other+outside+readings

NDH- “Cartoon: Positive Good of Slavery”

In the early to mid 1800s, the main argument as to why slavery wasn’t bad was always that slaves were treated like a family. The comparison was usually drawn between slaves-who got food, housing, clothing, and care all throughout their lives- and factory workers-who were robbed of life, liberty, and sanctity being put to work for no money, no food, and with no concern for their safety. The reason the claim lasted so long was because no one could argue it: factory life was worse than slavery.

By looking at this argument today, one would be forced to believe that slavery must have been worse than factory life, since more people opposed it; however, this doesn’t make much sense when you compare the working lives of Americans in the 19th Century to the working lives of the Chinese today. Chinese workers have a small amount of freedom, but for the most part are treated like slaves. They get paid like a factory worker: a few dollars a month without overtime. They are confined to their working facility like slaves in a plantation or factory workers in the factories, with many accounts of factory workers stripping them of their identification cards, keeping them from leaving the city. Some accounts of Chinese factories include beating of workers, which is similar to the way slaves were punished. So much like both slaves and factory workers, Chinese workers today are treated like garbage, machines to get the job done. We don’t view whats going on in China as something that needs to be ended like we did slavery, so it leaves questioning as to why slavery was really viewed as so much worse factory life.

Based on NBC Archives video clip “Benjamin Franklin” KEO- In this video, author Walter Isaacson discusses Benjamin Franklin’s important role in American society. In particular, he tells the story of how Thomas Jefferson sent the draft of the Declaration of Independence to Benjamin Franklin to be edited and Franklin ended up making a vital change. Jefferson had originally written, “We hold these truths to be sacred.” Franklin changed the sentence to read, “We hold these truths to be self evident.” Many people are unaware of just how crucial this change was to the development of the principles upon which our new nation was founded. By changing ‘sacred’ to ‘self evident,’ Franklin implied that our natural rights were derived from reason rather than from religion. This was an enormous departure from British society, in which religion played a large role. The support of the church was vital to the survival of the monarchy. The idea of deference stated that the King represents God on Earth and no one was permitted to question his ideas and decisions. This also enforced the idea that the people of the lower classes in society were required to abide by their uppers. The idea of deference did not leave much room for religious toleration in England. Many groups of British citizens, such as the Pilgrims, came to the New World to escape religious persecution and establish colonies in which they could safely practice their beliefs. William Penn established the Quaker colony of Pennsylvania in which he allowed religious toleration. Many other colonies, such as the Carolinas, allowed similar religious toleration and protection for a variety of religious groups ranging from Protestants to Catholics. The abandonment of the principles of deference was the colonists’ way of moving farther away from the firm grip of the British Empire. Therefore, by changing the wording in the Declaration of Independence to convey the idea that rights are separate from religion, Franklin was officially declaring the colonists’ departure from British deference and entrance into a world of religious toleration. Most of the credit for the Declaration has traditionally been given to Jefferson, however it must be recognized that if it were not for Benjamin Franklin, the connection that Jefferson implied between rights and religion by using the word ‘sacred’ would likely have been overlooked.

nicely done
Based on NBC Archives video clip “Indentured Servitude” ENA – In the 17th century, indentured servitude arose in North America, populating the colonies and filling the labor force. Indentured servants were recruited to enhance the economic development of the American colonies with a specific market in mind – tobacco. One must consider the major role of tobacco in the Chesapeake region as well as the social conditions in England to understand why nearly two-thirds of the English immigrants to America arrived as indentured servants. Tobacco was the chief cash crop among the Chesapeake colonies from about 1618, a few years after John Rolfe introduced a mild West Indian tobacco to America, to 1660. Its sale garnered tremendous profits, with a boom that lasted until 1629, and the tobacco itself was also used as currency. Tobacco’s success can be credited to its addicting properties and novelty, as it was a pleasurable, convenient “luxury” item that entertained people, rich or poor (though the quality purchased varied). A massive work force was essential to manage the growing and harvesting of it. Thus, in order to sustain the economy (particularly Virginia’s), workers were pursued. At this time, the United States suffered from a labor shortage; concurrently, unemployment, overcrowding, and social restrictions (such as rigid class distinctions) were rampant in England. These two situations resulted in the immigration of hundreds of thousands of English people to America throughout the 1600s. Many were under an indenture agreement with the Virginia Company, which ultimately played a critical role in augmenting tobacco’s work force. Probable incentives for the immigrants included land ownership, social mobility, and more comfortable living conditions. Unfortunately, many indentured servants’ were mistreated by their masters and swindled by authorities. They could be bought or sold and could not marry without the permission of their owners. (Clearly, Africans were not the first to experience such injustices in the colonies.) Promises for land were not always kept, preventing them from attaining social mobility and enjoying representation in the government. During this time, ironically, colonists accused Great Britain of violating the ideals of rule of law, self-government, and equality of rights. However, the colonists themselves were also responsible for similar damages in depriving indentured servants of representation within the colonies’ local government and equal rights. The taxing life of an indentured servant was soon seen in the great decline of English people heading to America under an indenture agreement. red is historically inaccurate -- overall summarized not analyzed

