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!
In reading the first section, I've come to realize just how important specific events in history really are. For example, had the Boston Port Bill not been enforced, the thirteen colonies never would have had a cause to come together. It's also strange how our views of historical events change over time. For instance, today most of us think of the Boston Massacre as an intentional slaughtering of innocent civillians, but this book presents it as an act of self-defense in a moment of panic rather than murder. I think those two events may have been the last straw, so to speak. They were the spark that started the Revolutionary War. This book also reminds me of a TV show called John Adams, which is much like this book and describes some of the same events and characters.
ReplyDeleteDelaney Ketchum
This first section gives a detailed idea of why the people during that time did what they did. For example, the colonies wanted protection from the army to help keep the French away. However; that was the reason for the stamp act but the colonies were not willing to pay for it and didn't obey the law instead saw it as an act of cruelty instead of good. In one part of the book, there were questions going through my mind of why the soldiers shot some citizens and what really began the Revolutionary war; many blamed Captain Preston, however he was successfully defended by John Adams and Josiah Quincy. I also, visualized the panic everyone was going through and the angry mobs that were in the scene in front of the building near the beginning of the book.
ReplyDelete* Pafoua Yang for the top comment.
ReplyDeleteHi Delany, I agree with you in regards to the importance of the Coercive Acts, particularly the Boston Port Act, which was devestating to the colonists in New England. Your insights into the Massacre in Boston are very good. The story of the Boston Massacre has been so tainted by the engraving done by Paul Revere. It was probably the greatest act of prapaganda of the colonial period! The John Adam's movie also portrayed the Massacre as self defense as Adams was able to get most of the soldiers off on lesser charges or acquitted. It is interesting that history has so many different perspectives. Keep using the Thinking Like a Historian inquiry categories as you continue your analysis of the book. Mr. A
ReplyDeletePafoua, yes you are finding that their are different perspectives to the Boston Massacre and you are learning that the colonists may have been a bit selfish wanting the Crown to pay for protection from the French and from Indians on the frontier, but not being interested in paying taxes for it. Continue to utilize categories from Thinking Like a Historian to analyze this book. Good job so far! Mr A.
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!
ReplyDeleteThis first section showed me how wrong I was about how the American Revolution really started. I thought the colonists rebelled because England made all these ridiculous laws and acts; however this section shows that not only were the laws and acts fairly reasonable, but that it was the colonists who really acted out first. Also, I think the author is trying to show us that the colonists weren't as innocent as some of us were lead on to believe and that from the start England wasn't really abusing its power and was rather lenient towards the colonists. Also in this section there are many differing perspectives from various characters that include an English general, American citizens, and even Benjamin Franklin. The character who’s thoughts I most agree with is John Adams because he isn’t biased and just thinks about what is right and just. I agree with Delaney when she talks about how differently we view the Boston Massacre today compared to when it really happened, although I'm not sure why that is.
ReplyDeleteMichelle Mumper
Michele, good use of perspective to analyze events leading up to the revolution. Although you may find the British perspective on taxation to be justified, their reactions to colonial actions are less so. Continue to be specific with your comments and elaborate more when you respond to other bloggers. I agree John Adams does appear to be a man of reason during a time of emotion. Check out the HBO special on Adams. Keep up the good work Michelle. Mr. A.
ReplyDeleteMatt Murphy
ReplyDeleteI suprisingly found this book very interesting. I was really interested in the Ben Franklin parts in the book. I have always been a "fan" of him and his work but what I learned while reading is that he lived in england while the prelude to the revolution was going on. Also it seemed like he started the revolution when he got Hutchinson's letters and sent them to Adams. I also found that the mindset of General Gage seems to be like that of people with power in todays world. He sees just the positives for himself and not the negatives for the people below him. I think the major breaking point that told us there would be a revolution was the Boston Tea Party. Because if the colonists wouldn't of done that then the king wouldn't of sent more troops over and take away the colonists' rights. Also I think when the Gysee was destoryed that give the colonists confidence that they could fight for themselves. I don't really agree with Michelle saying that the author wanted us to see that the colonists were guilty too. I think he isn't that biased and he just writes from the perspective of different people in different situations during this time. If he wanted to make the colonists look bad then why not write completely in the perspective of english people.
