.  They provided them with a secret loan, as well as arms, ammunition, uniforms and troops and naval support.  They also gave reinforcements that protected Washington’s forces in Virginia.  The battle at Saratoga was the basis of all the following battles the Americans won that helped lead to the end of the Revolutionary War.  American soldiers were also successful at Trenton and Princeton.  Working hard to defeat the British really paid off and helped contribute to America’s big military victories.  But, the most important battle and military victory was at Yorktown.  The American’s won at Yorktown because of their alliance with the French.  The French helped them win this battle by acting as distractions and reinforcements for their army.  One battle that brought the American army down was the Battle at Charleston.  Charleston also hurt their moral.  In Charleston, there was a siege and the British surrounded them with cannons.  This is when 5,000 Americans became prisoners.  Their big military victories is why the Americans won the war.

Maintaining high morale is important in wars, but it all comes down to the battles the army fights in and wins.  Their level of morale went up and down between Valley Forge, Saratoga, Trenton, Princeton, Charleston and Philadelphia.  The Americans won the war because they defeated the British so many times in different places.  The biggest victory was in Yorktown and that was because they had an alliance with the French, which was made at the Battle at Saratoga.  Although Charleston was unsuccessful, that did not mess with their other wins at Saratoga, Yorktown, Trenton and Princeton.  The biggest impact on the American army was when the French allied with them to defeat the British, and without them, the Americans would not be able to defeat the British.  The Americans won the war because of their big military victories.

Washington's Leadership

 A good leader is trustful, strict but fair, and is smart.  

Washington was a good leader when he had success at the Battle of Trenton.  He had many stragegies to win the battle between them and the British.   One strategy was that he had Thomas Paine's pamphlet read aloud to to motivate and inspire his men.  He also did a lot of his moving around during the night so they wouldn't be found and had decoy fires set up to act like they were in for the night, but wer really setting up for a victory.  Washington also brought in reinforcements when he needed more people to help win the battle.  

Washington was a bad leader when he had punishment for mutiny.  One man, Macaroni Jack, was about to be lashed for a minor offense.  Before he was about to be whipped, he shouted out to the other men, brothers won't you help me.  Washington took this as a act to rebel, and had him killed.  This is not a good way to solve problems, especially during something as serious as war.  Good leaders are suppose to be able to solve problems in easy, not violent ways.  Washington was not being smart, becuase now the rest of his men don't trust him and he was being anything but fair. 

For the first half of the war, I believe that Washington was a good leader.  Although he made mistakes in his leadership, everybody isn't perfect and Washington had a lot on his hands.  He knew what had to be dome to win the war most of the time and he was a smart leader for the rest of the army. 

The Worst Break Up

            The Declaration of Independence is a break up letter from America to King George. American colonists are declaring themselves separate from England.  This is a break up letter because America is "breaking up" with England.  This document was written before the American Revolution and it stated that America wanted to be its own country.  American colonists were not happy with the unfair way Britain ruled them.  King George was upset that he now had one less country under his rule.  He was probably also mad because he thought he was supporting America but was really not. He believed that even though he was making certain decisions, that doesn't mean he wasn't thinking about America and he thought they were too busy complaining about taxes.  After America broke up with King George, he decided to use his relationships with other countries to make America's future difficult and he sent soldiers over.  The break up between King George and America did not end of good terms.
            A preamble is an introduction that states the purpose of a document.  In the preamble, it states that the American colonists have the right to have a good relationship with King George.  They state that their rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are the Natural Rights.  Natural Rights are rights people are born with and they cannot be taken away from them.  In the preamble, they also say that it is the Right of the People to alter and abolish any form of government that is destructive to their rights and to make a new government.  This preamble relates enlightenment philosophy to the American colonists situation by the line consent of the governed.  America is telling King George and England that they want to be separate because they are not following the enlightenment ideas of government and are unfairly ruling America.

             A grievance is a cause for complaint or protest, especially unfair treatment.  The Americans included grievances in their Declaration of Independence to show the unfair ruling of King George and how they are protesting against Britain and the grievances are the examples they're using to become their own government and country.  One grievance is, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Offices to harass our people, and eat out their substance.  For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us." This is saying that one reason why America should form their own government is because King George sent out British offices to take more control over American colonists.  He sent armed troops over and took away their rights.  Another grievance is 'For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world.  For imposing taxes on us without our consent."  This is saying how American colonists broke up with King George becuse he cut off their trade with the world so they can't expand their economy.  Also, because he taxed them on a lot of unnecessary things that was working against the colonists and towards King George.  King George and the American Colonists did not have a good relationship and King George made it even harder for the colonists to start their own country and government, and that is why America broke up with King George.