Based on NBC Archives primary source “The Boston Tea Party and Its Effects on the Tea Business”

ENA – In this document (1773), Boston merchant John Easson briefly explains what occurred in the Boston Tea Party to his son and tells him “if You have any of your tea Left You Must tak Good Care of it for there will be Non to be Gott.” Viewing it in the great scheme of the time, the Boston Tea Party was an act of colonial resistance that contributed to the initiation of the Revolutionary War. Many colonists were triumphant over their compelling defiance of the British but overlooked the difficulty they had caused to individuals who shared their desire for freedom. Although John Easson’s feelings regarding liberty are unknown (to the reader), it is likely that other people involved the tea business who longed for American independence suffered financially due to the huge loss of tea. Benjamin Franklin must have realized this, as he asserted that the 45 tons of tea dumped into the harbor had to be repaid. This sympathetic perspective of tea workers’ plight is easily countered, however. In the fight for independence from England, the colonists’ actions at the Boston harbor ultimately benefited colonial tea workers. With the Tea Act of 1773, the import duties on tea entering England were removed, and the British East India Company was allowed to sell its tea directly to consumers. As a result, the price of tea was incredibly reasonable. These tax cuts were not an attempt for Britain to be reasonable, though. Rather, they were the British East India Company’s attempt to extend its monopoly on the sale of tea in the British Empire to the colonies. If successful, family-owned tea businesses would be undermined and thus local economies would be damaged. (From a modern standpoint, the British East India Company was like one of the dominant corporations of today, with Wal-Mart being a prime example, which cuts down small, local family-owned businesses.) In addition, an increase in the company’s revenue would allow it to further support the colonists’ oppressor – England. In a sense, the colonists’ would be funding their own oppression if they accepted the change in tea prices. Passive rejection would not have likely stopped the British from profiting from the Tea Act, as not all colonists were anti-British. The dumping of the tea was a rejection of Britain’s economic advances and committed with the general intention of protecting the colonies’ wellbeing.

=
nice attempt but you got distracted and moved too far away from your initial premise -- identify one issue/statement/idea and stick to it =====

Based on //Common Sense// excerpt and Thomas Paine and "Common Sense" (video) on NBC archives. KBM After the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the British were enacting harsh rules that broke the spirits of the American people. Americans were losing hope in becoming a country free of monarchy but the longing for freedom became stronger and united the nation. When Thomas Paine published his pamphlet, Common Sense, over 100,000 copies were sold within the first month so it reached out to a very large percentage of the American colonies. Many Americans held suppressed ideas that were held as a taboo in fear of stricter British action, once the words were put into writing our nation grew closer and went into action. Ideas and hope of an independent nation rose again, sparked by this literary feat. If the British had not enacted the Intolerable Acts, it is possible that the pamphlet would never have been published. The more you constrict a nation, the more they will want to break free, so Britain’s initial intentions to punish and prevent Americans from acting out back-fired. Americans were suffering from these laws and all of them were, in one way or another, affected. This united the people, and Paine’s pamphlet of an ideal country set a goal for the American people to strive for. Paine is pro-independence and draws out a format for what he believes to be the ideal government system. He criticizes the monarchical system as tyranny, calling King George III a monster for depriving the Americans of their rights and dragging them into wars against their wills. The pamphlet served its purpose as it continued to drive forward the country towards revolutionary sentiments. Paine elaborates on how all men are created equal under God, therefore, the King has no greater divine right than the common people. This thought of equality made America aware that the only way to maintain a fair nation run by the people was to eliminate monarchy, and in doing so, continue to push for independence from England. He brought up the idea of electing a president within his writing as well. The thought of not being governed by a ruler, but by a leader equal to the people, was a difficult concept for Americans to grasp. Thoughts of the American revolution and independence from their "mother country" may have seemed far-fetched for many Americans who felt that English rule was an inevitable aspect of their world. However, Paine put American independence into a new perspective that was worth fighting for. Common Sense brought a perfectly-timed realization of exactly how unfair their situation was and it is not a coincidence that this was published only six months prior to the Declaration of Independence signing.

