I thought this essay was very successful in almost every way. The entire thing came together very easily for me. There were a few aspects that I did not find particularly helpful, but I wouldn’t call them negatives. The peer review was pretty dry, I cant glean much from someone saying, “Yours is really good! But you should make it more organized”. Also, the outline was an interesting part of this assignment for me, at first I resisted it, but towards the middle of the assignment, I found that it was essential to my organization of the essay. The amount of time was perfect, there wasn’t too much where I got lulled into a false sense of security, but I did not feel rushed. I found myself with lots of writing to play around with and change. I worked in it a little everyday, and before I knew it, I had a full essay done by the middle of the second week, so I had that much time to edit and re read. I also enjoyed making a thesis, this was my first time with that, and I liked the fact we could choose what we wrote about, so we couldn’t complain about our topic. And I liked the control of being able to choose, personally, I found my topic interesting and easy to write about. I also liked the mount of resources we had. It was a little overwhelming at times, but the amount of sources was a factor in being successful, I have never had an essay where I had that much information at hand before.
This essay has not affected my writing philosophy in any way, I still believe in it. The qualities I sketched out in my philosophy are goals, and I hope I lived up to those standards I set for myself.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Essay Update
How do you tell the difference between heroes and villains? Some would say the difference is actions, others say about perspectives. Since history is an art of interpretation, it gives us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led the poor and underprivileged to revolt against their malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero... I believe he wasn’t a hero at all.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.
First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed,“Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi stated in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.
The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.
The government’s faults also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.
And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.
In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension; all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. It seems implied that the poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people who were robbed of their promised wealth.
First, Bacon claimed in his Declaration that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he led. He sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to execute this plan. Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. He was the first to (briefly) unite blacks and whites in any major political cause. Historymatters.edu agreed,“Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that he wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: A Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute civil disobedience. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. His attack ruined trust with those and other Native American tribes. The government had placed peace treaties upon their land, which he ignored completely.
Zinn and Steffof emphasize Bacon being merely a leader in their book. They reiterate that the colonists concern was not either the Indians or Government, but a combination of both. They also observe the overall stress inflicted on the colonies by the over-zealous taxation by England. The book acknowledges, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36].
Michael Puglisi stated in his article,” Whether they be Friends or foes”, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." [Pg 77]. Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. Both these documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians; that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
Bacon: What I think
If the sources are to be taken as truth, I believe there were no heroes in Bacon's Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. Each side had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless.
The Indians played a major role in this conflict, but I believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved. For example, in, “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia” by the Royal commissioners, they show the example the following Indian conflict. “…Indians… stealing some hoggs… were pursued by the English on a boate… whereupon the Indians complained to their superiors that they had been… abused and cheated… so they took the hoggs for their own satisfaction” This emphasizes that the Indians did not steal for their own gain, they acted in revenge, which may have been part of their culture, “a eye for and eye” situation. The Indians stole property, attacked, killed, and even tortured settlers. But their actions, though far from being justified, had at least motivation based in a logical place.
The government’s faults also contributed to the revolution. If we interpret Nathanial Bacon’s Declaration as truth, Governor Berkley was largely at fault. But I am wary of classifying had Declaration as a truism. There are fewer sources stating that the government was at fault for the rebellion, (the higher taxes, the favoring of friends in political positions of power, monopoly of the fur trade ect…). The document that stated Governor Berkeley was guilty of these crimes was a highly official document; signed by many colonists, so it does have credentials. Then again, it was signed by people who were against him and his actions, they were not exactly bipartisan. In any case, the Government was obviously a factor in causing public unrest, and the people were champing at the bit to receive the equality and protection they deserved.
And finally, Nathanial Bacon. I believe his actions were equal to little more than a colonial-age stress ball. I concede that he brought change, and did indeed act as the liberator of the settler’s anger, but I maintain that his actions were little more than cowardice. In anger at the authority, he attacked an uninvolved 3rd party? I see no heroism there. Any man who endorses the destruction of the innocent should not be awarded medals of honor. His lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? I believe a little of both. He was a leader, but he was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, acts as arbiter, aim a gun. That, I believe, is the extent of his leadership capabilities. And that extent is also the extent of his authority.