What Helped Started The American Revolution

  In class, we talked about the American Revolution and what lead to it.  One question we answered was, "how did the Enlightenment help fuel the American Revolution?"  Colonists wanted to have their own government and not be run by the british anymore.  One person who agreed with the enlightenment ideas was Thomas Paine.  Paine was a writer and he published writings based on the American Revolution and his thoughts on government.  In Biography of Thomas Paine Part 1 it says, "but once actual fighting had begun, he became convinced that only complete independence would work.", and "Once independence had been achieved, America could establish a central democratic republican form of government."  This shows that Paine agreed with the topic of consent of the governed. Later in the biography, it says, "Paine advocated a declaration of independence to secure European aid and to unite the colonies." which proves that he agreed to the concept of social contract. People in America believed that America had to break its ties with England and once independence was achieved, America could establish a central democratic republican form of government.  Paine had some influence on these enlightenment ideas that helped lead to the American Revolution.

     Another question my class answered was, "Were most American colonists ready for rebellion?"  When Paine's writings came out and people started to listen to him.  His supporters then became ready for rebellion and were willing to fight.  Some colonists did not agree with Paine and were loyal to the British.  They were not comfortable with Paine's ideas and thought he was against their beliefs of government.  People who should have loved him, hated him.  He was not known as a here because of his views attacking Christianity and organized religion, and he became politicly toxic.

     In class, we had to take excerpts from Thomas Paine's Common Sense publishing, and turn them into black out poems.  My partner and I were assigned excerpt ten.  We first read the excerpt, trying to understand the main idea, and then connect in to enlightenment.  After, we circled words throughout the excerpt to make a poem and blacked out the rest of the writing we didn't use.  The final poem is all the words that aren't blacked out and it flows throughout the excerpt.  The poems had to show that Paine agreed with enlightenment and talk about government in America.  Thomas Paine agreed with the ideas of enlightenment and it helped fuel the American Revolution.  Many colonists were on Paine's side and were ready for rebellion while others were not.

Views on Social Contracts

   A social contract is contract between the people of a community that has a certain list of rules each individual most follow.  There are consequence to breaking these rules and in agreement to following rules, each person has guarenteed protection.  John Locke and Thomas Hobbes agreed with eachother and believed that social contracts were necessary because it was something that made each person contract with each other person and it was between the people.  Also because it wwas an enforceable agreement that made people follow rules or there will be consequenses.  They both thought it was necessary for the people to limit some of their rights for the return of their guarenteed protection.  Although they agreed on social contract, they disagreed on their opinions of human nature.  Locke's veiw on human nature was that all people want to protect their lives happiness, health and possessions and everyone will help to protect others' property.  Locke's views are well more positive than Hobbes.  Hobbes believed that people were basically selfish, and would do anything to get what they wanted, which included jurting and killing eachother.  He had a strong opinion based around the idea that people would always act in their self interest, no matter how bad it hurt others.  Some people believe that humans are all good while others believe that they are all bad.

     It is harder than it seems to create a social contract that people will agree on and follow.  Everyone has different opinions on how people should live an might never agree.  But when social contracts are made and people want their protection of their property, they have to be wlling to give up their rights and agree to all the rules.  In class, we split into groups to make a social contract with five rules that our class would have to follow if we all formed a group after the zombie apocalypse killed off most of thw world.  Since we only got to write fie rules, we had to make sure they covered hunting, government, food, shelter, jobs, defending yourself and hurting others.  One rule was that three leaders will be elected every three years.  Another was that you can't be destructive to yourself or others and can only use defense if you are going to be harmed.  Our third rule was that everyone has to have a specific job and contribute or they will be kicked out of the group.  Another rule was that all recourses found have to be shared and everyone in the group can use them.  The fifth rule was that all conflicts are to be brought to court.  My group and I all agreed that these rules, for the most part, cover the majority of rules people need to follow to have a civil society.

     After the groups made their social contracts, everyone went around the room and stuck sticky notes around the posters asking questions about their rules.  They could be critisism or compliments, or a general question about the rule and what happens if they break it.  One question we were asked was "why are they (leaders) elected every three yeats?".  But, my group meant to imply that three leaders were choosen every one year, so that is one thing we would have changed. Someone else asked,  "who is the judge in court?", so my group would make it more specific and say that the people will vote on electing leaders and judges of court, along with other important leaderships.  One last question someone asked was, "what if it's a simple conflict?", so my group would clarifty that all conflicts will be brought to court if it is disturbing many people in the group.  If it's a conflict that can be solved outside of the group, that will be better for everyone else.  Even though my group agreed that our rules were good, there will always be people who will find loopholes and won't agree and that is why it is hard to make a social contract everyone will be willing to follow.

