Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Paul Aleckson
- I’m Paul Aleckson. I am the District Social Studies Coordinator. I also teach an Advanced Placement U.S. History and a pre AP Seminar Class. I am the Project Coordinator for our Oral History Project (www.dceoralhistory.com) which received the Beveridge Family Teaching Award. I have coached both boys and girls basketball for many years. I am fortunate to work with an amazing social studies staff. They are dedicated to teaching social studies in a fun, exciting manner and to truly helping students become historians and active citizens. I really like to push students to do their very best!
This is Emma Eiden
ReplyDeleteWell, in the beginning, North American settlers started a different form of government as they wanted to delevope themselves as Americans. But, after the French and Indian War, Britian raised taxes and tightened regulations on colonists rights, hoping to restore its now drained treasury. These taxes included tea and print and also American citizens forced to house British troops. (This being all my own prior knowledge and straight from the text) Between 1760 and 1764, American economic decline threatened Atlantic credit structure resulting in business failures and backruptcies spreading everywhere, which was soon blamed on the distant government in England. Soon, riots, threats of violence, and violence itself spread from Newport, Rhode Island to Charleston, South Carolina since local groups organized for resistance. At this point, many began joining the resistance. On March 5, 1770, "The Boston Massacre" occured where eight citizens harrassed British soliders threatened on a threatened crowd killing five civilans. This, spreading through the media fast, drew soliders and citizens farther apart. In 1773, Parliment granted the East India Company to exclusively sell tea to America. Taxes on tea began again. The Tea Act spread soon through the colonies and lead to The Boston Tea Party. Such acts of violence and propaganda spreading, it was only a matter of time before it would lead to armed conflict.
Emma, good summary of events and colonial feelings leading up to the revolution. A quick correction on the Tea Act of 1773. You are correct in that the Act gave the British East India Company a monopoly which allowed them to trade tea directly to the colonies without going through England as required by the Navigation Acts. However, the tax on tea had been their since 1767 when the Townshend Duties were passed by Parliament. When repealed in 1770 just prior to the Massacre, the Parliament in England purposely retained the Tea Act portion of the law to remind the people of the innate power of the Parliament to tax its people. The Tea Act of 1773 was actually a sneaky way of getting the colonists to pay taxes. It is also important to note that most colonists were still looking for reconciliation through out the early 1770s even during much of the violence and boycotting. Emma, next time you blog remember to tie into a reading thought or more importantly with one of the six Thinking Like a Historian inquiry categories. Good work so far. Mr. A.
ReplyDeleteThis is Emma Eiden.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback Mr. Aleckson. I was actually using the stragedy of determining what's important/ summerizing and I thought that would easier for the next person since I was the first to post. Oh, and sorry about the spelling, it was kinda early..I'll spell check next time.
Ok Emma, I see where you are coming from as far as the reading thought of Summarization. Good work!
ReplyDeleteJUST A REMINDER TO ALL STUDENTS THAT YOU NEED TO DO TWO THINGS FOR EACH SECTION OF THE BOOK. FIRST CREATE YOUR OWN POST USING THINKING LIKE A HISTORIAN OR READING THOUGHTS. SECONDLY YOU NEED TO RESPOND TO THE PREVIOUS PERSONS COMMENTS. THANK YOU AND ENJOY THE EXPERIENCE!
ReplyDeleteEverybody has different interpetations of how the revolutionary war began. I personally believed that Great Britain was a big factor of the how the war sparked. But in the first section of the orgins, as I read, it seeemed as though Britain was only tying to keep what they found (as in the new land of North America and the colonies) intact with their government and beliefs as if expanding the country. To the immagrants of Britain, they looked at it as a new lifestyle and a new beginning. Land was practically handed to them so they could start up trade in the colonies and families could make profits. What they didn't realize was that their home country was just trying to make themselves larger and more economically stable. To me personally, it seems as though Britain had a loose grip on the new colonies. Not much was asked of them. But when the Stamp act created by Parliment was created, it was as if(to the colonists) it was aimed directily at them, making them start to think of a new free country of their own. But I have to wonder, what made this act do to strike such a spark in the colonies to become resistant to Britain, their homeland? Then started the economic slump in the New World and colonists almost automatically pointed their fingers and blamed Britain for the mess. Through the eyes of the colonists, why shouldn't they believe that Britain was in charge of the newly misfortunes of the American market? Britain controlled nearly all trade and with a Sugar act on molasses, colonists feared that their market was going to crash. Petitions were written and sent to Parliment and all were ignored as if the opinion of the colonists meant nothing. The Stamp act again being put in action set such an amazing spark on the colonists that violence and riots broke out and started the resistance of Great Britain.
ReplyDeleteTo Emma's post, I completely agree to what she said of the economic down fall created much resisitance. Then with the Tea act and the Boston Tea Party that it was only a matter of time that violent riots would soon turn into armaed conflict between the homeland of England and the colonies.
Emily Bruns
Emily, you are absolutely correct, England did have loose control over the colonies and it was called "salutory neglect". They pretty much looked the other way as customs officials were bribed and colonists broke the navigation acts by smuggling. They followed this policy because both sides benefited and economic times were great in the early 1700s. But everything changed with the French and Indian War! Overall you did a great job using reading thoughts and Through Their Eyes from TLH. Keep up the great analysis Emily!
