Essay 3 Reflection

When we first got this assignment and we first met together in our groups I was afraid that one person would end up doing all of the work. It was very difficult for us to come together and begin to write out an outline of what we were going to do, not to mention to get an understanding of the topic since we had not learned about it yet. However as time went on and the due date deadline drew nearer we forced ourselves it seems to get it together and and start putting together our essay. Ben began to head up discussion on the topics and Me and Becka got assigned the researching of the differences of states that made a central government unthinkable. We immediately began putting down main points and then went into the computer lab to write out a paragraph together which I found very helpful because it lent both of our brains to putting together a well written, thought out piece of writing. I really liked how in the end we were able as a group to bounce ideas off of eachother and even write and edit the essay simultaneously and I was really surprised to see how much I like it and how well it worked. The use of the contract only came into play in deciding that we as a group will make the decisions on what to do in the assignment. We only decided to do something when the majority of the group agreed on it. It worked out really well and the arguements were very few and not too serious.

We did a really good job in organizing our wiki and placing each source we found online on it. It was a great tool and the sources we found were very helpful and really helped me personally punch out some key points and arguements. Our group has come a long way in organizing the wiki and being able to see which sources are good and which aren't. Ramila especially has been great at helping out with that and finding superb sources.

Individually I feel like I learned and grew so much in this project while working with others in my group. I really learned how to work with someone else doing something that is normally for me an isolated process. Also I did a lot of the final editing of the essay and I am much more about to recognize run on sentences and I'm also getting better at recognizing words that aren't necessary. While I was working with Becca she pointed out that I do that a lot and I'm trying to work on that more. Also I had to cut down our paper from 7 pages to 5 which helped me to really decide which was the most needed information and cut out whatever was not absolutely necessary. I really enjoyed this essay, I feel like I learned a lot and am actually interested in what I'm learning. I feel like we as a group did a great job on this essay and I am really proud of it.

Conflict Journal

Today on the way to school with vince, justin, and ben I was driving from des moines to federal way. On the way up 216th Vince shouts out "Mcdonalds!" The problem was that it was already 8:15 and it would take us 15 minutes to get there. As I got up to Pac Highway i turned down the music and said, "I'll go to mcdonalds if someone buys me a egg mcmuffin." The person in the seat next to me swore at me and said forget that and instead of responding in anger I just kept my cool and drove the rest of the way to school, not giving the grump in the seat next to me more chances to release his anger on me.

Yesterday as I was driving- once again with vince, ben and justin- vince reached over to turn the heat down to halfway cold instead of in the middle between hot and cold and I reached over right after him and turned it back. He did the opposite once again and when I turned it back again he tried to role down his window but I was prepared and ready and held it up on my side so that he could not role it down. When this happened he decided to crack his door open while we were driving. When I saw this I decided to let up, I turned the heat to halfway cold and told him to shut the door. He obviously wanted it bad enough and I did not not want it bad enough, I think more or less I just wanted to win. Its the principle of having heat and not cold in the middle of winter, but realistically it does not make that big of a difference to have the cold on a little.

ANTI-FEDERALIST ESSAY

The ratification of the constitution in the 1780’s and 90’s faced many obstacles within the 13 colonies. States like New York saw the danger of such a document that would unite 13 sovereign states under one law making government with one presiding member resembling the English king. The fear of despotism along with the obvious differences between slave owning, tobacco selling southern states and fish selling northern states made many in New York wonder how these could ever come together as one country with one common focus. However, the biggest requirement of the average anti-federalist was that a Bill of Rights be made and placed in high importance in the government upholding the rights of the people. Without this, there would be no ratification of any constitution.

With the end of the American Revolution, a new government was established in the states and came together in what was called The Confederation. The Articles of Confederation, a legal document drawn up by the continental congress, governed the Confederation. After the war with the British, states acquired a large debt that began the wave of an enormous amount of taxes, which people paid in hard money. Shay’s Rebellion was started by a farmer who could not pay with hard money (The American Promise). Shay’s Rebellion was a good example of how the Confederation government is weak and ineffective as it was unable to squelch the uprising effectively. Many people started to think about a central government with all thirteen states together in one nation. To make the central government more effective they needed a constitution or a written document that showed the rights and liberties of people. However, before the constitution could be identified as a legitimate document, states had to ratify it.