"The Peasant Emperor"

The essential question we studied in class was “were enlightened absolute monarchs more enlightened or more absolute?” We did two activities in class to answer this question.  One activity we did was read about three enlightened absolute monarchs and made a venn-diagram.  The three monarchs are Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, and Joseph II.  The venn-diagram we created distinguished the enlightened and absolute things the rulers did.  When we were done and discussed, it turned out that Frederick was the most absolutist, along with Catherine and Joseph II was the most enlightened. The next activity we did was split into small groups to make a propaganda poster.  Each group chose one of the monarchs and made a poster.  The point of these posters were show the enlightened things the ruler did, so the posters were biased towards them being enlightened rulers.  These activities helped us answer the question, were enlightened absolute monarchs more enlightened or absolute.

An enlightened monarch was one was benevolent.  They have a well informed and rational outlook when they rule and look at different perspectives, appealing to everyone’s needs.  Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great and Joseph II all considered themselves enlightened.  But they were also absolute rulers, so they are enlightened absolute monarchs.  An absolute monarch is one who has total and complete power of the citizens of the country.  By the mid 1600’s, citizens were fed up with the lavish lifestyles and costly wars of absolute monarchs.  So, many philosophers and scholars decided that reforms needed to happen.  They believed that these reforms would be best if they came from enlightened, benevolent monarchs.  But, these enlightened monarchs were not completely enlightened and ended up being enlightened absolute monarchs.

My group had the ruler Joseph II.  Our poster’s slogan is “The Peasant Emperor makes excellent happen”, much like the New Balance slogan “Let's make excellent happen.”  We chose that slogan because Joseph was the most enlightened out of the three rulers and we wanted to shine a light on what he did.  Unlike many monarchs, Joseph II granted toleration to Protestants and Jews in his Catholic Empire.  Also, he traveled in disguise among his subjects to learn their problems and improve their lives.  This got him the nickname of “The Peasant Emperor”, which ties back to the slogan of the poster.  Joseph II also ended censorship, which is why we have a picture of it on our poster.  Lastly, Joseph II built hospitals, but he sold property of monasteries and convents to get the money.  Selling the property was absolute, but he used it for good deeds.  One thing Joseph II did that was more absolute than enlightened was attempting to bring the Catholic Church under royal control.  Although Joseph II did some absolute things, he was truly a more enlightened ruler than Frederick the Great and Catholic the Great and I believe that enlightened absolute rulers were more enlightened than absolute.

"The Great" Ruler of Absolutopia

Dear Lord and Lady Manager of Human Resources and Kingdom of Absolutopia,

The nation of Absolutopia is seeking applicants for an immediate opening for ruler of the country.  Qualified candidates will have significant experience as an authoritarian leader.  The new king or queen will act in best interests of the nation, promote its stability and expansion, rule in the name of God, and eliminate all threats both internal and external.  Experience managing an army/navy, crushing rebellions and/ or instituting reforms in a plus.

If interested please submit your resume and three references to:

Lord and Lady Manager of Human Resources

Kingdom of Absolutopia

      My monarch is Peter I ("The Great") of Russia. He rules in Russia and he ruled from 1682-1725, which is 43 years.  Peter I was born in Moscow, Russia in 1672 and before his ruling, his father, Czar Alexis I, ruled Russia since 1645.  Peter's brother, Theodore took over the throne from is father and ruled until 1682.  When he died, Peter was the new King.  Peter I ("The Great") is mostly known by the city he had named after himself.  In 1703, Peter ordered a absolutist city to be built, and he named it St. Petersburg.  I have done research on Peter I of Russia and believe he will be a great candidate for the job in Absolutopia.

     I greatly believe that Peter I will be the best ruler of Absolutopia.  If you are looking for a ruler who has features of Absolutism, than Peter I is the best candidate for the job of ruler.  The features of Absolutism he has are having a powerful army, he limits power of nobility and church officials, he makes the laws and dispenses justice and finally he amasses wealth and uses it to display power.  Peter I has a very powerful army, a troop of 600 men who trained in fighting units and learn military tactics.  Peter formulated a plan for a great navy and that's what he got.  He also used his army to attack Sweden and ended with huge victory.  Peter loves having power and limited the power of nobility and church officials.  He taxes nobleman and reduces power of nobility by opening it to newcomers (people who served in civil service and obtained high rank, or sailors and soldiers who became officers), and they gained the standing and privileges of heredity nobles.  Peter also has no problem with making laws and dispensing justice.  He uses torture chambers and has deaths by floggings and burning of victims.  He also uses torture  to get information out of people.  His son was a victim of this torturing.  Peter's son ran away, and Peter announced that if he returned, he would not be punished.  This was not true, and when his son returned, he was tortured until he finally told his father who helped him escape.  This was all part of an elaborate plan Peter had.  One last law Peter made was the increase of taxes, which definitely shows the authority of an absolute monarch.  Peter's favorite part of being an absolute monarch is most likely how he amasses wealth and uses it to display power.  In the beginning of his time being an absolute monarch, Peter took the opportunity to go sailing on the White Sea and form the "Drunken Council of Fools".  He later toured other parts of Europe, traveling through cities, looking at the life in his neighboring cities.  Well into his reign, Peter ordered many buildings to be constructed and a new city St. Petersburg to be founded.  This city was named after him, and Peter later moved the government to St. Petersburg and made that city the new capital.  With Peter's great wealth, he could do whatever he wanted.  Peter I ("The Great") of Russia was definitely an absolute monarch and would be perfect for the job of ruler of Absolutopia.