ReplyDeleteP.J. Kordonowy
ReplyDeleteAs I began reading this I realized that my style of analysis is always pulling out the most important events. However, based on previous knowledge I didn't realize that so many more factors helped lead the colonists into rebellion. In my opinion the rapidly increasing population scared British government and that is what could have been part of the salutory neglect. Britain may not have thought that the population would increase so quickly which is why they had such a loose authority over the colonies. Britain really seemed to let the colonies handle the issues that arised with the Native Americans on their own. As I read I thought that this could have definitely gave the colonists the idea that they had more authority than Britain later let them have. The British began to realize how much they depended on the colonies after the expansion. Nearly half of British shipping was based off of American commerce. With all the expansion Britain decided that it was time to reform their empire, which the colonists were not prepared for. Much of the reform led to more confusion for the colonists. Soon this reform led to a major economic slump on both sides of the Atlantic. This caused Parliament to create many taxation acts. The effect of this being the 1st intercolonial protest against the Sugar Act. This protest along with many others created major turning points for the American resistance, and by 1765 the protests against taxation turned to more violence and boycotting. This boycotting hurt British merchants business. The effect of this being that Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in February of 1766. Americans saw that their boycotting was effective so they began extreme boycotts in the later 1760s which cut British sales by 2/3rds. This was a major turning point and resistance movements hit big cities like Boson, Philadelphia, New York, and Massachusetts. Riots and violence caused Britain to send over 4,000 troops to the colonies; the effect turning into what is known as the Boston Massacre. Overall, throughout this section of The American Revolution the big idea is that Parliament and British troops had a very difficult time enforcing authority while trying not to aggravate colonial hostility and keep the colonists at goodwill with the mother country.
In response to Emily Bruns...I completely agree with you when you say that Britain had a loose grip on the colonies, like I stated in my own post. Your questions were excellent and I can see what you're saying when you think that the colonists thought it was only right for them to point the blame on the mother country that turned their backs to what the colonies were doing until it hurt their own economy. Obviously all of the acts could only lead to an American resistance so I thought you analysis was very accurate and to the point!
PJ:
ReplyDeleteYpou are correct in the fact that the British mercantile system and the use of salutory neglect helped both sides of the atlantic to prosper. But when the French and indian war caused the British to go into debt they changed the policy and tried to tax the colonies to help pay for the war. The British felt it was only fair to do so. But as you pointed out the colonial reactions showed a great diapproval of those actions. The colonists wanted to have a say in the laws being passed by parliament, like they were guarenteed in the English Bill of Rights. When those protections were not given, the colonists reacted. The British sent in the army and things got worse. Revolution was set in motion.
This is Cole Halligan. Gordon S. Wood (the author) does a fantastic job in this first section of his book. I found it very interesting to see how the revolution escalated in both parts of the country. Many times in history books that we read, it just shows the story of how we as Americans rebelled against the tyranny of England. However, this book clarifies what was happening in England at the time as well.
ReplyDeleteAlthough England had been colonizing for years and years and purchasing land, I don't think they ever had the experience to know how to handle the American colonies. The difference that these colonies had than all the others, was that they were prospering without much help from the motherland. They were trading, forming new ways of life different to that of London per say, and creating new ways to live life in an environment much different from the England homeland. These differences put England in a bad spot. The parliment and King had to figure out a way to control and rule colonies that were growing economically, in population, and cultrually. The first part of the book goes into great detail that England was just trying to organize and rule the best way that they knew how; by taxing, and regulating trade. The problem was a colonization that had gathered a new way of life in the new world, was being run by someone an ocean away, who had a lot of problems already in London and the homeland. The English governent could not deal with the change the colonies were making. Taxing only made it worst, as the colonies soon realized that the way the governemnt was running them was not what a prospering colony needed, nor wanted. the generalization I can make after this section is that it is near impossible for a power with problmes within their own ways, to run something or someone far away.
I also agree with Emily Bruns that the loose grip on the colonies started the rebellion. They pretty much turned away when their own colonies were breaking laws that they had made (boundry lines, trading regulations). Britain couln't have even imagined that the colonies would prosper this well, AND neglect their treaties and regulations at the same time. I also think that the whole time the people living in the colonies were there, they kind of had it "easy" compared to the people back in England. They hadn't been majorly taxed before, and the England taxpayers were paying for a lot of the troops, and the seven years war debt, so I think the stamp act, and sugar act not only interfered with the clonials daily life, but also gave them a sense that they were being punished for England's mistakes. that is where, I believe, the seperation was made between the colonies and England.
ReplyDeleteCole Halligan
Cole, this was a good summary of Section 1 and can be considered a generalization, but I would like you to use the reading thoughts and the thinking Like a Historian inquiry categories that you were given. Your conclusion that empire building does work well when you have problems at home was interesting, but the British empire never had the sun set upon it! In otherwords it was world wide! Perhaps they got too big!
ReplyDeleteSo Cole ,do you think the American's were a bunch of spoiled brats?
ReplyDeleteWell I think that such taxes as the stamp act were unfair. I mean, if I went to school and had to pay a quarter for every peice of paper I used, I would feel that that is unfair. Taxes are always a sensitive topic, especially in today's economy, where taxes are the topic in news all the time. So, yes, I do think they faced hardships. I guess I was trying to get the point that the citizens in England were suffering just as much as the colonials. And thank you for the advice, I will redo my blog on the first part, and will also make my second blog much more in depth. One of my questions is, did the English citizens have to pay taxes on tea, paper, and other goods just as the colonials did?
ReplyDeleteCole Halligan
Well I wouldn't say that they were spoiled brats. Like Cole said before, if we had to pay a quarter for every piece of paper we used at school we would all get upset just as the Americans did. I don't think it's about being spoiled I think it's about unneccessary profiteering on the British's part. Am I making sense?
ReplyDeleteCole:
ReplyDeleteTaxes are always a subject that brings about disagreements. The British people already paid the taxes the colonists protested. The Empire had debt from the French and Indian War. The British felt the colonists should pay their fair share. The colonists wanted their rights protected. Taxation without representaion was not allowed under the English Bill of Rights.