But not all the states agreed, New York being one. As a state consisting mostly of anti-federalists, most people believed that without a bill of rights, they could not “enable the people to judge the legitimacy of acts of government” (Bill of Rights). Without such a document, the people could not determine whether or when government was abusing its power. Without a strong textual foundation, rights would eventually be lost (The American Promise). In the Agrippa XVII, James Winthrop writes, “a bill of rights is essential to the security of the persons and the property of people” (The Debate On The Constitution). Federalists did not initially take Anti-federalist objections seriously, but as the ratification campaign progressed, they began to rethink their position.

The constitutional union of states would be ruled by one political body. This however went directly against the uniqueness of each Sovereign State. Each state had varieties of people, economics as well as governmental structures. Though the constitution clearly dictates "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State... (U.S Constitution, Article IV, Section 1)" it was hard to see the States being held accountable for everything through the Federal Government, especially for New York. Mandating a national economy would be difficult, considering the variety of trade and economic structures that existed within the states. For instance, the southern states had a strong economic base generally exporting slave-grown tobacco to Britain. Those in local government were generally rich plantation owners that would or could not change their entire economic base just to appease northern states. Southern plantation owners feared that if the constitution was ratified, their way of making a living would begin to be frowned upon. The result of which would be that a general lack of understanding would cast their actions in an unfair light. Northern states such as Massachusetts had a strong fishing economy where fish were exported across the Atlantic. Unlike tobacco products, most fish exported from Massachusetts went to the West Indies. Therefore, New Englanders had difficulty relating and debating trading aspects with southern states like Virginia who mainly traded with England. These clear and present differences were in no ways hidden from the eyes of New Yorkers, and though Federalist ideals began to grow, a majority of New York's leading men were against ratification based on these economic differences.

Federalists looked at these economic differences differently. According to their constitution, the central government had an unhindered ability to regulate commerce (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). It was believed that checks and balances, a concept written into the very fabric of the Constitution, would negate any power tripping. It was thought therefore that this could only benefit the nation as a whole by uniting economic, political and relational viewpoints. In the senate, for example, each state took a part in deciding laws by sending their own representatives known as senators. However, anti-federalist’s believed that the extreme differences between a senator from Rhode Island and a senator from South Carolina would cause the two to not come to any agreement. Another difference was found in New Jerseys unique decision to remove the position of governor in their state.

It was inconceivable to many New Yorkers that a document could be passed joining together diverse, sovereign states. This was not because they were ignorant of common ground or of their omnipresent liberties, rather, for fear of a tyrannical central government. Article II of the Articles of Confederation gave each state its sovereignty. Each colony was given a charter signed by the King that in essence created a distant British society that was very much autonomous. The colony could act however it wished in carrying out the government, deciding what to do with land, the structure of society and foreign relations. Of course, the states are not guaranteed or free to all of these things under the Articles of Confederation, for as Article III dictates, "The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare”. A loose union of sovereign states had been in effect for much of the last decade. However with inescapable problems beginning to arise within the states, many proposed the answer in the form of a constitution.

Federalists argued that many problems, such as war debt, could all be resolved under an authoritative central government. Hoping that each state could pay off its debt was not enough, there needed to be accountability and a plan in place. Another hope was that a powerful government would do away with assumptions by the international community that the United States was weak; incapable of taking a place on the world stage. No longer would states be making their own laws to fit their specific needs, rather, all power to make and set laws into motion would be given to the legislative branch of the new Federal government (Constitution, Article I Section 1).

None of this argument belayed the fears of the Anti-federalist majority in New York. A central government would be too powerful, and would not represent the country well. The ability to maintain a military during peace time, the ability to override State policy and a position of executive power too greatly resembled the British Empire for New Yorkers to accept and ratify this document. Under the Constitution, the Legislative branch would write up laws that could either be enacted or rejected by the executive branch, similar in theory to Parliament and the King. This similarity only insinuated to New Yorkers that the very same pitfalls and despotism that resulted in England’s government setup would also result from this very same proposed government. The government’s power gave them the ability to enforce laws contrary to the states current laws in their own constitutions (Fisher, Federalism and Shared Powers). This was in effect forcing the residents of that state to comply with what the heads of the government thought right and good for them. Even if this went directly against the residents wants and desires. This is despotism in its truest form.