     I believe that Peter I ("The Great") of Russia would be the right fit for the job in Absolutopia.  He is a good candidate for the job because his characteristic fits the job of an absolute monarch and the way he rules fits under many of the features of absolutism.  The features he follows are having a powerful army, limiting power of nobility and church officials, making laws and dispensing justice and amassing wealth and using it to display power.  Electing Peter I ("The Great") of Russia for absolute monarch of Absolutopia would be an excellent decision.

Sincerely,

Olivia Sahagian

Three Appeals and Seven Colonies

     In class, we learned about the middle and southern colonies in the 1600's to 1700's.  The colonies we learned about were Georgia, New York, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, The Carolinas (North and South), and Pennsylvania.  We split into groups of two, and each group was assigned a specific colony.  My partner and I worked on a project on Georgia.  We had three days to learn about our colony and make a tourism video to attract settlers from England to move here. These projects were tourism videos and before we made them, we learned about how tourism videos are made to attract settlers to the colony using the three Aristotelian Appeals- Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Each group then presented their video to the class and they took notes.

     My group's colony was Georgia.  Georgia was established in 1733 and it was created for many reasons.  This colony was created because a group of charitable investors wanted to make a Utopian society for English citizens.  Also, the trustees (someone entrusted to look after a business) wanted to make a haven for people who had been put in jail in Europe because they couldn't pay their debts. Lastly, Georgia acted as a guard for the southern colonies against attack from Spanish Raiders based in Florida.  The primary leader of the colony Georgia was James Oglethorpe,  He was the one that led the group of investors to King George to ask permission to start the colony.  Oglethorpe and the trustees also ruled Georgia, but the were very strict and it was because of Oglethorpe that the settlers lived at peace with the Native Americans.  Georgia's economy was based on growing rice and indigo and trading ship supplies.  Each family was permitted a plot of land to farm, but many complained that some families got more fertile lands than others. There were no slaves permitted at first, but the trustees later changed their rules and enslaved Africans were brought to work in the land.  Alcohol was also prohibited at first, but later allowed so that settlers could consume and sell liquor.  Georgia didn't end up like the intended Utopian colony, but it was still a great place to raise a family.
   
     There are three Aristotelian Appeals- Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.  To appeal to Logos, you use logic and reasoning in your persuasion.  To develop or appeal to Ethos, you use character and ethics when you persuade.  In other words, you help the reader see that the author is reliable, trustworthy, respectful and credible.  To appeal to Pathos, you use emotion to persuade your reader.  You use emotional language, vivid descriptions and emotional tone in your persuasion.  My partner and I used Pathos in our tourism video to persuade settlers to come to Georgia to raise their family.  We used phrases like "a place where you can do it all", "the most ideal place", "start a new life together", "family", "Georgia welcomes anyone" and "live at peace" to catch our audiences attention in an exciting, emotional way.  Learning about the different ways to persuade your audience helps with writing, especially in school, and you can use the three Appeals with anything.

Take the Risk

     The Separatists were a group of people who separated from the Church of England and made their own church, the Separatist Church of Scrooby, with help from William Brewster.  The questions we answered were, What are the factors that can convince people to take a great risk, even if that risk is not guaranteed to succeed? And were the risks taken by the Separatists worth it?  It is important to answer these questions as we study history so that we know what the land of America was like when Separatists settled here and what the overseas trip was like and how they survived the first winter in Plimouth.  The activities we did in class to answer these questions were analyzing primary source letters written by John Smith and William Hilton and answering questions to fully understand the lives of Separatists.  We also watched a video that explored deeper the lives of the Separatists.  The Separatists took many risks without knowing the consequences.  

    The Separatists went through a lot of trouble before getting to the new land of America.  In England, the King made it very difficult to live, so they took the risk of moving to a new colony.  The Separatists' main problem with the Church of England was that they wanted to separate from the church because they thought the church was too involved with other things.  They tried to live in other cities, but they found it difficult to be true to their beliefs so they had to go somewhere new and start fresh.  So they decided to cross the Atlantic and go to America to settle.  A letter from John Smith made the impression on them that America was a good place to start a new and permanent colony.  But was starting a new life in America worth the harsh trip across the Atalntic Ocean on the Mayflower? Thirty men worked on the deck while Pilgrims below the deck struggle for fresh air while they emptied their chamber pots.  Halfway to America, a storm hit and the ship started to leak and a main beam cracked!  These leaks and cracked beams were eventually fixed.  Due to this storm, the ship was blown off course and headed north of where they expected to land in Virginia.  They finally came to the shore in Massachesetts in November, 1620.  As winter came, they moved to Plimoth to settle there.  The first winter in the New World may have been worse than their trip acorss the ocean in the Mayflower.  Exposure, malnutrition and illness led to half of the crew and passengers dying.  Then throughout the winter 40 more died, leaving seven men healthy enough to help the sick.  And two later fires still didn't stop these settlers, and eventually they built their new settlement with six cannons for defense.  Later that winter, the Pilgrims met the Native Americans, and their relationships started.