India:
ReplyDeleteYou have a good idea, but remember the entire British Empire was paying the taxes passed by parliament. The English Government needed the money to pay for the cost of the French and Indian War. The colonists protested the taxes as a violation of their rights that were given to them in the English Bill of Rights. Taxes today are not very welcome by anyone, but without a source of income the govenment woulod not be able to carry out the duties the Constitution requires of it. The question that is always at the center of the tax argument is who gets taxed?
Ben Aleckson
ReplyDeleteIn the first sections of "The American Revolution" Gordon S. Wood goes into great detail about some main causes for the war and how the start of the American resistance angered the British. It all started at the end of the Seven Years War, Britain was in great debt after this war, which they fought to protect the American colonies, so they needed to find a source of money to get out of the debt. There best opportunity was to try and get money from their biggest colonies over in America. These colonies were "growing even faster - virtually exploding" and this would be the perfect place for them to get some money. Britain started putting many taxes on the Americans for everything, paper, stamps, tea, ect. This mistreatment of the colonists resulted in not following these taxes and laws. They began revolting in such ways as the Boston Tea Party and ignoring the taxes. Britian was very mad after these things started happening, the conflict kept deepening. Putting taxes on the colonies actually hurt the British more than it helped in terms of gaining money. Conflict was evident to happen soon. There was one thing that was mentioned a couple times and I didn't know what the difference was, between direct/indirect taxing and internal/external taxing? Another thing i noticed while reading was that when reading events that happened in America, or were directly related the the colonists- like the Boston Tea Party, are much easier to read because of all the prior knowledge. Also it is easy to visualize these events happening, compared to the events that are mainly related to the British and what happened in Britain which are harder to understand. I agree with PJ Kordonowy when she says the turning point was when the colonists started boycotting the taxes put on by the British. By the colonists doing this they really made Britain mad and just created a much larger conflict. These things lead to chaos over in America, with the Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party as well as other things.
Ben Aleckson
Ben, good insight regarding the taxation. It did indeed hurt the British more that helped. The Stamp Act resulted in heavy duty vandalism and the tarring and feathering was pretty obnoxious and painful to boot! The Townshend Acts resulted in British manufacturers and Business actually losing money because of the non-importation agreements that the colonies engaged in. In other words they refused to buy from England, continued to ignore the Navigation Acts and smuggled, bribed and did what ever they could to cause the Brits trouble! Good Question on Direct (internal) vs. INdirect ( external taxation) Direct taxes on the people were like the stamp act that taxed the colonists for licenses - wedding, hunting, etc. It directly affected them. The British returned to indirect( external) taxes later with the Townshend act, Tea Act,etc. These taxes were on trade - part of the Navigation acts - Parliament allegedly had the right to regulate trade and thus tried to hit the colonists with these indirect external taxes. Of course the colonists protested and boycotted both forms because they were passed by a legislature - Parliament- in which they had no representatives! Thank you for commenting on PJ's blog. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteJared Enkers
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Part I of "The Revolution" I could really understand how everyone of the time felt about their government. Gordon S. Wood says on page 6 "Between 1750 and 1770 they [North American colonists] doubled in number, from 1 million to more than 2 million and thereby became an even more important part of the British world." Although our country is still in an economic downfall just as the colonists were, we're still rapidly populating. In a sense, we are experiencing only a part of what colonists of the 18th centry experienced.
Also, in Part I, I thought the main point that Wood was trying to get across to his readers was that although people migrated to New England for a better life, they found that it really wasn't worth it. The English Parliament passed so many laws and made so many different taxes that the colonists there really questioned England's authority over them. Yes, they understood that they were still a part of England, but what they didn't understand was why they had to deal with these rediculous regulations. And after they had enough, they decided that something had to be done, thus the American Resistance.
Pat II is a huge example of cause and effect. For example, in 1764 Parliament passed the Currency Act that prohibited the colonies from issuing paper money as legal tender. The effect from this was that the colonists became even more upset. Then Parliament passed the Sugar Act which caused major problems for everyone that depended on trade with the French and Spanish West Indies. Two of the biggest examples of cause and effect from Part II include the passage of the Tea Act which in turn ended in the Boston Tea Party and the sending of British standing armies in the colonies which resulted in many different quaries but ultimately the Boston Massacre.
So many things are changing at once during this time in history like laws and taxes and opinions, but the one thing that hasn't changed throughout the whole proccess so far is England's authority over the colonies. And the only party benefiting from these changes is England's economy which is in turn destroying the colonies' economy.
Ben: I completely agree with everything you mentioned. England was, in fact creating more problems for themselves rather than solving them. They absolutely should've came up with a game plan before passing all these taxes on everything.
John Gasao
ReplyDeleteThe first two sections of the book gives good background information about events leading up to the Revolutionary War. As I was reading I came across new and old information. This section really helped me expand my previous knowledge of the Revolutionary War and events leading up to it. Sure I learned about the American Revolution in previous classes but reading this really helped me understand how the war came to be. Also while reading I remembered when I was a little kid watching a show on PBS called Liberty's Kids. That show gave me good general knowledge of the war and was easy for children to understand. Also as I was reading about how the colonists got upset because of high taxes, I wondered what would happen if suddenly taxes increased in Wisconsin. But that's why we elect our officials so if something like that happens we can always vote in new officials. That's what the colonists were striving for. Another thing I made note of was how the author kept mentioning different dates of events. For example, in one section he would mention something that happened in the 1760s then would go back to the 1750s. Then after a few pages go back to the 1760s. As I reread some passages I knew he was just relating events but because it was not in chronological order it confused me a little.
Furthermore, I thought the attitudes of the Americans towards Great Britain greatly became negative after the Stamp Act was put into affect. Americans started demanding for equal representation but when that did not happen they got even angrier. Americans soon had to decide if they wanted to stick with Great Britain or become independent.