nicely done
Based on "The Articles of Confederation" (video) on NBC Archives. EMB – The Articles of Confederation were the most radical attempt by a new nation to create a governmental structure based on freedom. In attempting to prevent themselves and future generations from falling into another monarchy, Americans laid down an unstable foundation for their new democracy. King George III instilled revolutionary sentiments into English colonists in America when he tightened down his policies on them after the Seven Years’ War. His oppressive rule resulted in concepts that, when put into the first constitution of America after the Revolution, had no chance of resulting in a stable nation unless changed as they ultimately were. Since colonists never before thought of themselves as Americans, they didn’t know how to create a nation under a collective government. Such a government would be seen more as tyrannical than anything else. This brings up an issue colonists had with the "mother country" about a lack of representation because they didn't think they could be represented when the government was far away. Americans saw state government as restrictive enough to maintain the freedom they had fought to achieve in the Revolution. With the lack of efficient transportation in that time, state government allowed its people to have the say in government they so desired. They could pick their representatives and keep an eye on their government to make sure its power was limited. An executive authority with a collective government to back him up was the equivalent of a king and parliament; Americans thought they were preventing repetition of the past in keeping everything as homebound as possible. After revolutionary sentiments simmered down, the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate for governing a new nation. They were written to free colonists of any sort of oppressive government. In doing so, they were incapable of working for a new nation as a whole. They were for the purpose of state governments with restricted power. With the variety of states included in America, there was no way the Articles of Confederation could properly function as the foundation for the new nation as one single entity that encompassed separate yet united states.

nice start but vague and non-specific
NDH- "Based on John Peter Zenger" Video on NBC Archives

Directly before the Revolution, Britain ruled over its New World colonies with strict policies enacted by King George III. Americans were beginning to realize their appointed governors were oppressive and spoiled with power, though nothing much less than terrorism by the Sons of Liberty was done about it. When Peter Zenger was put on trial, it was the first time a colonist won in a bid for freedom against the oppressive tyranny of Britain and her corrupted governors stationed in the New World. During the trial, Zenger’s lawyer argued that accusations are not libel if they can be proven true. The jurors were hand-selected by Governor William Cosby, but they were colonists. Zenger freely walked away from the trial, while Cosby was sent to prison for his crimes. The colonists who were supposedly highly faithful to Britain ended up putting their British governor in prison and letting the man who destroyed his reputation off. These men were colonists who believed in freedom and righteousness over loyalty to corrupted figureheads. Zenger’s success became well-known and is still seen as a stepping stone toward Freedom of Speech and Press. The Zenger trial greatly affected future American law, but it is only arguable that it made a difference on the rest of the Revolution. Colonists were beginning to notice the blatancy of British oppression, but little was being done. The Sons of Liberty did their fair share of revolutionary attacks, but those were not far from terrorism that frightened colonists as much as it enraged Britain. Though it is clear that history took a different course, Zenger's trial was a definite step toward a civilized Revolution against British corrupted rule. If nothing else, it opened up colonists eyes to what was really going on and to their capability to put an end to it.

=
very disappointing -- everything about PZ is from clip -- why the SOL is here I have no idea -- seems to be stuck in to increase length and nothing else -- the point of PZ is either faith in juries to see beyond the smokescreen or freedom of press, neither of which is remotely concerned with SOL =====