Hannah Anderson
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first section of the book, I realized just how biased our previous encounters with the American Revolution were. As Americans, we are consistently taught the colonist point of view and give little thought to the happenings on the other side of the Atlantic. That aside, I thoroughly enjoyed Jeff Shaara's accounts of the various important people and occurences prior to the revolution. Personally, I found the Boston Tea Party to be the spark that ignited fiercer actions from London, and in return, from the colonists. If the people of Boston hadn't done this, the Boston Port Bill may not have happened and consequently, the colonies may or may not have later discovered a cause to unite them in the rebellion against Britain. It's unbelievable how much "cause and effect" takes part in a situation like that. Everything the colonists did eventually made its way by ship to London. After London mulled it over, they in turn sent a response back. To be blunt, they pretty much took turns at aggravating the other to the point where something just had to give.
While I do agree with Matt's comment about Benjamin Franklin's business with the Hutchinson letters to be of great importance, I disagree with his thinking that it started the revolution. I firmly believe that the idea of rebellion, at least in small form, was already in the heads of the colonists; specifically the Sons of Liberty. The Boston Massacre happened long before the Hutchinson letters surfaced as well as opposition to the various "Acts" that the King issued from his throne. The disgruntled citizens had largely tired of complying to the King's orders. Therefore, they began to strike back. Once they began to strike back, I believe THAT was the beginning of the revolution.
Olivia Vruwink
ReplyDeleteI was excited to start reading Jeff Shaara's Rise to Rebellion as it was written historical fiction in a novel format which I find easier to make connections to.
During the interaction between Sam and John Adams after the so called 'Boston Massacre', I realized how different those two men were and how Sam Adams literally created a new perspective of what happened on March 5th, 1770 (which was really just colonists acting like children and provoking the British soldiers during which there happened to be a lot of confusion when some soldiers started firing) just so it would 'inflame' the people and make them want to rebel against the tyranny of England. If the colonists’ perspective of the Boston Massacre had not been influenced, I imagine things may have turned out differently.
I also realized the importance of what John Adams did, defending Captain Preston. Adams was genuinely a person who looked at every side to the story and only made decisions on the factors of right and wrong. He wanted to prove to England that the colonists were civil and could give a British soldier a fair trial.
At the same time, I recognized John Adam's personal turning point. Before the incident with the Gaspee ship, Adams was somewhat content with living under the kings rule as long as there was peace; however, when he realized the king would take away the colonists judicial system (something that was essential to Adams) just to have someone to blame, he knew he could not stand for that, and that night he became part of the Sons of Liberty.
I also evaluated the significance of the Boston Port Bill. I was amazed that before this book, I had never heard of it before but it was really an important part to the rise to rebellion. If not for this Bill, not all the colonies would've come together to fight. So, I concluded that the Boston Port Bill was a key piece in the rise to the war. I was just shocked that I had never heard of it before.
I agree very much with Hannah's first comments that we have always been taught the colonists point of view and have never given much thought to England's. Although the war happened a very long time ago, I think every American should have a non-biased understanding of the war.