    Although there were many tragedies that happened to the Separatists, there were many benefits to settling in the New World.  A letter from John Smith attracted people to come settle with him.  Describing America in the letter, John Smith said, "the Masters by this may quickly grow rich; these may learn their trades themselves, to do the like to a general and an incredible benefit, for King, and Country, Master, and Servant...".  He implied that when masters take ten or twenty young settlers(with little family), they can learn and quickly grow rich.  They will also learn to trade and this will all help the King, England, masters and servants and everyone will benefit.  When the Mayflower Compact was being written, they decided to work together to make laws for everyone to follow, and these laws will be for the good of the people.  They will also elect one person from time to time to run the government they set up.  The Compact states, "Solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic...; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, offices from time to time as shall be though more meet and convenient for the general good of the colony...".  The biggest benefit was shown in America after the first winter.  William Hilton wrote a letter home describing Plimouth, "The Indians round us peaceable and friendly; the country very pleasant and temperate, yeilding naturally, of itself, great store of fruits...and great flocks of turkeys, quails, pigeons and partridges; many great lakes abounding with fish, fowl, beavers, and otters.  The sea affords us great plenty of all excellent sorts of fish...".  This is saying that the Indians were friendly and peaceful, the weather was good and the country was green and plentiful.  Fruits grew naturally and many wild animals wandered the woods of trees, and lakes were stocked with an abundance of fish.  Hilton made it seem like America was an amazing place for his family and others to settle.

     The questions we answered about the Separtists were, what are the factors that can convince people to take a great risk, even if that risk is not guaranteed to succeed? Also, were the risks taken by the Separatists worth it?  The factors that can convince people to take a great risk are other people making somehting hard for them (in this case the King), or that their beliefs or ways of living don't follow the rest of the country or place in which they live.  The King made it very hard for the Separtists to live their becasue of their beliefs, so they took the risk in setting in the New World.  The risks taken by the Separtits were definately worth it.  Even if many died on the way to their new life, settling in America created a new life for those Pilgrims as well as their families and many more.  The trip on the Mayflower was terrible, but it was all worth it by the following Spring when John Smith wrote the letter home about Plimouth and how amazing it is with all the benefits they have.  Taking risks is important, as Einstein says “A ship is always safe at the shore - but that is NOT what it is built for.” (Albert Einstein).

The First Winter in Plymouth- http://web.ccsd.k12.wy.us/techcurr/Social%20Studies/05/0101firstwi.html

Drive Thru History- Separtists- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uWvm1QBCdE&feature=youtu.be

Jamestown DBQ

110 men originally settled in Early Jamestown, but by the end of the first winter only 40 survived. The English came to America in 1607 to be the first permanent English settlement in the New World.  They settled in a place that they soon called Jamestown, Virginia and the joint stock company called The Virginia Company, helped pay for the settlement.  All of the first settlers were men and by then end of the first six months, 80 percent of them died.  Early Jamestown was a colony of English settlers in America that lasted from the years 1607-1611.  Something that puzzles historians is how many colonists died in Early Jamestown.  Many colonists in Early Jamestown died because of environmental issues, their relationships with Native Americans and their lack of settler skills.  

The first reason why so many settlers in Early Jamestown died was because of the environmental issues.  Brackish water was the only water made available to the settlers in Jamestown.  Brackish water contains salt and is not sanitary to drink.  You could drink and drink this water but never get hydrated from it.  Diseases and bad health resulted from brackish water (Document A).  There was a drought at the start of the English settlement in 1607 that lasted until 1612.  No rain during the drought equals no growing crops which causes low food supply for the men.  This low food supply lead to starvation (Document B).  The brackish water and the severe drought are environmental issues that caused many deaths in Jamestown.

Another reason why so many settlers died in Early Jamestown was because of their lack of settler skills.  Out of the 110 original settlers, only 82 had known occupations.  And out of the 120 men after the first resupply in January 1608 only 69 had known occupations.  Some of the jobs men had weren’t not necessary for life, like a wig maker, but there were no jobs such as apothecaries, surgeons or gunsmith, which were useful occupations.  If someone got sick or hurt, no one would be able to help them.  Or if someones weapon broke, no one could fix it for when they got into fights.  But by 1608 they finally got one gunsmith, one surgeon and two apothecaries (Document C).  The lack of occupations men had in Jamestown resulted in no one caring for the sick and injured, or fixing weapons, which are the necessary jobs for life so this resulted in many deaths.