The lack of a bill of rights, inherent differences between the states and the amount of power given to the federal government were pivotal issues that initially solidified New York as an Anti-federalist state. The fear of despotism and the denial of the liberties of every man, woman and child was very real. The need for a bill of rights could not be bypassed. James Winthrop spoke truth when he described the Bill of Rights as “essential to the security of persons” and their property and it was not for our founding fathers to say otherwise. The Anti-federalist mentality that existed within the majority of New Yorkers pointed out that the differences between them and a southern tobacco planter were far too great to be ignored. Tobacco sent to England from the south and fish sent to the West Indies from the north caused a gap in the common ground of the states. New Jersey’s removal of a governor only bolsters this fact. Based on the Articles of Confederation, it was not right to subject the sovereign states to a higher political power. Therefore, the Constitution had no place attempting to conform multiple diverse populations to one order, nor was there any reason to limit the rights of a free people.

Bibliography

U.S Constitution and Articles of Confederation

Mount, Steve. "The U.S. Constitution Online." The U.S. Constitution Online. 1 Oct. 2007. 14 Nov. 2007 .

Debate On The Adoption of The Consitution

"THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ON THE ADOPTION
OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION." The Constitution Society. The Constitution Society. 13 Nov. 2007 .

New York Sentiments On Constitution

Thorpe, Francis N. "The Constitutional History of the United States." Google. 1901.
13 Nov. 2007. Chicago Callahgan & Company

Federalism and Shared Powers

FISHER, LOUIS. "Federalism and Shared Powers." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Eds. Leonard W. Levy and Kenneth L. Karst. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. 1010-1013.
6 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

Bill of Rights

Rakove, Jack. "Bill of Rights in U.S. Constitution." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 454-457. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 25 Nov. 2007

Antifederalists

Flaherty, Martin S. "Antifederalists." Dictionary of American History. Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003. 200-202. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale. King County Library System. 14 Nov. 2007

The American Promise

The American Promise, by James L. Roark, Michael P. Johnson, Patricia Cline Cohen, Sarah Stage, Alan Lawson, Susan M. Hartmann, 2005

Federalists and Anti-FederalistsChin, Jonathan, and Alan Stern. "Federalists and Anti-Federalists." Federalists and Anti-Federalists. 1997. 19 Nov. 2007 .

The Debate On The Constitution

The Debate on the Constitution Edited by Bernard Bailyn 1993 by Literary Classics of the U.S, Inc.,New York, N.Y. history Society of Wisconsin: copyright1977 by The University Press. Reprinted by permission.

Personal Responses

Bekka

Anti federalists did not want to ratify the constitution because they were fearful of the government. They did not want a corrupt government that would take advantage of the citizens. I understand why many people were worried about not having a bill of rights. They wanted freedom and did not want their rights taken away. When my parents tell me how to speak, or tell me I am not allowed to do an activity, I can get irritated. I don’t like when my parents attempt to take away some of my rights, so I definitely would not like the government taking away my rights.

I believe I would position myself as a federalist mostly because don’t know what life would be like if the constitution was not ratified. I’ve lived my whole life in the time period which American citizens live under obligation to the constitution. I like the constitution as it is now because I enjoy having rights such as freedom of speech and religion. America has a diverse body of people who have different beliefs and these rights protect all citizens no matter what they believe. I also like the idea of the checks and balance system. This allows elected citizens from all fifty states to play a role in the government by being in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It stops the president from over taxing citizens and becoming corrupt. Originally the anti federalists did not like the idea of a check and balance system because the thought that it might fail. They were ignorant to the fact that this would stop the president from taking advantage of the citizens. This system of checks and balances has worked for about two hundred years. In my life time I have not seen the president become corrupt due to this system.

Ian

Many American’s in the late 1700’s had to struggle with whether or not they would ratify a constitution that brought all 13 sovereign states under one government. Many heard this phrase and immediately negative thoughts of the oppressive English king entered their minds and almost immediately they rejected the idea. Their rejection however was based on fear and ignorance. Those who rejected this idea, known as anti-federalists, did not have much of an understanding about the new proposed government. They did not think of the fact that this government was proposed by a few of the most radical men who were most hostile towards the British King and hated his rule even more than they did. These Anti-Federalists believed that too much power was given to the executive branch of the government to which the president belonged. However the government that these radicals proposed included representatives from each state so that each would have a say. It composed a senate and a house, two groups of representatives from each state which provided checks and balances within this newfound government. This insured that no one group of people could enforce their will upon another. Another fact that these anti-federalists did not consider is the outcome of thirteen sovereign states being allowed to co-inhabit one body of land. They believed that peace and prosperity could best be attained by leaving the states to govern themselves. They failed to think about the wars and the oppression caused by more powerful states preying on less powerful states. This would be horrendous and was all too likely. Upon consideration of all these facts, I am convinced that if I were to live then, I would be a constitution accepting Federalist and not an Anti-Federalist.