In conclusion, as I stated before, Nathanial Bacon was not a hero to the early Virginian colonists. The argument that state his intentions were noble is quelled by the fact that his actions were motivated by racism and were completely irrational. There is no denying that he did bring revolutionary ideas, but the long term significance out shadows his reasoning. His revolution foreshadowed the American Revolution, and therein lies Nathanial Bacons heroism in history.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Essay update
History can give us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged settlers, servants and slaves to revolt against the malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. They were being taxed into poverty; and then neglected by the same government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that there wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: a Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute “civil disobedience”. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources seem to imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. Why would they launch an attack on these villages? And once they say that
The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
I think his lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality.
Bacon: A Hero
The desperately poor farmers, the indentured servants, exploited slaves of multiple races, and the lower class settlers all saw Nathanial Bacon as hope for a brighter, freer future. They were being taxed into poverty; and then neglected by the same government. Bacon did have his reasons for leading this sordid group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. The government was also unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with the natives would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the band of rebels he lead. Historymatters.edu agreed, “Virginia’s planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”. Finally, they would see him as virtuous because the colonists already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and the people jumped at the chance to retaliate in force. But it must be said that there wasn’t the settler’s choice, he was their only chance to improve their situation. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
Bacon: a Martyr
There are other accounts of Bacon being less than noble. First, in his declaration, he believes himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. (Note: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.”) Second, it is true that he had reasons to be angry, but what I don’t understand is why he choose to act in the way that he did. In his list of Gov. Berkeley’s crimes, he listed “prevention of civil disobedience” as one of the governor’s faults. Raiding the elite’s estates and destroying nearby villages does not constitute “civil disobedience”. Thirdly, he was not “one of the people” as some sources seem to imply. He was wealthy, and far from experiencing the suffering of the people he represented. Now if he was not in the masses shivering in worn boots and worrying about his family’s next meal, what were his motivations for rebelling? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
It also must be said that the people on whom he focused the settler’s guns were innocent. True, not all Indians were guiltless at this time, but the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes that he lead attacks on were peaceful. Indeed, the tribes were so reluctant to offend the settlers that they did not raise a hand to defend themselves. Why would they launch an attack on these villages? And once they say that
The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
I think his lack of personal suffering implies that his motivations were more of prejudice and anger than for justice and economic equality.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Equiano Account Response
The way he writes about his account seems disconnected, like it wasn’t exceedingly painful for him to recall and relate his story. I think that’s is because that he would want his story told, because the story is not just his. He shares it with every slave that was on that boat with him, and the boat that left before theirs, and the one that left after. The pictures were also a wonderful resource; it makes me wonder who the artist was, if he was really there. I think he might have been because they look very realistic, sharing the misery of these ships. The authors writing concurs with the images, and paints a picture of one of the greatest tragedies that mankind has ever inflicted on other men. The Englishmen’s treatment of other men was truly inconceivable, but luckily the author survived to tell us this, his, story.
Liberty of the Press Text Analysis
Who is writing?
- The author was not specified on the actual document, but if we take the intro to be true, I would guess the author would be John Peter Zenger, who was an editor of the New York Weekly Journal.
“This letter is a November 1733 issue of The New York Weekly Journal”
“While in jail, Zenger continued to publish the Journal.”
“…everything Zenger had written was the truth.”
Who is the audience?
- The audience was the readers of the New York Weekly Journal, since it was published there.
Who do the writer(s) represent?
- The writer might represent the New York Weekly Journal, since often newspapers print articles that share their views. He would also represent the people, because he was embodiment of their problems. They might not have been allowed to have freedom of the press, but he was the first one to be recognized as innocent.
What is being said, argued or requested?
- The author is saying that Freedom of the Press is necessary because it is constitutional, or even that it should be a part of the constitution. Even further than that, he says that freedom of the press is also a form of justice, that the truth can be known by everyone, and so that criminals “let the glaring truths… awaken his conscience… and cover him with shame”
How is it being said, argued or requested?