Meanwhile in Britain the government was in turmoil. Officials were changing rapidly and inconsistently and according to the author, "By 1767 no one seemed to be in charge." Trouble in Parliament and Britain's rising debt in turn, forced the king to start desperately taxing British colonies.
Lastly, I agree with Ben on how Britain's decision to tax it's colonies hurt Britain more than it helped. Great Britain gained hardly any money from the taxes and angered everyone in the colonies. Ultimately the decision to tax it's colonies resulted in all out war.
Jared:
ReplyDeleteExcellent insights. The colonies were growing and the econommy was suffering due to the policy of mercantilism enforced by the British under the Navagation Acts. The colonies had ther potential to be a place of great opportunity, but the British stifled that ooportunity with taxes that were against the rights of englishmen. The colonists would protest these tax laws and other actions of the Parliament that took away rights of englishmen in the colonies. The differences became to great to solve and the war for independence would erupt. Money does matter. The colonists wanted their chance to succeed, The British were trying to control the trade, manufacturing and products to be sold throughout the world. In some people's minds revolt was the only way out off the mess.
John:
ReplyDeleteExcellent thoughts. Thje war for independence was about taxes and the los of individual rights. The parliament did not consult the colonies before taxing them. The colonies only recourse was to protest, sometimes violently to get their point across. The rights that they were losing were guaranteed to every Englishment by the English Bill of Rights. The colonial governments were somewhat rperesentative, but the King always chose the govenor and the judges as well as members of the upper house of the legislature. The revolt in the colonies was over who should control the government in the colonies. The people living in the colonies or the people living in England.
hi this is ariel shidell
ReplyDeletei used the packet format
Chap reform of british empire
pages 17-24
preview
-1746-1774
-A fight between England and the US powers to reform (change) government to a new standerd (form/syle)
connect
-we try to build our country safer and faster yet we increase in debt quickly just as the new nation did then
-in anyones life we try to expand, try new adventures and ultimately see where we want to go- so is this how a nation grows
questions
-if they accured so much money in trade, how would or could they gather so much debt for military operations.
-pg 98 when trying to break away how do you accure so much debt, it should be work as you go...
+I visualized in this section men with guns watching the indeans, trying to hold down"their" land
important
-growing away from british rule was hard for the US and England because simply they had poor leaders and poor militia
big idea
-to achieve independence or self reliance, there are many things to first do, then go and do it with the first necessary supplies
evaluation of text
-the new king shook England up but i think it was to prepare them for further events
vocab
-salvatary_not in my websters
-tumults_great emotional disturbance
=insurrections_rebellion
post to john from ariel shidell
ReplyDeletei agree britain hurt themself more then helped when they raised the taxes. and its true all they wanted was to elect officials so if something was done they didnt like they could reelect which is what they truely were fighting for.
areil shidell again
ReplyDeleteReading like a historian
change and continuity
+what changed
-we wantewd expansion westward
-taxes were placed
-thoughts to be a country away from britain
-wars(7 year war,Quebec conflict)
+what remained the same
-british want total control
-enforcing taxes
+benefits
-was for men in US
they could own land and even if they didn't they could still vote
-even with debt they still expanded
+non-benefits
-french and indean problems
-fights -forced to reservations
-fights
Ariel shidell
ReplyDeletechap British reaction
pages 30-32
+preview
-1765-1768
-More detailed facts towards britains reaction to our denying of their products and stamp tax
+connect
-they are interdependent so_ disagreeing with british taxes raises import costs to make up for loses, much like china and the US today
+questions
-why didnt we make a supreme democracy before all of the revolutions
+I visualize one day men tossing sugar over board then having unity and being marry with each other the next days
+Importance
-"...government decided to econimize by pulling back much of its army from its costly deployment in the west..." reserve money and avoid easy targets
+big idea
-its a struggle to be stable but it takes confidence and dedication
+Evaluation
-goes along with previous chapters
-the impact is less dependence on brittain ans self agreement
+vocab
-secretaryship_ a writing desk with a small shelf
Ariel:
ReplyDeleteYour summaries are very broad. Details need to be looked at. Your information is an excellent outline of the book. I hope you are getting the details and the hows and whys. The British and thew colonies did not get along that well as time moved forward from the mid 1760's to the mid 1770's. Taxes and the loss of rights angered the colonists. The British needed money to pay for the French and Indian War. Both sides thought that they were correct in how they handled the situation. The revolution was about America wanting to govern itself and avoid the abuses that the english government had been displaying .
ariel shidell again
ReplyDeleteReading like a historian
using the past
-the past helps make sense of the present because the US civilians didn't want to live in taxation especially not from a government that didn't even run them. This had happened with the tea tax and chaos was the after effects
-we learned to form on our own terms, have more than one representative per state and have only the state level be able to tax instead of having one supremacy ruler over tons of people
This is alex yde
ReplyDeleteIn the book The American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood shows his all around knowledge of every subject dealing with the american revolution. Reading this book so far, i have learned probably double from what i knew before.
We can definately make a generalization and say nobody likes taxes. Especially back in the 1760's and 70's when most people were farmers and didnt have much money. The colonist were correct in revolting because all the taxes on them were unfair. The only reason people today dont revolt about the taxes is because it goes right back to our community, the colonists payed the taxes, and saw none of it come back their way, but spent on war debts. If the British would have sat down with leaders for the colonists, and explained to them that they have a huge war debt, and it was to protect you from the french and indian, so we would like a little payback in taxes. I think that would have lessened the anger of the colonists. In acts such as the tea act, if they would have explained that it was to save a huge company from bankruptcy, im sure the colonists wouldn't have done things like the Boston Tea Party. Basically what im getting at, is if there would have been more communication between colonists and Britain, things would have gone a lot smoother. I also agree with Ben and Johns statements that putting the taxes on the colonys hurt britain more than it helped. They actually got into more debt trying to enforce the taxes, then what they actually got out of them.