Ramila

In early beginning of free America , many great changes took place and one of the significant changes is ratification of the constitution. Many struggles were to ratify the constitution, since the states consisted of Anti-federalists and Federalist. Anti-federalist are people who are against the ratification of constitution, and Federalists are people who are for the constitution. If I were a person that lived in this all confusion about the constitution, I probably would be a Federalist.

If anyone would ask me “why?” I would answer from the modern point of view because no one at that time knew exactly what is going to happen next, “I choose the Federalist way because I like the idea of all thirteen states together as one nation, this way states together have more power against anyone. Besides, the central government is better-organized then confederate government in taxation etc. “Most likely Anti-federalist would ague against my views by saying that states should not join together because states, “..already on sure economic footing, that could afford to remain independent…” (American Promise). In addition, Anti-federalists feared the people would loose their liberties. Anti-federalists should have looked better on the plan of government because it is clearly explaining people will have all rights with the new constitution. But, now days we cannot judge what happen in the history because we know the history from the second hand experience.

Ben Fader

Not only to buck the trend that seems so present, but having also been immersed in the anti-federalist viewpoint, it is safe to say that I would indeed stand against the ratification of the Constitution. Not that I'm against military spending or increased security, rather, it is clear to me that each state was so unique that immediately subjecting states to the goals of the most powerful individuals was in my opinion wrong. Clearly the Articles needed revision, but that's it. Certain powers should or could have been given to a limited central government, and perhaps this body could have handled things that all states were in need of or agreed upon; but having the variety of goals and needs placed under a powerful federal government only leads to concern. Does anyone else perhaps feel that their voice is not being heard? Well I do, and much of it is the extent of the bureaucracy and red tape necessary for those in power to maintain and exercise that power. If States had more control, it would be that much easier to communicate on a more direct level and my vote would mean more with the absence of the electoral college. All in all, I currently am very dissatisfied with the way things work, and though I love this country, I can see many advantages to a revised union without a powerful federal government. I would be an anti-federalist, through and through.

Mary AOD

Me and Carolyn as partners did a really great job on the second essay for Craig and Ben. Our work styles meshed nearly perfectly and in the end I think we figured out how to use each of our strengths, my drive and determination with her style and creativity, to put together a very well written paper and I enjoyed working with her as we worked through conflict creatively. The fact that we did not let our differences separate us but instead appreciated each others differences and enjoyed each others diversity as individuals really caused us to work together as well as we did. Also we were both pretty much up for anything and there was no preconceived ideas of what we wanted to do so that helped to mold our paper.

Essay Reflection

1. How did you progress from essay 1 to essay 2?

In this essay I did much more research and organization of research material than in my first paper. I also had to spend more time and effort in seeing things from a certain point of view that I didn't necessarily agree with. Also writing in the voice of a 18th century colonial governor was a bit of a change and I don't claim to have done the best job but I did do my best. Also it helps to have studied and read the bible as much as I have because then you learn to talk in that old style voice. I also thought more about the writing of my thesis and making it concise and focused, something I had to edit in my first essay with my instructors prompting. I think I deserve at least a P because I did put a lot of time (10 hours of studying together at library, school, and Carolyn's house) and as much effort as I could to really know what we were writing about and the loyalist's as well as the patriot's views.

2. How did you process mesh with your partners?

My partner worked a little a little slower then I would have liked but she definitely made up for it in her writing of her part in the essay. She definitely deserves an extremely good grade because she really did a large part of the arranging of the 'novella' style which was her idea as well. She also helped me a lot to work out a back story for my character while I helped her to do her work and not be distracted. Her many distractions caused her to work slower but I kept reminding her of the topics we were doing which I looked up. All in all we did a fairly equal amount of work with me doing most of the research and getting the topics to right on and her organizing the whole novella style. She definitely deserves a Pass leaning strongly towards a High Pass because of the work she put into putting together the novella.