Matt, I too find Ben Franklin to be quite an interesting character who has big impact on events. Yes, he was in England much of the time as a colonial agent for several of the American colonies and later during the Rev. War itself, spent most of his days in France getting that country to support our Revolution! There are several turning points one can point too and I think you might be on to something with the Tea Party. It certainly got the British upset enough to take drastic measures called the Coercive or Intolerable Acts, which were really abusive to the colonists, especially in Boston. YOur comment to Michele is worth analysis since authors always take different perspectives. Does Sharra lean towards one perspective or does he give you both sides? Keep up the good work Mr. Murphy. Mr. A
ReplyDeleteHannah, you are learning quickly about perspectives and the importance of knowing the author's bias. Your comment about the Boston Port Act was particularly astute. Of course the other parts of the Coercive Acts, including the Massachusetts Gov Act , which took away both the elected council and elected assembly in that colony, the Adm. of Justice Act, which allowed British officers and officials to be tried for crimes in far off Admiralty Cts rather than in Boston, as well as another Quartering act that hit the Bostonians hard in the pocket book, all of these acts really got the Americans moving towards independence. Your rebuttal on the importance of the Hutchinson papers to Matt had some excellent points as well. Don't be afraid to ask questions along the way. Im sure your curiosity is high regarding this amazing revolution! Mr. A
ReplyDeleteOlivia, you made several interesting points in your analysis of Section 1. First of all like other students you have learned that their are alway multiple perspectives to any historical event. Its alway enlightening to read a perspective that opposes what you have originally been taught. Also your analysis of Adams reason's to defend Capt. Preston were right on! Adam, John in particular is clearly a bright founding father who provides outstanding leadership at the Continental Congress. He is a particular favorite of mine. I recommend watching the HBO series on John Adams, based on McCoulough's book. And finally you have used the TLH category - Turning Points in a unique way. You talk about a personal turning point in John Adam's attitudes. Wow, I had not thought about people having turning points in their own thinking. That was very perceptive of you. Good work.. ( also consider asking Questions, what do you wonder as you read Section 2.) Mr. A
ReplyDeleteKarlie Merkel
ReplyDeletePrior to diving into Jeff Sahara’s Rise to Rebellion, I had notions as to what I would find once I started reading, the colonists fighting the good fight against the big bad British. I hadn’t stopped to think about how far removed from the situation the Brits were, or how the colonists were much quicker to react to a situation then to think about it, with all their riot-starting and what not. When learning about the Boston Massacre a few years ago, I had a definite image in my mind of what it had looked like. I pictured some barns around, some angry townspeople with pitchforks, and a few scared British army men. (I know, extremely academic and historical-like, but I was 9, give me a break.)When I started the book, it took me a few minutes to realize what I was reading was about to be the Boston Massacre.
What I am still trying to figure out is why England kept the colonies under its reign anyway. Many times in the book it is stated how the colonies are the “enemy”. I suppose “keep your friends close and your enemies could have applied here, but the colonies seem to be causing more problems than they are doing good.
An example of differing perspectives occurs during a visit between Ben Franklin and Will Strahan. Mr. Franklin believes that current political conditions are “testing loyalties”, people are unable to say how they feel to people they love. Mr. Strahan feels that “the job is separate from the man”, meaning it doesn’t matter whether one works for the king of the colonies; his loyalties are to himself, if he wants to talk to his colonist friends, he will. I tend to side more with Ben on this one; it seems that this would be a dangerous time to be speaking freely, or even associate with just anyone. Mr. Franklin could get into quite a bit of trouble if he were to say the wrong thing to his friend or even son, and it got back to the king.
Many changes have occurred since the start of this section, the most important being the creation of the Boston Port Bill. This bill took away Massachusetts court system, made murder or a citizen by a soldier legal, and closed the Boston Harbor. Nothing has changed for the other colonies, though they are all aware that the same thing could just as easily happen to them. I can’t see anyone benefiting from this act. I can see how England may think they could benefit (teach the colonists a lesson, crush their spirits), but it just inflamed the colonists more. The colonists are very obviously not benefiting from this, the supplies they needed to live were supposed to come through that harbor, and now that has been cut off.
Like Olivia, I had never heard of the Boston Port Bill. I had been taught that after the Boston tea party occurred the King closed the harbor, though I was unaware this event had a title, and that it included taking away the court system and mad it okay for a soldier to kill a citizen. I had also never realized what a huge role it had in starting the revolution.
Carly Bender
ReplyDeleteIn reading the first part of Jeff Shaara's book, Rise To Rebellion, i found it to be quite enjoyable. The descriptions throughout this part of the book were phenomenal. A few examples of these descriptions are such as when, John Adams describes the land and farms, and General Gage's comments on his journey to the Boston Harbor. (The Maps also helped)As i got deeper into the first part i learned about the Boston Port Bill for the first time. Just like Karlie i had never heard of such a bill before. It shocked me to know that this bill made it okay to have a soldier kill a citizen as well. In fifth grade we were taught about the Boston Tea Party but never that another big event took place after it.