We have learned from the past, by making congress. This way, every section of every state gets a say to what laws are passed and different things. The causes of these events during the revolution is basically war debts, and then the taxes trying to pay for the war debts.
Hi Alex
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I start off with a little more general economic comment but I am the AP Econ teacher...some cultures are more willing to sacrifice economic freedoms for economic security and have more tolerance for paying for quasi public goods (think health care that can have benefits for everyone but can be excluded/privatized)...that being said you do have a great comment about the perspective and occupation of the time period and how taxes would be perceived. I also agree that some of the moderates may have been a little more cooperative had there been some acknowledgment of the British of what they were doing. I would also encourage you to think about what other issues besides economic ones (and there is more than just the taxation) issue) are the colonists upset about and if the patriots would have been persuaded by any of the economic arguments. Thank you for seeing that history is not full of unavoidable events and making suggests for how things could have been different.
This is Allan Sackmann.
ReplyDelete"The American Revolution" explains in detail the causes of why the North American colonists wanted to break free of England's rule. One reason in because England put heavy taxes on everyday items such as tea, paper, stamps, and much more. The main reason for these taxes was because the population in the colonies was increasing rapidly, and England could make a quick buck. I think England made the taxes not only to make money, but also to prove they were in control of the colonies.
Also, the colonists were faced with a bad economy and they pinned this on England. This was mainly because England still had control of the colonies, and because the taxes played a big role in the bad economy.
Finally, the colonists were looking for a better life when they moved to North America. However, most people found the colonies to be a worse life than when in England. This was due to England's many new laws and taxes. Again, I think this was due to England trying to prove they controlled the colonies. I also wandered why England was trying so hard to prove they controlled the colonies and colonists?
Alex, I like that you incorporated todays taxes into your description. Also, I agree with you when you said that if England would have sat down and talked to the colonies rulers, they may have been able to come up with an agreement and possibly could have avoided the war.
Allan:
ReplyDeleteExcellent ideas and thoughts. Taxes, individual rights and a better way of life are in demand by all people. The revolution made that happen. The British wanted to control their empire as well as make money to pay off their debt from the French and Indian war. You have a good understanding of the problems and conflicts between the colonies and England.
Paige Van Grinsven
ReplyDeleteIn the first section of the "American Revolution" by Gordon Woods, the author went into great detail of what lead up to the Revolutionary War and why it happened. In the begining of the book, the British had just got done fighting in the Seven Years War and were in a sufficient amount of debt because of it. They claim they were fighting for the colonists, so it was their responisbility to help regain some of that money back. To show they were in control, the British took charge and placed tax burdens on the colonies. These taxes included things like tea, stamps, paper, etc. and also implaced acts such as the Townshed and Quartering Acts. These acts only inferiorated the colonists, so they began to boycott British goods and perform rebellious acts such as The Boston Tea Party. These acts just made the colonies want to break free from their mother country even more.
When reading this section of the book, I found it easy to visualize things like the Boston Tea Party happening from prior knowledge years before.
While reading about the taxes and acts that were past I evaluated the cause and effects of the situation. The causes of the taxes were to help regain lost money from the war, and I believe the acts were put in place to show the colonies who was in charge. The effect of this caused the colonists to go to war with the British.
Allan, I agree with what you said about the taxes having to do with the population increase and to show that the British had control, but I think that the taxes also had to do with the previous war debt.
Paul Dau
ReplyDeleteThe English, much like America today (to less of an extent) were in a great amount of debt. With a new young king who knew very little of dealings with government, England started to tax to attempt to get out of debt. Now logically thinking this should work, and this seems to be what our government now is doing indirectly. Furthermore the English wanted compete control over the colonies and so placed regulations on everything they could. the English said this was to help keep the colonies running smoothly and keep people happy, and again we see this happening now with health care and many of the pork that goes along with it and the stimulus bill. What happened with the British is that people got mad, they didnt like having to pay more for everyday items. We also see the British attempting to create boundaries for Indians and settlers, they tried to to reorganize the government in the colonies. However as we see today government will rush these things and take shortcuts, they dont take the time to do a good job and in the end fail,this lead to boycotts, rebellions, and in turn a revaluation. Perhaps we as a country should look and see why our country that we love was made, it was created because we wanted the government out of our lives...
Allan: you are very correct on your statement. the English were greedy and didnt think of the after affect there actions could have, all they wanted was the then and there. With a conclusion that colonist had not the greatest life in the world.
Paige:
ReplyDeleteExcellent insights. The British and the colonists would start their difficulties after the 7 years war. The tax issue along with the posting of British troops in the colonies would create an anger that just kept growing over time. The colonists felt they had the right to move away from England. They were growing and they wanted to stay the most independent and free place in the world. Good observations.
Paul:
ReplyDeleteExcellent insights. You must realize that the colonists wanted to protect their rights guaranteed to them by the English Bill of Rights. Taxation without representation was one of those rights. The English had good intentions and they felt they were doing what was best for the colonies. They under-estimated the amount of protest that would occur. A government should never under-estimate its people, nor should they disregard the rights of the people. That leads to revolt. Good information.