3. How did you handle creative conflict? What made your collaboration work?

All in all as partners we did a really great job, our work styles meshed nearly perfectly and in the end I think we figured out how to use each of our strengths, my drive and determination with her style and creativity, to put together a very well written paper and I enjoyed working with her. The fact that we did not let our differences separate us but instead appreciated each others differences and enjoyed what we each could bring to the project as individuals really caused us to work together as well as we did. Also we were both pretty much up for anything and there was no preconceived ideas of what we wanted to do so that helped to mold our paper, and Carolyn had a great idea in the novella concept. I think we deserve a Pass with maybe a few aspects leaning towards a HighPass.

Essay # 2; Ian Furgason and Carolyn Shaw.

Carolyn's Blog: http://ducttapehaven.blogspot.com

Essay: Total Word Count: 2,256 (Intro + Dialogue)
Bold + Highlight = Thesis.

Royal Governor: Alexander Wheatley’s opinions written by Ian Furgason

Alexander’s wife and sister-in-law: Mary Wheatley, Amelia Ambrewster and all editing by Carolyn Shaw

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amelia Ambrewster was born in England to a very loving family. She had 2 sisters, her twin Mary and an older sister named Samantha, as well as an older brother named Jacob. She has remained very close to all of them except Jacob, who died in the Seven Years War, in her transcontinental move from England to Boston. Her parents were considered very odd by pleasant society, as they educated her in arithmetic and the sciences as well as allowing and even encouraged her love of politics. Because of that, when the time came for her to choose a husband, most men wouldn’t have her and those who would only wanted her fortune. She chose none of her suitors, choosing instead to move to the colonies in hope of a more lenient view, as well as to stay with her sister Mary. After arriving there she finds that contrary to her mistaken beliefs, while America is indeed more lax about some things, it is even more puritanical about the ability of women to speak their minds. In desperation, she speaks to her brother-in-law about politics, shocking him. She explains her dilemma, and after much debate, he accepts the inevitableness of the discussions with good grace. Through these discussions, he learns of her Patriotic leanings and though he is taken aback at first he agrees not to tell anyone of her Patriotic leanings as long as she only discusses her views with him, so as to save his family and his position.

Governor Wheatley was born and raised in England by wealthy parents. His father was a member of Parliament and his mother met with other parliament wives for tea every Sunday after mass. In the course of time, his parents impressed upon him an intense loyalty to King and his empire, which has continued to affect him to this day. During the years leading up to the revolution he was chosen as governor of Massachusetts, and swore loyalty to the king for the duration of his term.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor Wheatley’s loyal stance towards the King causes contention between himself and his Patriotic sister-in-law Amelia, while Amelia does her best to convince Governor Wheatley of the validity and the –in her view- indisputable truth of the Patriotic claims.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amelia smiled across the circle of women at her sister. “Are you alright?” she mouthed concernedly, knowing as she did the trials that her sisters’ previous pregnancy had put her through. Her sister smiled back across, nodding to show that she was fine. Amelia sighed, bored to the tips of her toes by the inane chatter of the women surrounding them. All they wished to talk about was the newest fashions and how their children were doing. She had long since despaired of getting any honest conversation out of them, as they couched their true feelings on the war that they were shortly escalating into in terms of their husbands “stocks” and such.

----- 4 Hours Later-----

Governor Wheatley smiled as he strode into his home. He had worked hard at his fathers firm for many years to get to the place that he was now, and he regretted not a moment of it. Even though his beloved appointment had required that he move across an ocean, it was and always had been worth it. His wife, Mary, and sister-in-law Amelia had been at a sewing bee and they had stayed over at their friends’ house, and were thankfully due home any moment. In these uncertain times, he did not like letting them out of the house, but stopping those women was like stopping a wild horse. He also knew that when they got home, Amelia would want to discuss politics with him as she often did after being subjected to the inane chatter of the women for days on end.

Upon that thought, he heard his wife and her sister enter the house. Amelia called “Anyone home?” as she and Mary glided over the threshold. Mary looked very worn as being away from her family, especially with her being in the beginning stages of pregnancy as she was, exhausted her.

“Good evening, ladies.” Alexander Wheatley said suavely, “Would you like to join me for some drinks?”