Karlie, excellent use of perspective, change/continuity and prediction! You are right it is a good thing Franklin did not share his thoughts with his son William who was a royal governor of N.J. and a staunch loyalist! Your comments on the Boston Port bill were astute. However the Administration of Justice Act, another part of the Intolerable acts, did not allow murder, it moved the soldiers trial out of the colonies to Admiralty Courts in Nova Scotia where they would get better treatment. Certainly the intolerable acts were a turning pt in the revolution. They led to the creation of the continental congress and eventually independence!
ReplyDeleteCarly, first of all you need to use your reading thoughts (prediction, making connections,visualize, etc. and /or use the Thinking Like a Historian inquiry categories - cause and effect, change and continuity, turning points, using the past, through their eyes and differing perspectives. If you did not get the handouts or you lost them see me in my office behind 323 to pick up a copy. I will be expecting more in your next blog.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Karlie's interpretation of the act that allowed British soldiers to be tried in Admiralty Cts off the mainland did not get them out of murder. That is a misconception. However, their chances of being fairly treated and even acquitted were much greater in Nova Scotia. Tis is an official definition ---To assure trials more conducive to the Crown than the prejudices of local juries, the act granted a change of venue to another British colony or Great Britain in trials of officials charged with a crime growing out of their enforcement of the law or suppression of riots. Witnesses for both sides were also required to attend the trial and were to be compensated for their expenses. It did become popularly known as the Murder Act!!!
Becca Dottenwhy
ReplyDeleteWhen I first picked up Rise to Rebellion, I thought it would be biased against either the colonies or the English. However, just from reading section one, I have observed that Jeff Shaara, the author, did a great job of remaining neutral on the subject. He shows the perspectives of both parties on the same subject or event, and he gives the reader an in depth understanding of the characters individual thoughts and how they may have changed throughout the book. One area where both perspectives can be seen is in the first chapter, “The Sentry.” Shaara began the chapter with a lone sentry surrounded by a mob of angry colonists in front of the customs house in Boston. The sentry tried to calm the crowd and make them go home, however, the crowd only grew stronger and more chaotic. Later on reinforcements come to back the sentry, but the crowd only grew more furious. A false order was given amidst the confusion that caused the soldiers to fire into the crowd of colonists. From the point of view of the English, the soldiers were merely “keeping the peace;” whereas, the colonists viewed the event as unjust, cruel, and yet another restriction of freedom. The English soldiers were apparently allowed to fire on innocent citizens, taking away the right to live. Furthermore, Shaara gives a detailed explanation of the main characters thoughts throughout the book and how they change over time. The character whose thoughts I think have changed the most were John Adams thoughts. In the beginning of the section, Adams was opposed to his cousin, Sam Adam’s thoughts about a revolution occurring. Yet, later on in the section, when the ship the Gaspee was burned and England took away the colonists judicial power over themselves, John Adams was outraged. Through his anger he began to see that the possibility of a revolution was very real and he was elected to represent Massachusetts in the continental congress along with three others. In response to Carly, I would also have to agree that as a younger student I had never been taught about the Boston Port Bill. It was intriguing to learn that such a bill had been passed especially considering what had happened after the Boston Massacre, when the soldiers in Boston had to be moved to Castle William for safety.
Becca:
ReplyDeleteExcellent insights. It is better to see things from all sides. In the American Revolution both sides had reasons to believe in what they fought for. The colonists were trying to protect their rights as englishmen and the British were trying to treat their empire the same as they tried to pay off their debt from the French and Indian war. John Adams was a moderate when the idea for independence came to the fore front, but as things escalated he became a patriot, like many other colonists. A very good understanding of the Boston Massacre, both sides had reasons to believe they acted correctly.