The last reason why so many people in Early Jamestown died was because of their poor relationship with the Native Americans.  In 1609 around 37 men sailed up the Chesapeake Bay to trade for corn with the Patawomeke Indians.  The men were going to trade grain for some corn but when the Indians refused, the English forced them by cutting off the heads of two Indians (Document D).  Between the years 1607 and 1610, the maximum population was 381 but by the 1610 the end population was only 90.  The deaths and new arrivals of men are due to many things like diseases and environmental issues but the Indians killed hundreds of the men.  This bad relationship between the English settlement and the Indians never got better but actually got progressively worse (Document E).  Due to the bad relationship between the Native Americans and the English resulted in many deaths over the years and that’s why so many colonists in Early Jamestown died.

Due to environmental issues, poor relationships with Native Americans and lack of occupations that are essential for a community, many colonists in Early Jamestown died.  When the drought occurred, crops couldn't thrive as much which lead to less food, starvation and death.  Since there were no doctor type jobs for almost a year, there was noone to help the sick or injured, which also lead to death.  Lastly, with all the fights the English got into with the Native Americans because of the bad relationships, deaths were very common.  It’s important to study about Early Jamestown and analyze facts about it so new communities can learn how to build a good foundation with food, jobs and a community relationship.

Works Cited:

Document A- Dennis B. Blanton, “Jamestown’s Environment,” Center for Archaeological Research, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, 2000.

Document B- N/A, “The lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts,” Science, April 24, 1998

Document C- John Smith, “The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, Book III 1624

Document D- Ivor Noel Hume, “The Virginia Adventure, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994

Document E- J. Frederick Fausz, “An Abundance of Blood Shed on Both Sides: England’s First Indian War, 1609-1614,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, January 1990

What Really Happened with Atahualpa and the Bible?

Atahualpa was the last Inca king.  He was very popular among his army, but he didn’t rule for long.  In class the questions we were asked were "What really happened when Atahualpa was presented with the Bible by the Spanish?"  "And why do sources tell different versions of the story?" In class, to prepare for the findings of these questions, we read passages from a textbook and two different documents, all written by different authors.  In groups, we then acted out three scenes, and then we had a discussion about the similarities and differences between the scenes.  The textbook source had a different take on what happened with Atahualpa and the Bible. but the two documents were both alike.

The textbook source said that Atahualpa was presented with the Bible from a Spanish friar and when he received it, not knowing what to do, held it to his ear. He was given the book to learn Christianity so he could accept the religion, but when he heard nothing from the book when it was put to his ear, he threw it to the ground.  It says, “Atahualpa held the book to his ear and listened to it. When the book didn’t speak, he threw it on the ground.”  The Spaniards, seeing this act of throwing the Bible to the ground, used this to attack Atahualpa.  The two documents, by Francisco de Xeres and Pedro Pizarro in the mid 1500’s are very similar.  They both state how a Spanish friar, Father Friar Vicente, came to Atahualpa and persuaded him to learn the teachings of Christianity and convert to Christianity.  In document A, it says, “Atahualpa did not know how to open it (the book)” and in document B, it says, “When he had it in his hands he did not know how to open it, and he threw it upon the ground.”  After he threw it on the ground, document A says, “The priest told Francisco Pizarro what had passed between for storing

him and Atahualpa, and that he had thrown the Scriptures to the ground.” and document B says, “The priest returned and related all to Pizarro”.  The priest told Pizarro who then signaled to Spanish troops to attack.  The Indians were taken off guard by this and were killed by the Spanish.  Sources tell different versions of the stories depending on whether they witnessed it or whether they read before they wrote the story or if they have different beliefs.  For example, the author of the textbook might have been on the side of the Spanish, and wanting to make Atahualpa look weak, wrote that he held the Bible up to his ear to listen to it.  Also, the authors of the documents were a Spanish conquistador and a cousin of a Spanish conquistador so they wrote the story based on their beliefs of being Spanish.

I learned about about the importance of knowing the perspective and bias of each source in history.  I learned that depending on who’s writing the story, there will be different views on what really happened.  In this event, there are two different takes on what really happened with Atahualpa and the Bible because there are three different authors with three different perspectives on the event.  The most trustworthiness documents you can read are from authors with no opinion towards events, and if their religion doesn’t interfere with the topic, they can’t be biased towards someone or some event when writing about it.  So, when reading a document from a historical event, make sure you know who the author is and what his background is before you use it as a source.

Cash Crops for a "Great Dying"?