Michael Hruska
ReplyDeleteThis whole first section goes in depth about how England is losing control of the colonists and their ways of life. The colonist wanted to be liberal and have things done the way they wished in America. This however, turned out to be very difficult because England would do anything in its power to keep the colonists under their power. One of the most important events that happened in the colonies was the "Boston Massacre" in which only 5 Americans were killed yet Americans became outraged. This event inspired Americans to have hatred towards the Brits simply because of Paul Revere's eggagerated name of the event. This was a major turning point because it completely ruined the Americans relation to the mother country. Following this event 3 years later was the Boston Tea Party. This was also a very crucial event which came about from the Tea Act that the colonist weren't pleased about. In response the a group of patriot diguised themselves as Indians and dumped shiploads of tea into the Boston Harbor. John Adams was quoted saying "This is the most magnificent movement of all." I also remember reading a quote from John Adams saying..."I can't but consider it an epocha in history." I am still unclear exactly what an "epocha" is? Moreover,indeed the Tea Party was as it was considered the ulitimate outrage to the British. This was key because the British then passed the Coercive Acts which most importantly closed the port of Boston until the destroyed tea was payed for. This seemed very interesting to me because it seems obvious that the colonist would never pay back the destroyed tea otherwise it would have ruined the the idea of making a point that they would not be taxed on tea. So my guess is that the port of Boston never reopened after this movement?
I would also like to point out that not only did the colonists have to deal with the mother country but also the Native Americans to the West. I think this is something that was overlooked by most people analyzing the events leading up to the War. The most immediate effect of the rapid spread of people from the colonies was the pressure that the migrations placed on the Native Ameicans. The colonists really had difficulties expanding because of this and I think this made it harder for them to become their own nation because they had to also focus on this problem.
In response to Paul:
I agree with your thinking that Britain thought that the best way to get out of debt was taxing especially after their loss of money from the French and Indian War (Seven Years War). I also agree that it was the wrong idea placing all of these regulations for the colonists because no one would like paying more for everyday items. The colonists were not willing to pay taxes for stuff when they didn't even live in England anymore.
Michael Bushar
ReplyDeleteThe first parts of "The American Revolution" lay the ground work for the events that lead up to the colonies breaking free from the British empire. The British were in a great deal of debt and were using the colonists to try and regain some of their money. And while the taxes weren't exhoribant and the colonists actually thought they did owe something, it was the principle of always being taxed with no representation. One thing that I never realized was just how many taxes and acts were imposed by the British legistation.
Even to this day, everybody dislikes taxes. While most people would probably agree they their purpose many would argue the extent to which they are taxed. Also, people would rather have more control of their money instead of giving it to the government. Today there is the Tea Party Movement that is a reference to the Boston Tea Party. This group is in protest of high taxes due in part to overspending by the government on programs they believe do not work.
Paul: I agree with you that our government today sometimes doesn't listen to the people. They spend too much money which angers alot of people.
Hannah Ostrowski
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this book all i could think about was highschool. I was trying to almost connect The American Revolution to highschool experiences. King George could represent the bullies of highschool. The Americans could be represented by your everyday average kids. (or sophmores) King George used the American people for his own benifits/ personal advantages, just as bullies pick on their specific group of students. King Georges' economy was crap, kind of like it is today. We all want to fix it, but it is a slow process. In King Georges' case his solution was taxing. Did he even consider the account of Great Brittians increasing population? After a great deal of taxing, the Americans finally decided enough was enough they packed their bags and headed for their soon to be new home, North America. Part one of the book truely captures all the problems Great Brittian really had.
Mike: I like the way you talk about the government taxing today. Whenever I approach a group of adults, they are always complaining in some way about our government or economy. It really emphasizes what a big deal taxes are, even today.
Luke Heller
ReplyDeleteFor the first two sections in this book, my two reading thoughts will be about the importance and connections. In the fist two chapters of the book, the author really hits on the main causes for the war, and the reactions of the American colonists towards the British taxation, which they did not like. After Great Britain ended the Seven Years War with France and it's allies, the country was in great debt. To pay off this debt, Britain placed taxes on it's colonies in NOrth America. The taxes were both direct and indirect. Direct taxes were cases like the stamp act that put taxes on almost all paper products consumers purchased. Indirect taxes, as Mr. Aleckson said, were taxes on trade as a part of the navigation acts. Also, a connection I made to what i have learned earlier about the American Revolution about another reason why Britain was upset with their American Colonies is that the colonies, after getting taxed on almost everything they could be, had a non-importation rule, which even deepened Great Britain's economic troubles. With all of these events, it was almost certain that violence between the colonies and Britain was going to happen soon, and it did.
Thinking like a Historian:
The first strategy i used was "through their eyes" and i thought about how angry the colonists must have been when they were taxes so much, especially the big 'taxation with no representation'. Also, how they were being controlled by a king that lived 3000 miles away from them.
The Second strategy i used was "Differing Perspectives" and i thought about the debt issue in Great Britain. The perspective from the king's side is that they needed money after the seven years war, and a way they could do that is placing taxes on their colonies. The other perspective is the colonists, and how they didn't want to be taxed for something that they had nothing to do with and why should they have been. I agree with the colonists, because the king had no right to tax them without representation, and for a debt that had nothing to do with them.
Hannah: I agree with your analogy of the high school atmosphere, and that is a very simple way to put it and make it more understandable. Mike: I also agree with you and Hannah when you say that everybody dislikes taxes, but most would agree with why they are getting taxed.
Luke Merchant
ReplyDeleteThe first part of the book The American Revolution talked about the events that led up to the American Revolution. One thing that appeared a lot in the first two sections is taxing. The British were in a lot of debt after fighting the Seven years war and had to find a way to pay it off. They decided to do this by taxing the colonists. There population was growing rapidly and the reason they fought the seven years war was to protect the colonists so the British thought it was a great idea. They were going to get a lot of money and they thought they had a good reason for the taxes. Unfortunately for them they underestimated how angry the colonists were going to get. Although in some ways the British did have the right to tax the colonists, the colonists weren’t represented in the government. I think that if the colonists would have been represented much of the trouble could have been avoided. No one likes taxes. Adults are always complaining about them, but when you don’t have a say at all it just makes it that much worse and once you feel like you don't have a say it can be very frustrating. When I'm in a group and don't feel like I have a vote in anything I know that I get frustrated even if I agree with the decision.