Topic: Salutary Neglect KBM From 1607 to 1763, the British non-deliberately neglected to enforce laws of the colony. This salutary neglect allowed the colonies to establish their own currency, trade routes, and governmental system. When George III took the throne, it was too late to undo what had already begun in the colonies. They were no longer dependent on Britain, meaning they could survive on their own after gaining independence. Had the previous rulers of Britain enforced enacted laws more precisely, the colonies would not have acquired the chance to distance themselves from the mother country. The neglect of the Navigation Act opened many doors for Americans to establish their own trading routes. The lack of authority from Britain, much like a mother lacking control over a child, allowed them to survive on their own and form their own ways of life. Their colonies were not being influenced by Britain for a long period of time because they were isolated and ignored, to the likings of the colonists. This resulted in the colonies maintaining many anti-monarchical views and an entirely separate identity. Eventually, when Britain tried to regain control, the colonies were led into the American Revolution. When George III attempted to enact and enforce laws, such as the Stamp Act, the Americans revolted; eventually, Benjamin Franklin was able to convince Parliament to repeal the act. Here, America is starting to act independently. Americans expect representation and participation in what affects them. The lack of representation is most likely why Americans leaned towards a government by the people and for the people. Had the large period of salutary neglect not occurred, Americans may not have been given the proper opportunity to free themselves from British rule. Although, if Britain had been closer to the colonies, there is a chance they would not have wanted to free themselves. Britain needed to accept that Americans were determined to be treated equally by her. Had the two taken the time to figure out an even settlement before the colonies gained so much power, Britain may still have maintained control. summarized not analyzed

MJM. "Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Crisis" from NBC News Archives This video clip both confirms and conflicts the teachings about Anne Hutchinson from middle school. The common belief is that Hutchinson was simply a woman that held discussions on interpretations of the bible at her house in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Then the government, that was in essence the ministry, became basically insulted at the audacity of a woman to think that she would be able to teach God’s word. This video explains the fragile existence of the Puritans at this time and illustrates Anne Hutchinson to be much less of a victim than previously thought. It is important to recognize the time period in which this crisis took place. In 1637 Hutchinson’s trials began after she not only held these weekly meetings at her house and claimed to have personal conversations with G-d but it was her accusing some of the ministers in power of not being one of the chosen ones. In her mind, the chosen ones were predestined to be saved by G-d’s grace and did not have to live within the confines of the law. This is where the term “antinomianism” came from. This is the belief of being above the law and it undermined the power already in place in the Massachusetts Bay colony. The Puritans were undergoing a trying time in the colonies. When they came over from Britain they were more or less united against the Church of England’s practices but as it moved into its own religion there became more sects within the Puritan church. This division made the church more fragile and the commotion surrounding this housewife and mother causing dissent in the young town disrupted the carefully maintained balance. For this reason it makes more sense that the government feared Hutchinson’s growing power and influence in the community. It is almost reminiscent of Charles Manson in how he was able to manipulate people into breaking the law. Although she has become a folk legend in today’s society and a representation of feminism people must be aware of her radical ideals and the problems she caused for the families (both her own and others) and government in Massachusetts. too much summary not near enough analyze

MJM. An important factor of Aronson's article, Why Tea? The Global Story of the American Revolution, it is important to notice the progression of foreign settlers moving to North America. At its onset it was a route in the way of trade and then moved to represent the home of the mythical Fountain of Youth or infamous cities of extraordinary power and wealth such as El Dorado. After that period in time it came to represent a safe haven from religious persecution that could shelter English puritans, Catholics, Presbyterians and many other religious streams that was an entire ocean away. This must have seemed a more ideal place to raise a new generation of religious families because it was an entire ocean away from European influence unlike Holland where people usually sought shelter. Eventually the attraction of a new life in America was the possibility of profound wealth. There were more opportunities in the realm of agriculture and trade of tobacco, shipbuilding, lumber, indigo, spices, furs, slaves, rice and many other products. This view of peasants from other countries can come to this country and work hard enough to be financially successful has lasted to this day. For the countries from which the settlers come from North America represented totally different things over time. When Isabella and Ferdinand realized the weight of this discovery they saw it as a chance to collect gold and silver as well as spread the Catholic religion. Other countries all saw the United States as a way to expand trade and their empire to a global level. France, Holland, England and Spain all experienced some success in terms of trade and economic advancement. America and its place in the world market was the saving grace of the global economy because stock in the East India trading company plummeted at one point. This is why tea being able to enter or leave the country depended so much on which ship the cargo was on, from which port it entered and where the ship had stopped earlier in its journey. Aronson's article is an exposition that fills in the gaps in American history in global terms. We devolved from being a beacon of hope for persecuted people in Europe to a money hungry player in the world economy. This had its own effects such as causing the first world war (The French and Indian War) and marking the beginning of the end for global empires.