Bailey Schepp
ReplyDeleteAgreeing with Becca, I also believe that Jeff Shaara did an amazing job at keeping the story unbiased. He tells the story not only of how the Americans viewed and handled the stress of the activities of the English, but he also told the story of how the English responded to the outbursts of the Americans. Shaara neither agreed with the Americans nor did he agree with the English. He did what an author is supposed to do, tell a story. When it came to visualizing the story, I had no problem seeing Ben Franklin's trip to Dublin. Although not quite as important as the rest of Section 1, with every detail used of the poor farmers' faces, or the dirt houses they were forced to live in; I couldn't get their looks out of my mind. Franklin's trip, I feel, is also of some importance. It helps him come to the realization that the King will kick those who are down if he detects a threat. In the book a great example of this is, "This empire still has claws, still has them wrapped around America. All it will take is one crack in the fragile peace, one sharp stab into English dominance, and the claws will dig in again." Shaara wants to tell us as the reader that the Americans should watch out, because how the Irish are living could very well happen to the Americans.
Throughout this section the "Boston Massacre" is brought up repeatedly. This caused trouble for both the English and the Americans. For the English it created havoc and the need to control it's new branch. It showed signs of weakness in the English military stationed in the colonies. For the Americans, however, it created more laws and loss of justice. Later on in the section when colonists burn the "Gaspee", they lose their justice back to England, and this is an effect of the "Boston Massacre" because of the lack of strength to control it's new branch.
I think we can relate this past experience between the Americans and the English to today between the U.S. and Iraq. As a country, we are trying to control Iraq and their own decision making. Yes, we say that we are there to help and create freedom from the old rule. But isn't that what it started off as between England and America? We impose our troops in Iraq just as the "red coats" were imposed on us once upon a time? And don't we keeps sending more and more troops to Iraq to "control the situation" like the English did in the 1700s? Of course we don't tax everything in Iraq like the English did and we don't have total control everywhere, but don't almost the same principles apply?
Bailey:
ReplyDeleteExcellent thoughts and ideas. Ben franklin was a major factor in the colonial decision to declare independence. Good insights on his trip to Ireland. His mindset on how the Irish were treated did effect his beliefs on the English and the way they treated the colonies. Taxes and unfair laws that deprived rights to the people needed to be addressed. The continental congress did that when they declared independence. Events leading up to the Declaration of Independence also had an inpact. The Boston massacre was just one of the events thaty upset both sides and made the division between the two even father apart. The Americvan revolution was a reaction toward British policy. It can be repeated by those who fail to understand history.
Kathryn Block
ReplyDeleteI realized I had many misunderstandings about the start of the Revolutionary war. I had thought that it was caused simply by the tax acts and the Americans rebelling but in actuality, there was also the loss of American control over judges and governor appointments. Also, a lot more time passed from the Boston Massacre until the battles began than I had thought. When it is written in different character's points of view the history seems more real. This style makes it possible to visualize everything from the debates about Preston in the courtroom to Adam's farm in Braintree to Franklin's journey through Ireland. It would be interesting to read what other perspectives would be for certain events, such as Hutchinson's view of the town meeting. Overall, when a leader (like King George) starts to limit citizen's rights, the citizens rebel causing punishment taking away even more rights. Things like the tax acts may not have had such a momentous affect if they had not started this cycle leading to war. Now, we can stop a civil war from happening again (as it did with England) by having legitimate representation of the people in government.
Bailey made a good point about the similarities of the Revolutionary War and the war in Iraq. It seems like when a country becomes as strong as England or America, they/we start to think that our system of government is right and that it should be followed in other countries as well. Both wars are evidence of that power struggle.
Christina Olbrantz
ReplyDeleteRise to Rebellion really surprised me. Jeff Shaara actually made learning about the American Revolution extremely interesting and relatable. He wrote the book so that we could see the revolution through the eyes of both sides. He made the book interesting by doing this because if he had only showed us one side of the revolution I wouldn't have learned as much or been as interested in the book. Shaara allowed me to make connections to the novel by showing us people's thoughts and feelings. I would have felt the same way as some of the characters in their situations.