Once the colonists had gotten fed up enough with the British government and felt that their rights weren’t being given to them they made up their mind that they were going to rebel and nothing was going to changed that. They really started to make some big protests. One of the biggest ones was the Boston Teaparty. It was their way of saying that they weren’t going to take these unfair taxes anymore. Once protests like the Boston Tea Party happened it just got the colonists even more excited and more for a rebellion. Their was no stopping them once they had gotten that riled up.
Hannah: I really thought it was clever how you compared the whole situation to high school. Kids sometimes use other kids for their own benefit just like King George was going to use the colonists for his benefit. I don’t, however, think he was doing it totally unjustly because the big debt that they had accumulated was because of the previous war that was fought to protect the colonists.
Luke Merchant
The author, Gordon S. Wood, does a very good job of outlining the events that build up to the revolution itself. One thing that stuck out to me is that the American colonies were economically well without barely any help from Britain. Once the defeat of the French, the colonies sprung into rapid growth. They unofficially created their own country outside of British rule, but being the British colonies, the British still claimed control over them and tried benefitting off the colonies growth. With enough problems in the homeland, all Great Britain needed was to worry about the colonies getting out of their hands so they decided impose new laws. Taxation and the regulation of trade started but the colonies became very unhappy about that. Why should a prospering group of colonies, who for the most part rule and control themselves, have to pay taxes and send money to a country that was the reason many of the people in the colonies were there in the first place? This next strategy I used was “Differeing Perspectives.” The book does a good job of showing the reason for Britain’s acts, and a reasoning for the colonies response. Many of the acts to come, such as the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, and the Boston Massacre , I have prior knowledge about because of past history classes but it’s very interesting how this book goes somewhat in depth about the homeland’s side of things. If you really think about it, you cannot blame Great Britain for trying to keep rule of the colonies, but the way they came about it, with heavy taxes to make up for their own debt from their war (to benefit the colonists), was too sudden and unacceptable. Due to Britain’s immediate unfair acts without choice from the colonies, this initiated a great base for a reason to rebel. This made me use the strategy of turning points. Great Britain’s actions were narrowing the choices of the colonies to either pay the taxes, knowing that as time went on the taxes would only get worse, or speak up about the unfair treatment.
ReplyDeleteLuke: I really agree with your view on Hannah’s comment. The comparison is very creative and depending on the way you look at it can be very accurate. But going off of what you said, the debt the British were enduring was from a war that protected the colonist and also expanded their land boundries. Early in the book it talks about before the defeat of the French, the colonies were become very overpopulated and in somewhat of a recession. Once we gained the land from the French, people expanded to that land bringing rapid growth and high economic times in the colonies.
Travis Kohnhorst.
I never thought of tying all this together with high school. You are most certainly correct Hannah. However, there are always going to be people out there that dissapoint. King George seems to have a reputation for using people. I believe if he would have gone about it differently, he probably could have saved himself some problems. And you nevvverrrr know what's going on in the inside. I do know that you are never going to go to a school without bullies and politicians are always bending the rules to fit their needs or whatever it is they are trying to accomplish. Going off of what Hannah said, King George is not alone. Everyone has been guilty of using another person or taking advantage of something at one point or another. It's all about how its done as to whether or not people notice.
ReplyDeleteAll said and done I have a question: Would we want to be used even if we didn't know it???
In the first section of the “American Revolution” the author Gordon S. Wood provides lots of information about all the main causes for the American resistance against Great Britain that eventually lead to the Revolutionary War. After the Seven Years War, which is also known as the French and Indian Was to the Americans, the British found themselves in trouble because they had such a large amount of debt. They claim that they were fighting to help the colonies so they expect them to help lower their debt. To do this the British heavily used direct taxes on the colonists with items such as paper, stamps, tea, etc. They also used indirect taxes by imposing the Townshend Acts, which were intended to raise revenue and Quartering Acts, which required the colonies to provide housing and supplies to British Troops. This made the colonists very angry and is the reason for many rebellious acts like ignoring taxes and the Boston Tea Party where shiploads of tea were dumped into the Boston Harbor by angry colonists dressed up as Indians.
ReplyDeleteThinking like a Historian..
I used differing perspectives and I understand why the colonists rebelled, I would have been very frustrated being controlled and taxed by the British. I also understand why the British taxed them, they were in extreme debt and taxing the colonists was the easiest way to gain money.
Cause: The British were in great debt and decided to tax the Colonists. Effect: They ended up doing more harm than good with these actions, because eventually the growing tension between the British and colonists would lead to conflict.
Dexter Zebro
Travis: I strongly agree with what you said about Differing Perspectives, i had the same thoughts about this. I also like the part where you talk about the independent and prospering colonies and how they are doing fine on their own, yet are still being dragged down because the British need help paying off debt.
Jordan Kappel
ReplyDeleteThe first 2 sections of "The American Revolution" by Gordon Wood, tells a lot about how the revolution began and what were the reasons for it. One of the bigger reasons for the revolution was because all of the taxes that were being put on the colonists. They were getting angry because a lot of them didn't have a lot of money to pay them and did not see a reason for the taxes. The colonists did not see any of the money come back into the communities so they did not see a reason for it. Today, people pretty much understand why they are being taxed. They might not agree with it, but they still understand on why its done and they see where the money is going. Using Through their Eyes, I can understand why the colonists would be upset and mad for being taxed on many different things just to help the war debt which is not right. Also using Differing perspectives, looking from Britians side, They needed the money and they did not want to pay it so the easiest way for them was to tax the colonists. After the taxes the colonists atarted to rebel like with the boston tea party and other riots to try and get rid of the taxes.