The Columbian Exchange is the exchange of disease, ideas, food crops, population, (people and animals) and cultures between the New World and the Old World after the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492.  It began after Columbus sailed across the ocean and discovered new pieces of land that would soon be named North America and South America.  Columbus brought back to Spain gold and spices, as well as Native Americans, to show the King and Queen of Spain that his discovery of land was rich and the men there would be easy to conquer.  As a result, Europeans started making their way over to the Americans and soon there became a trade route between the Old and New World known as the Columbian Exchange.  The Old World consists of Europe, Asia and Africa and the New World consists of North America, South America, Central America and the Caribbean.  The mutual trades between the Old and New World were knowledge, food, flowers/plants and people, but extra things the Old World gave to the New World were animals and diseases.  The animals helped the natives in the Americas, but the diseases not so much.  The New World got crops from the Old World that would help benefit them, and the Old World got diseases that they would suffer from.

A reason why the Columbian Exchange is sometimes called the “Unequal Exchange” is because the New World benefited a lot more the the Old World.  The New World got cash crops from the Columbian Exchange.  Cash crops are crops that are in high demand, and people will pay a lot of money for certain crops, such as sugar and tobacco.  Cash crops are produced for their value rather than for their use by the grower and go to direct sale.  The New World gained wealth and power while the old World suffered from the diseases the Europeans brought over when they traded.  Another benefit the New World got was slaves to work for them on their fields when the Old and New World traded.  This was known as the Atlantic Slave Trade.  Slavery had existed before this in the New world with Europeans captured in war, and it was also practiced in Africa among different tribes, but this was the first of trading across ocean for people to serve as slaves, and it wasn't an option.  The New World benefited a lot more from the Columbian Exchange than the Old World, and that’s why it’s also known as the “Unequal Exchange”.

The “Unequal Exchange” between the New World and the Old World made the New World suffer a lot more than the Old World.  Something that the Old World brought over to the New World were fatal diseases that the natives in the New World weren’t immune to.  These diseases had a very large impact on the population because many people got diseases and died.  And if you tried to help someone who was sick, you eventually also got sick.  There were not enough people to work in the fields and the food supply decreased.  It’s said that before the Europeans came over, the New World’s population in the Americas was larger than the Old World’s.  They had densely populated villages surrounded by wooden fences for a system of defense, but once the Europeans came over with diseases, everything came to a dead stop.  Typical Native American societies lost about 90% of their population after Columbus’s expeditions and the Europeans coming over to the New World.  This major decrease in population is known as the “Great Dying” because a lot of the population died from diseases.  This is why the New World suffered more than the Old World and why the Columbian Exchange is also known as the “Unequal Exchange”.

The Columbian Exchange between the New World and the Old World was also referred to as the “Unequal Exchange” because the New World benefited more and the Old World suffered more.  The New World benefited because they traded for crops called cash crops which were highly priced and from which people got wealthy. The New World suffered because of the diseases Europeans brought over that the Natives weren’t immune to, so many people died and the population decreased drastically.  Native American societies lost 90% of their population- this is called the “Great Dying”.  If the exchange was unequal between the Natives and the Europeans, why did people of the New World still make trades with the Old World?

The Real Columbus

Everyone knows Christopher Columbus as the brilliant man who founded our beautiful country, America.  But how well do we really know Colombus?  The real Christopher Columbus started out as a man born in a sea town in Italy.  He was a very smart person who could navigate impressingly well.  When he became older he wanted to sail across the world to find new land on other sides of the world.  He wanted to find a country called India so he made his proposal to Portugal, who negated it.  His second proposal was to Spain, who ended up sponsoring his voyage.  He set out on three modern ships- Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria- to sail across the world to India.  Columbus arrived in “India” (really America) and saw that people were already on the land.  He got spices and some gold from these Indians, so thinking that this place was rich, he brought the souvenirs, along with some Native Americans, back to Spain to show the King and Queen how easily the Native Americans could be overpowered and subjugated. Columbus then decided to go back again, but this time when he got there the settlement was destroyed and many men were dead.  Due to this, Columbus then killed many Native Americans because he was mad his settlement was destroyed.  He mismanaged his voyages, so he was arrested and put into jail back in Spain.  Christopher Columbus died thinking he founded India, but it was really America, a whole separate continent.  Christopher Columbus’s true legacy is that he really founded America, but he was extremely harsh to the Native Americans, he took some to Spain as slaves, and he was arrested for abusing his privileges.  Some people might have negative opinions towards Columbus, while others might have positive ones.

The second monday of every October we celebrate the holiday known as Columbus Day, which honors Christopher Columbus’s arrival in America on October 12th.  Most kids like the holiday because they get Monday off from school, making it a long weekend from Friday after school to Monday night.   Most kids don’t do anything that day in remembrance of Columbus, so some say it’s a waste of a day that could be put towards getting out earlier for the summer.  But if Christopher Columbus arrived in India like he had planned rather than in America, it could’ve taken hundreds of years before anyone ever founded our land. So people should really give credit to Columbus even if he thought it was India the whole time.  If it wasn’t for him, others wouldn’t have also travelled to America.  A great population doesn’t know Columbus’s true legacy and how he treated the Native Americans by killing and enslaving them.  After hearing about that, many people will get negative opinions about Columbus, but they have to remember America might not be like it is today without Columbus making it under control of Spain.  The United States should continue to celebrate Columbus Day in his name and his discovering of America.  And even if people have a negative view of him, it’s still a day off from school, and it’s on a Monday.