Throughout the first section, many things have changed for both the British and the Americans. The British have made many new laws because of the actions the Americans have made. An example of this would be when the king closes the port of Boston and moves all British trials. I think that one of the biggest turning points in the revolution is the Boston Tea Party. When the Americans did this it caused the British to send over more troops and take away even more of their rights.
I agree with Bailey and Becca about Shaara being unbaised. Throughout the book I never felt like one side was better than the other. He never sided with either the British or the Americans, and this allowed him to tell an even better story.
Kathryn:
ReplyDeleteExcellent thoughts. Your points are very good. You are correct in the fact wehen you look at history from omore than one perspective the story becomes more complete. Taxes and the suspension of the rights of englishmen caused the main problems. Time made the matters worse. The colonists would express their points of view and the English King and Parliament only passed new laws to make matters worse.
Christina:
ReplyDeleteExcellent insights. Different points of view make the story more complete and interesting. The colonists wanted their rights protected. The British wanted to collect taxes to pay off their debts from the French and Indian War. Both sides had right on their side, but hthey failed to try and compromise. The revolution was born out of frustration and a lack of understnding of each others point of view.
Kelcey Daniels
ReplyDeleteRise to Rebellion has opened my mind to completely different viewpoints of the American Revolution. There were many things that I didn't realize went on in England at the time because I have only been exposed to the American side of things. Also, there were many underlying events that caused certain people to act out such as when Ben Franklin sent Hutchinson's private letters to the colonies which were then printed for everyone to read. This led to the colonists in Boston feeling betrayed by their governor, a shootout in England and Ben Franklin ultimately admitting that he was the one to send those letters. I believe that that, along with the Boston Port Bill were major turning points. One thing always leads to the next and things escalate until neither side wants to give in. There is no doubt that it will end in a war.
This story also showed me that not every American was against the British laws at the time. Some people in the colonies were born in England and then immigrated to the colonies so those people were most likely more loyal to the King while others who were born in the colonies were not bound to England in any way and spoke out easily against the King.
In the beginning I believe that mostly everyone wanted to avoid a war but people started speaking up and wanting to defend their country and sought to speak out against the British. The ways that each of these people wanted to fight back was different as well. For Example, Sam and John Adams both were against British policies but John wanted to solve things with law and Sam mainly wanted to convince people of his perspective of the British's wrongdoings. I think that a huge problem was that the colonies were so far away from British control and by the time information was relayed, something new sprouted up. The cause and effect of events during this time is unbelievable. Even though I have always been on the American side of things when it comes to the American Revolution, I find that I can’t completely choose one viewpoint while reading this book. Both sides have legitimate reasons for their actions.
I agree with Christina that Jeff Shaara made the whole ordeal a lot more interesting with the multiple viewpoints. I liked that he added in personal stories and experiences with facts. If I was just reading cold, hard, facts the story would have put me to sleep. I was also able to make connections with each person’s thoughts and feelings, which also made it hard to have a biased viewpoint which is great because it keeps the reader interested.
Kelcey:
ReplyDeleteEcellent Thoughts. The colonists were upset about the so called unfair tax laws. The colonists were upset at the fact that their rights had been taken away. They would use anything they could to convince other colonists that the British were wrong to tax the colonists. Loyalists did support the British throughout the war, but the moderates slowly joined the patriot side which would enable the colonists to win the war. Distance was agreat factor that helped the colonists. Information took 3 to 6 months to get across the Atlantic. This enabled the colonists to do things that could not be stoped for a while. This helped the idea of independence to become established in the colonies.
Elita Miller
ReplyDeleteThe reading thoughts i am using are asking questions about a specific topic and if something is historically accurate.For the first section of the book, I need to ask what the conlonists were protesting exactly. It seemed to me that they just did not want the English to meddle at all. The so called "boston massacre" was more the colonist fault for provoking the soliders. however, something really nice about the book is the insight to the lives of the men behind the Sons of Liberty, but since it is fiction, i do not know how much of it can actually be true.