Mary ran across the room to her loving husband, embracing him quickly in deference to the presence of her sister in the room. “Mary, my love, how was your time at the sewing bee?” asked Wheatley.

“Oh Alex, you know how it is. Women’s talk.” Mary said as she smiled up at Alexander.

“Indeed, and you Amelia, was your time as wonderful as my wives?”

“Of course Alexander” said Amelia, though in truth she had been extremely bored the entire time.

“And you Alexander, how have your last few days gone?” asked Mary, overjoyed to be home and with her husband.

“Oh you wouldn’t want to know, those dastardly patriots are still raising hell.” Alex grumbled.

Mary gasped, only slightly offended at the use of language –she was used to it- though she did not like to hear it always.

Amelia smirked at her sister, knowing that the gasp was only for show. “Please, tell me more.”

“Amelia you know I do not enjoy such discourse.” interjected Mary. She was so happy to be home, and she really didn’t want them to have this discussion again.

“And you know how I do sister. Please, do tell if you don’t mind doing so.” Amelia said to Alexander, moving to one of the armchairs and settling there, ready for a long debate.

Alexander hugged his wife again, giving her a chaste kiss on the cheek. He walked over to the area that Amelia was sitting and sat down on a chair across from her, though he got up again not 30 seconds later. “Patriotic rebels are prancing all around town shouting about liberty and that subversive scholar John Locke’s doctrines about governments ruling according to the wants and needs of the people.” spat Wheatley.

Mary came over and hugged her sister once, and then exited the parlor while saying; “Though I love you both, I cannot stand to hear any mention of their actions, it distresses me too much. I shall be resting in our room if you have further need of me.”

After she left, Amelia’s focus came back to Alexander. “You must admit that John Locke had some very concrete points, especially in his 2^nd treatise on government.” She asserted
vehemently.

“Why does it not surprise me that you have read it?” Alex said wryly. “Yes I have gone over his work, but I consistently find myself more appreciating the work of Thomas Hobbes and his plain talk on the need for a monarchy.”

Amelia smirked at Alexander “Well of course you like him, he is all about monarchy and how the King is God to the people. But you know how I feel; the monarchy has gone on too long, it is very outdated, especially in these colonies.”

“Those patriots have been prancing all around town shouting about freedom from governmental control and how this new tea act will ruin us all. I just can’t see how they can be so full of bigotry toward our king and sovereign. It was him who gave us this land and it is him who will continue to allow us to remain in it. What do they think that they could run these colonies alone? Without one ruler to keep the peace, the peace will be utterly lost forever. And don’t forget how the east India tea company lower the prices below that of which we normally pay. How generous do these filthy patriots want our sovereign to be?” Alexander demanded as he paced the length of the room, gesturing emphatically.

“They expect that their “King” will leave them well enough alone! The raising of the Tea tax was only one of the many things that the King has done to alienate and enslave his subjects. And I would like to remind you that those “filthy patriots” as you called them include me and quite a few of your peers.” Amelia shot back “And the stamp act was completely uncalled for, it wasn’t needed for ANYTHING!”

“I will consent that the King’s Stamp Act was a step that could have been withheld but the Empire did save us from the French and the Indians and he does deserve some compensation for that extreme act of loyal kindness.” Said Alexander, shaking his finger in Amelia’s direction.

“Thank you for that acknowledgment of my point, but I would also like to expound upon the idea that that act of “loyal kindness” as you called it, would not have been necessary were it not for the French’s grudge against the English.” Amelia said, her face showing her disgust at the thought of the Seven Years War. “Our brother Jacob would still be alive if it weren’t for that stupid grudge, and you know it!” she stated emphatically. “Those stupid English…” she said.

“You are English madam, do not forget. Do you not stand for your heritage or would you just toss the hundreds of years of your history to the side and start your own? How foolish, do not forget the wisdom of your ancestors.” Alexander said roughly, incised at her dismissal of the heritage he held very dear.

“Oh, I am English by birth that I do not deny, but my personal beliefs require me to equate myself with a new term that I’ve heard; American, those who were born and raised here in the Colonies, and those who accept and believe in the Patriotic way.” Amelia said.