- It is being said very passionately. You can tell the author cares about what he says, and truly believes in it. He used strong statements, and was not wishy-washy. He didn’t say, “I think liberty of the press is of great importance” he said “Liberty of the press is of the greatest importance”
What proof or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- He posted it in a newspaper, which is usually a very reputable source. Also, I think the language that he used gave him some authority as well, I think the settlers would be more compelled to read and agree with his work because he his confident in what he is arguing.
- The author was not specified on the actual document, but if we take the intro to be true, I would guess the author would be John Peter Zenger, who was an editor of the New York Weekly Journal.
“This letter is a November 1733 issue of The New York Weekly Journal”
“While in jail, Zenger continued to publish the Journal.”
“…everything Zenger had written was the truth.”
Who is the audience?
- The audience was the readers of the New York Weekly Journal, since it was published there.
Who do the writer(s) represent?
- The writer might represent the New York Weekly Journal, since often newspapers print articles that share their views. He would also represent the people, because he was embodiment of their problems. They might not have been allowed to have freedom of the press, but he was the first one to be recognized as innocent.
What is being said, argued or requested?
- The author is saying that Freedom of the Press is necessary because it is constitutional, or even that it should be a part of the constitution. Even further than that, he says that freedom of the press is also a form of justice, that the truth can be known by everyone, and so that criminals “let the glaring truths… awaken his conscience… and cover him with shame”
How is it being said, argued or requested?
- It is being said very passionately. You can tell the author cares about what he says, and truly believes in it. He used strong statements, and was not wishy-washy. He didn’t say, “I think liberty of the press is of great importance” he said “Liberty of the press is of the greatest importance”
What proof or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
- He posted it in a newspaper, which is usually a very reputable source. Also, I think the language that he used gave him some authority as well, I think the settlers would be more compelled to read and agree with his work because he his confident in what he is arguing.
Essay update
History can give us different versions of the same people or events. For example, take Nathanial Bacon of Bacon’s Rebellion. In some reports, he seems to be the picture of heroism, a man who led to poor and underprivileged settlers, servants and slaves to revolt against the malign government. Other articles aren't so willing to paint him as the hero.
Bacon: A Hero
In his declaration, he beleives himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. The poor farmers, the indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, the lower class saw him as hope for a brighter, freer future. And Bacon had his reasons for leading this group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. Also, the government was unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with them would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the bad of rebels he lead. As the into in _______ agreed, “Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority” And finally, they would see him as virtuous because they already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and colonists jumped at the chance to retaliate in force.
He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland settlers were in constant danger of attack.
Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
Bacon: A Hero
In his declaration, he beleives himself a tragic hero, a defender of the poor and unprotected, a champion of justice. The poor farmers, the indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, the lower class saw him as hope for a brighter, freer future. And Bacon had his reasons for leading this group of people. First, He claimed that Governor Berkeley, “…raised great unjust taxes”, “advancing [advanced] to places of judicature… scandalous and ignorant favorites”, and “…assuming [assumed] monopoly of the beaver trade” among other crimes. Also, the government was unwilling to help protect outlying settlers from Indian attacks, on the grounds that a war with them would damage the fur trade. Second, they would see him a person of his word because he fought along side them in the battles he lead, and sacrificed his social status and favor with The Virginian government to do this. Thirdly, Modern day scholars might say that his actions were noble because there were multiple races in the bad of rebels he lead. As the into in _______ agreed, “Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority” And finally, they would see him as virtuous because they already had a prejudice against the Indians. The natives were not innocent, and colonists jumped at the chance to retaliate in force.
He said himself, "Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men...the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell", playing the long suffering martyr in his own documents. In his wife’s letter to her sister, she tells a story of how he is doing good for the community, risking life and limb to protect the colonists from the “troublesome Indians”.
The poor people, the indentured servants, the slaves both black and white were desperate for change. They urgently needed protection; fearing for their lives, hiding in their houses or abandoning them altogether in fear of Indian attacks. Then Bacon comes along with his message of fighting back, it would inspire them, giving them an outlet for their frustrations. The issue was, the outlet was not the correct one, neither was his intention noble at all.