The Church or the Scientists?

     The Scientific Revolution was a great change away from old ways to new one in favor of science and scientific discoveries.  New inventions were created, scientists were coming up with theories and people began to question the teachings of the church.  The scientific method was found, and it changed the way people searched for answers because now they tried to prove their theory's themselves, instead of looking to the church for answers.  A new scientific method was astronomy, the branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space and the physical universe as a whole.  Scientists like Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei studied the universe and began to question the church.  Copernicus discovered that the sun was the center of the universe, and that earth was one of the few planets that revolved around the sun, which was the opposite of what everyone was being taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church taught that that everything revolved around Earth because God created Earth first and therefore everything else revolved around the center of Earth.  Scientists like Robert Boyle, Leonardo Da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius  and Ambroise Pare discovered many things through drawings and dissections.  Vesalius's dissections of the human body and his descriptions of his findings  corrected misinformation previously taught by the church.  Boyle discovered the process of combustion and the properties of gas, especially under changing pressure conditions.  Leonardo Da Vinci dissected 30 deceased corpses to gather information about the brain, muscles, lungs and the heart. This process didn't go over well with the Roman Catholic Church because they believed that humans shouldn't be used for scientific purposes, but rather buried forever and they didn't like that scientists were questioning the teachings of the church and the Bible.  Ambroise Pare was a surgeon who used science to study people who lost limbs in war.  He created ligatures for binding arteries and encouraged people to use prosthetic limbs.  As technology got more advanced, scientists discovered more things about our planet and people are started to question the teachings of the Church and the Bible.

Leonardo Da Vinci's study of a skull

     I am a merchant and I just heard about the medical discoveries of Da Vinci, Vesalius and other scientists while on a business trip.  I learned that their discoveries are the topic of heated debate between the Church and the scientific community.  I am a devout Catholic so I understand how this is an issue between the Church and the scientific community.  I was taught by the Church that since God created Earth first, then everything else revolves around the center of Earth.  But now I am hearing that the sun is the center of everything. and Earth is only one of the many plants to revolve around the sun.  Scientists are also dissecting human bodies to use as evidence in their discoveries which the Church does not like because scientists shouldn't be questioning the teachings and shouldn't use human bodies for science.  Us Catholics are very devoted to our religion and don't test the teachings of the church but if many professional scientist are proving otherwise, I am starting to listen to them rather than a book.  The scientists aren't just coming up with a theory but have evidence, drawings and have done dissections.  I am not saying I believe the scientist over the teachings of the bible and my religion, but I am intrigued about this conversation, and I want to learn more to see what scientists are seeing before I make a final judgement on this debate.  I don't really like how scientists are using and destroying bodies that should be buried for scientific discoveries, but if that person devoted their dead body to science, the Roman Catholic Church should have no rule over the bodies being buried.  Even though others, including me, will begin to question other teachings of the church and bible because they may be wrong about the creation of the universe and science in humans, I will always believe other teachings from the Church, the Bible and from God.

Twitter in the 15th Century?

Similar to how we use the internet, phones and television to spread information around the world, in 15th century Europe they used one of the most important pieces of technology ever invented to spread information-the printing press.  Before this wonderful invention, news spread mostly via word of mouth, and it took weeks for news to travel.  Information could also be shared through handwritten books, but since those were expensive and time consuming, most people couldn’t afford them, and it was really difficult to spread information.  But in the mid 1400’s, the printing press changed everything.  People were able to print many page copies in a very short time, drastically reducing the time it took to produce a book.  Books were then mass produced and since they were less expensive, more people were able to afford them and learn to read and gather information.  Ideas spread a lot quicker after the printing press was invented.

This is a fictional interpretation of events that happened during the spread of reformation and the catholic church in the 1500’s.  These two ordinary people live in England during the rule of Henry VIII and are tweeting about his ruling and his new religion he created.

John123

Anyone switch over to Anglicanism cuz I haven’t

Mary445

@john123 I have, everyone in my family and our neighbors have #anglicanism

John123

@mary445 Really? I dont want to cuz I dont respect how many times Henry VIII got married and treated his wives #wedandbehead

Mary445

@john123 haha I heard he’s marrying a lot just cuz he wants a male heir

John123

@mary445 yeah the kid’s gonna have like 5 step-moms tho #awkward

Mary445

@john123 I wonder if everyone will go back to the Catholic Church once Henry VIII dies, what do you think?

John123

@mary445 I bet some will, unless his heir carries Anglicanism by force #religionissues