“Blasphemous! There are no ‘Americans’ for we are all European Colonists! If you would choose to call your group of patriots ‘Americans’ you may. But do not assume to call those who were born and raised here American’s, for there are many English men and women born here in the America’s.” Alexander nearly shouted, turning and glaring at Amelia as he said it.

“Again, not everyone is an American; oh English brother-of-mine. But some would rather be called American than the dreaded English or even German or Dutch.” Amelia stood up and walked towards Alexander. “That taxation of the King’s was a horrible idea as it completely alienated the general populace of the colonies, especially as the colonists have had no representation at all.”

Alexander paced back to the center of the room, then over to a liquor cabinet and poured himself a snifter of brandy. He swallowed some, and then said “More about this nonsense about no taxation without representation in the parliament! We are British subjects and we should be more than happy to be treated as such. Indeed there is nothing wrong with telling the king of our ills, but if he sees fit to put it one way, let it be that way. It is obvious to any well meaning gentleman or woman that these Acts, the Coercive, Townshend, Tea, Stamp and Sugar, were overstepping the lines but our sovereign king will in the end do what’s best for the empire.”

Amelia also went to the cabinet, though she poured herself nothing more than a small glass of sherry. “Ah yes, the 'Empire' that we are supposed to be so enraptured with living in! But what of the common people, those that –unlike myself or even you- eke out a living from this land? It is they that have grown to understand and support the Patriotic side of things, because of how the King treats them.” She said as she walked over to the picture window that looked over the street in front of the house.

Alex scoffed. “These patriots, don’t they realize what they are pushing for? Without the king on our side who will defend us from the numerous savages to the west or the ruthless Spanish to the south? Who will give us order and supply us with the most exquisite clothing and furnishing in this world? Who will buy our fish and our tobacco and our indigo? Why don’t they just submit?”

Amelia smiled tiredly at Alexander as she finished her glass of sherry. “They are pushing for freedom Alex. Nothing less will ever satisfy them. Even now I hear from my maid that the people on the street are readying for war. There is even talk of a Declaration of Independence for goodness sakes!” She leaned her head against the cool window, looking out to the harbor, crowded with ships. “As for your questions, those I cannot answer. Only time will tell. And brother dearest, I fear that this discussion has taken my energy.” She said as she turned away from the window. “I would love to continue it another time, as you know, but not right now.” She walked over and gave him a quick peck on the cheek. “I shall retire now; shall I see you at dinner? Or do you have business to attend to today?” She asked.

Alexander smiled down at her, glad she was done for the day. Though he would never admit it, these discussions often drained him as well. “I shall be dining with the family tonight, no business today.” He said, sinking into a chair close to the fire.

Amelia smiled back at Alexander. “I shall relay the good news to Mary then.” She said as she stepped out of the parlor. “Until dinner!” she called back over her shoulder.

Alexander stared into the flames. “Until dinner.” He said contemplatively.

Marys AOD

I supported and helped guide a girl to better know and understand how to walk out life who goes to my highschool via myspace. She was really confused and felt lost on what to do and how to act or what to believe and I helped her out by pointing out a few well known sayings that have helped me during the last few years. I saw her a few days ago and she was extremely grateful to how I had helped her. Thats a good example of mentoring. I also practiced listening attentively to what she was saying so that i didn't just assume I knew what her problem was and try to solve it the way I considered best. I'm getting better and better at that.

VERY ROUGH DRAFT!

Must Have Thesis In Bold On Final Paper

More pointed argument and and incorporate more of the view of a governor. More of a historically accurate character, more personalized governor-type views.?

Royal Govenor Wheatley walks into his parlor surrounded by objects mainly British in design. His British crafted chair sitting on his right with its elaborate scroll work reminds him of his British roots, which he vows to never forget. His wife is away with her sister at a sewing bee try to soothe the civil unrest of the gentry. He knows that his sister in law is of the patriotic cause though she masquerades as a loyalist in public. He allows his wive to be near her because he knows of the unrest of the household that separating them would cause.

Ms. Ambrewster smiled coyly at the other women in the circle, knowing what she does about the realities of their time. She, as the sister of the wife of the Royal Governor, had to present a face of complete Loyalism to the masses.

Short Version: Wife + Sister in Law return, sis + Governor get into heated discussion, wife leaves (not wanting to be in the middle), continuation of discussion, parting on amicable terms to reconvene later.