But he would seem so to the people, and why not? They had no other option, who else would fight for their rights? Certainly not the wealthy; and their own government was treating them with indifference. (All sources do agree that Berkley's interest in protecting the Indians, or at least showing a refusal to offend or attack them, was not a product of compassion. He was simply protecting a source of valuable income, which made the poor settlers even angrier. Their government was neglecting them in order to make money. It was hardly any wonder they revolted.)
He was also willing to break social rank to fight the Indians, which was also a attractive quality for the settlers. He would not be a hypocrite, sitting behind his desk, cheering them on while accepting handouts from the government. He fought alongside his followers in many battles with the Natives.
Next, it should be said that the Indians were not as innocent as they are portrayed. They attacks, stole, murdered, kidnapped and even tortured settlers. The inland settlers were in constant danger of attack.
Bacon: a Martyr
Forenote: I'm using the definition of martyr, “A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.” The Zinn and Stefoff excerpt seem to view him as a misguided leader. The chapter is quoted saying, “He probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor."[Pg 36] It seems implied that these poor white Englishmen had no one else to turn to for reform and protection from the government. That brings up the question, was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation? The people had multiple reasons for their unrest; their poverty, the growing distinctions between classes, promises of wealth and land that wouldn't be fulfilled, the lack of a middle class, the growing anger at the government for lack of protection, and the racial tension, all of this was simmering below the surface of the shining new world the settlers had tried to hard to create. As Puglisi stated in his article, "He [Bacon] claimed that he was providing a release for the colonist’s frustrations." Puglisi forgot to mention that killing and plundering innocent Indian villages is hardly a hobby. The documents imply that Bacon had no reason to attack the Indians, and that the attacks against the Doeg and Pamunkey tribes were merely retaliation against Gov. Berkley's crimes.
So who was Bacon? Was he simply an angry colonist searching for justice? Or was he a malicious leader, killing whenever or whoever he deemed fit?
If the sources are to be taken as truth, there would be no Heroes in Bacons Rebellion. Each side of the conflict had their own faults and wrongdoings. But each side also had reasoning for their anger; reasoning that may have been misguided, but was present nonetheless. The Indians played a major role in this conflict. But I personally believe they were the most innocent our all the parties involved.
who were robbed of their promised wealth
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Thesis/ Outline Redo
Intro
-----A. Thesis – Nathanial Bacon was not a hero in his rebellion
-----B. Background
II. Bacon was a hero (They say)
-----A. Who was he a hero to?
1. The poor people, indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, lower class, farmers ect.
-----B. Why did they see him like that?
---------- 1. He was fighting against the same government that was neglecting them.
---------- ---------- a. Yellow handout, Bacons declaration
---------- ---------- ---------- i. “Raised great unjust taxes”
---------- ---------- ---------- ii. “By advancing to places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites”
---------- ---------- ---------- iii. “For having wronged his Majesty’s prerogative… by assuming monopoly of the beaver trade”
---------2. He fought alongside them
---------- 3. Sacrificed social status and favor with Berkeley
---------- 4. United (briefly) blacks and whites
---------- ---------- a. “But Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”
---------- 5. Indians did attack and kill settlers, they were not innocent.
---------- ---------- a. Letter from his wife to her sister
-----C. Did they have any other choice?
---------- 1. No, there was no one else to look to.
---------- 2. They found a leader in one of their own people, not one who was already intricately tied in the government.
-----D. Who agrees with this position?
---------- 1. Bacon
---------- ---------- a. Bacons declaration
---------- 2. Bacons Wife
---------- ---------- a. Letter to sister
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
III. Bacon was not a hero (They say)
-----A. Definition of martyr-
---------- 1. A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.
-----B. How he was a martyr
---------- 1. In his declaration he plays the victim
---------- ---------- a. “Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men… the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell”
---------- 2. He was never in the right, nor did he not have a reason for his anger
---------- 3. Was never in any grave poverty such as the people he “represented”
-----C. Attacked innocent people
---------- 2. Ignored existing peace treaties with Indians
---------- ---------- a. That jeopardized the economy from trade
---------- ---------- b. Ruined trust with surrounding Indian villages
---------- 3. Attacked Indian villages that were peaceful
---------- ---------- a. Doeg tribes ect...
---------- ---------- b. They were innocent, did not fight back even in fear they would offent the settlers.