As another side note, Wood uses a lot of quotes in his book proving all the information is pretty accurate and that he did a good job in researching and writing this book.
Luke M: I agree with pretty much everything you said in that the british had a reason to tax and the colonists had reason to protest. I like how you compared it to your life and situations that you are in everyday.
Jordan Kappel
This is Bailey Kissinger.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to start off with a connection. Wood mentions how the people kept their traditions of the powdered wigs and knee breeches. That reminds me of the governor in the Pirates of the Caribbean. They wore powdered wigs as a sign of intelligence and power. Also, he mentions the French and Indian War, or the seven years war. I remember learning about it in 8th grade. The stamp act was also talked about in class.
CHANGED AND CONTINUITY- what has changed is that there are many more people living in the U.S. and every other country. What has remained the same is that the population numbers continue to grow with time.
CAUSE AND EFFECT- when the population grew, so did trade. The time called the consumer revolution began and average people began to purchase items that were previously only purchased by the wealthy such as Irish linen and lace. More colonist began manufacturing tobacco. Farmers were gaining immediate access to British credit and markets. The trade between the America and the British probably caused a positive relationship to grow stronger between the two countries. However, the major expenses of the war in the early 1760s cause the time of great economic conditions to collapse. Prices dropped, and credits suffered. The consumer revolution had come to an end.
VISUALIZE-I can visualize how the people react to all the taxation going on and how they respond to Samuel Adams. He wanted America to claim her independence from Great Britain and the King.
Jordan K: I agree with what you had to say. You generally stated the facts in a nut shell. Nice job summarizing the section.
Bailey Kissinger
Michael H.
ReplyDeleteExcellent insights. The propaganda of the colonists did turn more people to the patriots side of the arguments. As events became larger and the disputes became wider the colonists and the British grew father apart towards the point of no return.
Michael B.
ReplyDeleteTaxes and debt still are abig problem in the world today. At the time of the revolution the colonists were fighting for the protection of their rights. Taxes was the main cause.
Hannah O.
ReplyDeleteGreat insights. You have a good understanding of the time period. The British failed in the economy and tried to tax themselves out of debt. While doing so they disregarded the rights of the people. That caused problems. leading to a revolution.
Luke H. Excellent thoughts. You have a great understanding of the problems that existed between the colonies and the British. Debt and taxes can create tension. Take away the rights of the people in the process and a revolution can take place.
ReplyDeleteLuke M.
ReplyDeleteGreat thoguhts. You got it. The taxes took away the rights of the colonists. That caused the revolution.
Travis:
ReplyDeleteExcellent ideas. The colonists had many different perspectives. They all did not agree on things. The growth of the colonies brought a diversity of people looking for freedom and independence. The French and Indian War caused the problem of debt. Taxation did not solve the problem
India:
ReplyDeleteGood point about King George III. He was a bully to the colonies. He did cause problems by not looking at things from their point of view. A problem for any government.
Dexter:
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. The British actions after the French and Indian War were not exceptable in the eyes of the colonists. Things got out of control and the revolution grew into an unstoppable force.
Jordan K.
ReplyDeleteGreat insights. The anger of the colonists reached a boiling point that could not be cooled down. The British made a mistake in taking away the rights of the people. A lack of understanding caused a problem to large to be solved.
Bailey K.
ReplyDeleteExcellent thoughts. The growth of the colonies by a diverse group of individuals created an atmosphere of independence and freedom that the British under estimated. Taking away the rights of the people who had freedom was a big mistake.
The first two sections of "The American Revolution" Wood brings up taxes a lot and how the colonist react negatively to each one. Although Britain was trying to get out of debt from the Seven years war, but the colonists never had any say in it and taxes were still passed with so many petitions against them. The colonists went to America gain certain freedoms and when their rights were taken away, they acted very negatively to what the British did. Furthermore, Britain always looked down on the colonists because they weren't not part of the homeland. By regulating the colonists trade for the first time, the colonists felt that their rights were being violated and controlled for the first time and wanted nothing of that so they acted against it.
ReplyDeleteDexter Z: I agree with what you're saying about the cause and effect of the war and Britain's need to tax the colonists but the tensions were too high and the colonists decided to act out against it.
Lucas Dahlke
Lucas D.
ReplyDeleteGood explanation of the tax/rights difficulties between the British and the colonists. That was the main cause of the War for Independence.
Max Osswald
ReplyDeleteIn the begining of the book it talks about all the things that led up to the actual american revolution. One thing that comes up over and over again was about the txes that were put on the colonists. The entire taxing thing started because the British had to pay back all the money that they owed from the Seven years war, which was meant to protect the colonists. In a way it was fair for Britain to tax the colonists because the war was fought to protect them in the first place. It turned out that the colonists were very very upset by being taxed because they had little to no representation in the goverment back in Britain. The entire issue could have probably been avoided if the colonists were granted representation in the government, but since they had no say in what went on and were basicly at the mercy of what was decided by others in the government they got upset. No one would like not having a say in what goes on. At first it may be tolerable but after a while you just can't stand it anymore and would want to be acknowledged. Just like if when your family was going out to eat and you never had a say in where you went. You probably wouldnt get to go to your favorite places or places you even like. Eventually you would get fed up and demand a change just like the colonists did. The colonists made up their mind that they were going to have a rebellion and showed it in some major ways with protests. Perhaps one of the most famous was the Boston Tea Party. Being fed up with all the taxes on their favorite items and necessities protesters went to Boston Harbor and took all the tea crates and dumped them into the water. This protest got the colonies pumped up and momentum was on their side. Like in sports its always good to have momentum to keep you going and thats exactly what the colonists did, they kept going.
Lucas: I agree completely with your take on the taxes and how the colonists felt about them. I also agree that by Britain regulating their trade the colonists felt their rights were violated and contolled.