Topics of Discussion:

• Samuel Adams

Samuel Adam's studied the theories of John Locke in Harvard, started the son's of Liberty and preaching his ideas in taverns and town meetings. Formed Country Party which consisted of farmers who supported his ideas. Lead Boston Tea Party.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. Religious beliefs must be tolerated as long as they are not subversive to society. The natural liberty of man is restrained only so far as it is necessary for the common good. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth. Government instituted for common defense. However government rulers are subject to the ruled who should also determined the rulers pay Governors have no right to seek and take what they please. But are only honorable servants of society. "-Samuel Adams,
The Rights of the Colonists

• John Locke/ Thomas Hobbes

Hobbes: Worst aspect of the human state of nature is continual fear and danger of violent death. Thus the state of nature is continual war. Absolute Monarchy is the best form of the government. All members of society should submit to one absolute central authority for the sake of maintaining peace. This sovereign has total control of everything.

Locke: Any government that breaks the trust of man and takes control of man should be overthrown. Because men own their bodies completely any product of their physical labor also belongs to them. By coming together in the social-political compact of a community that can create and enforce laws, men are guaranteed better protection of their property and other freedoms.

• General View of government in America vs. in Britain and the role of the king/lack of role of king.

Parliament is overtaxing and enslaving the colonists, removing their right to agree to being taxed as well as their right to a public assembly. However they need and enjoy the protection that the empire provides them with from neighboring countries. In Britain they enjoy the rule of parliament and they are represented in the government. The king is trying to make up for the war debt while keeping peace in the colonies and ensuring their economic trust.

• Boston Tea Party

-Colonists lead by Samuel Adams waited tell last minute before Britain would collect the Tea and threw it off the ships in order to protest the tax on tea that Britain put on it in order to raise money for paying back the war debt. They even made the price of tea drop below Dutch tea which the colonists had been buying because it was cheaper than the east India tea company.

• Stamp Act

-Put tax on every piece of paper, fell heaviest on business's and legal communities

• Coercive Act

-Boston Port Closed
-Altered Colony's charter, emphasizing parliaments power over Massachusetts
-Impartial Administration of Justice Act- Any royal official accused of a capital crime would be tried in a court in England
-Quartering Act-Permitted Soldiers to dwell freely in any household
-Quebec Act- Gave claim to the land of the Ohio Valley to Quebec
--All this was put in place in order to stamp out the rebellion taking place in the colonys with Boston being the hotspot of it all. Also for Britain to excercise its authority.

• Tea Tax

Mary AOD-Negotiation

In the beginning of the year me and Vince would drive to school and I would always want to turn the heat on because it was almost winter and and he would want it cold because he is weird like that. After arguing about this over and over again we sat down one day at home and negotiated on the best way. I wanted to be warm and he want to be cold. So he proposed that we put it in the middle between hot and cold. I consented and this is how it has been since. He has started coming to his senses however and wanting the heat to be all the way on in the mornings when its cold outside and whenever we disagree we just put it in the middle and call it good.

Mary AOD

The other day I participated in a discussion in the computer Lab with some class mates about religion and God. It was a group discussion on matters that concerned each person there (public Dialogue) and caused me to practice a lot of the Arts of Democracy. One aspect of the discussion was that it was less of a argumentative debate on where no one listened to anyone but each of us had to actively listen to each other and I particularly had to work on not butting in on other peoples expressed thoughts. At one point Ben Fader had to mediate between me and carolyn as we discussed a subject. Ben Fader is a good example of diversity since me and him both don't necessarily come from the same background church wise yet he always has something to input in a way that I wouldn't think of and its always really good. It was a wonderful conversation.

Todays Work

Ian annotated his article, and Carolyn went link-searching today. They were very productive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check the Highline Library, and KCLS

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=patriotic+women&btnG=Search
http://0-elibrary.bigchalk.com.catalog.kcls.org/libweb/elib/do/search
http://ur6sa6pd6b.search.serialssolutions.com/?V=1.0&L=UR6SA6PD6B&S=JCs&C=EARLAMELIT


http://womenshistory.about.com/od/patriotism/Women_Patriots_American_Women_and_Patriotism.htm

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p106313_index.html

http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/18thcentury/patrioticwomen/index.php

http://www.archiva.net/hist120ay02/readings/hist120society.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/27/AR2005042700087.html

http://colonialancestors.com/revolutionary/women.htm