-----D. Question, "Was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation?"
---------- 1. He was a leader, but was he created. He was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, act as arbiter.
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
IV. My thoughts (I say)
-----A. Was anyone justified?
---------- 1. Indians
---------- ---------- a. They were attacked, stolen from, killed
---------- ---------- b. They did the same, usually in retaliation.
---------- 2. Settlers
---------- ---------- a. Took land that was given to them that was not really theirs
---------- ---------- b. Attacked innocent and unrelated Indian tribes
---------- 3. Government
---------- ---------- a. Refused to help outlying Settlers to protect Indian trade
---------- ---------- b. Bacon thought Berkeley was corrupt
-----B. He was not a hero (use both agree and disagree templates)
---------- 1. Agree- change was needed and he brought it.
---------- 2. Disagree- brought out colonists anger and frustrations on Indians
V. References
-----A. Thesis – Nathanial Bacon was not a hero in his rebellion
-----B. Background
II. Bacon was a hero (They say)
-----A. Who was he a hero to?
1. The poor people, indentured servants, slaves of multiple races, lower class, farmers ect.
-----B. Why did they see him like that?
---------- 1. He was fighting against the same government that was neglecting them.
---------- ---------- a. Yellow handout, Bacons declaration
---------- ---------- ---------- i. “Raised great unjust taxes”
---------- ---------- ---------- ii. “By advancing to places of judicature scandalous and ignorant favorites”
---------- ---------- ---------- iii. “For having wronged his Majesty’s prerogative… by assuming monopoly of the beaver trade”
---------2. He fought alongside them
---------- 3. Sacrificed social status and favor with Berkeley
---------- 4. United (briefly) blacks and whites
---------- ---------- a. “But Virginias planters long remembered the spectacle of black and white acting together to challenge authority”
---------- 5. Indians did attack and kill settlers, they were not innocent.
---------- ---------- a. Letter from his wife to her sister
-----C. Did they have any other choice?
---------- 1. No, there was no one else to look to.
---------- 2. They found a leader in one of their own people, not one who was already intricately tied in the government.
-----D. Who agrees with this position?
---------- 1. Bacon
---------- ---------- a. Bacons declaration
---------- 2. Bacons Wife
---------- ---------- a. Letter to sister
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
III. Bacon was not a hero (They say)
-----A. Definition of martyr-
---------- 1. A person who seeks sympathy or attention by feigning or exaggerating pain, deprivation, etc.
-----B. How he was a martyr
---------- 1. In his declaration he plays the victim
---------- ---------- a. “Judge therefore all wise and unprejudiced men… the aspersion of Traitor or Rebell”
---------- 2. He was never in the right, nor did he not have a reason for his anger
---------- 3. Was never in any grave poverty such as the people he “represented”
-----C. Attacked innocent people
---------- 2. Ignored existing peace treaties with Indians
---------- ---------- a. That jeopardized the economy from trade
---------- ---------- b. Ruined trust with surrounding Indian villages
---------- 3. Attacked Indian villages that were peaceful
---------- ---------- a. Doeg tribes ect...
---------- ---------- b. They were innocent, did not fight back even in fear they would offent the settlers.
-----D. Question, "Was he a leader, or more a character created out of desperation?"
---------- 1. He was a leader, but was he created. He was a man who could rally a crowd, assign guilt, act as arbiter.
Evidence - (paraphrasing quotes templates summary)
IV. My thoughts (I say)
-----A. Was anyone justified?
---------- 1. Indians
---------- ---------- a. They were attacked, stolen from, killed
---------- ---------- b. They did the same, usually in retaliation.
---------- 2. Settlers
---------- ---------- a. Took land that was given to them that was not really theirs
---------- ---------- b. Attacked innocent and unrelated Indian tribes
---------- 3. Government
---------- ---------- a. Refused to help outlying Settlers to protect Indian trade
---------- ---------- b. Bacon thought Berkeley was corrupt
-----B. He was not a hero (use both agree and disagree templates)
---------- 1. Agree- change was needed and he brought it.
---------- 2. Disagree- brought out colonists anger and frustrations on Indians
V. References
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