THL
Reading this book has helped make so much more sense how everyone was invloved into the start of the actual war. Almost everyone can Recognize the Names John Adams, Ben Franklin, andSam adams, But in Rise to Rebelllion, all of them names becom connected, as well as the names of those on the Side of Britain. what i really like, is the different perspectives that Jeff Shaara offers. When its written like thism we can see the affect that the economic and political turmoil had on the people it surrounded and their families.
I really do have to agree with Kelcey that when all of the facts are told through not only the eyes of the colonists, its makes it a lot more interesting and i can definatly see why the British thought they were right. They subjects living in America were still under British rule and therfore should listen and obey their King and parliment. It was when they took advantage of the colonies, they could not see what they were doing wrong.
Elita
ReplyDeleteIsn't fun to see how the winners get to name events. You are absolutely right that the colonists were provoking the soldiers ...throwing snowballs with rocks in them is hardly an innocent bystanders role. The term "massacre" is a very interesting usage...that
being said history is full of examples like this.
I am glad you are making note that this book is historical fiction and that you can not take everything literally...the book is quite accurate but you have to check before you say something specific is absolutely true.
Glad this is helping make sense of everything.
Jazzmin Nylund
ReplyDeleteWhen I first picked up the book the only thing I was thinking was how this reading was going to be like all the other books on this subject, only the American side thoughts and opinions; however, as I began to read the first section I was pleased to see that it had both sides. Knowing beforehand that the stuff we read in text books was only sharing the Americans view of things such as the British being outrageous, brutal, and just downright barbaric. But in reality it goes much deeper than that. So as I read the first section I was learning more about the British’s thoughts then I have ever before.
In the very first chapter of the book I was able to visualize, and even place myself in when the mob attacked. Sure, I have read and saw paintings which were pretty brutal, but by just seeing the bias side of things it’s hard to really understand the mistake of how a solider could, by accident, pull the trigger on his gun. But after reading it I got the sense of anger and fright all just mixed together, and I knew how both things combined could be a very dangerous combination. After reading it I could realize how helpless the feeling would be even with a gun. Jeff Shaara was very successful with using just words, and it allowed me to able to picture what it would be like, and it gave me a better understanding towards the situation.
John Adam had a very subtitle life in his eyes. Being able to live on a farm with his family and being able to continue his passion for the law he saw life as peaceful. His peace for the world was opposite of his rebellious cousin Sam Adams in who despised the world he was living in as being under the control of the British Empire. Once one of John’s simple joys in life was starting to crumble, the law, his life that he had was forever changed. He had to leave his family behind which was very tough on him and his family, such as his son, but without him joining the Sons of Liberty with his passion of the law some things may have never happened.
Once the thirteen colonies started to come together right at that moment it had formed the future. If they had stayed separated and attempted to stand alone it would have not caused the following events that would follow after. Meaning it has greatly affected all our lives because if they hadn’t taken that action who knows what we would be today. It also is a lesson that I am told today, it’s better to stand together then alone.
I agree with Elita in the fact that I also liked the different perspectives on the people involved in the book to see how the war really affected them more then knowing just the surface of what happened to them. I also agree with what she said about the massacre because I believe it really is the colonists fault for what they did to provoke the soldiers.
Larissa Woolsey
ReplyDeleteAs I first started to read the first section of Rise to Rebellion, I was struck by the author’s immense fluency and attention to personality traits and details. Thus, I immediately started to make connections between the characters and my own personal life, something that normally is missing in a standard historical fiction. Mostly, I found myself intrigued by John Adam’s inquisitive demeanor and dependence on facts, something I often see in myself from time to time. I, like him, react to change critically first. John Adam’s first found it hard to believe that the Son’s of Liberty had just motives behind their actions. In his situation, I find myself knowing that my reaction would have been more of the same.
Also, because of the author’s graceful style and artist voice, I found that images were clearly formed in my head that turned into a certain projection, making it easier to read the text without dulling myself with what-would-be boring details. I could vividly picture the magnificent estates of England, the bustle of Boston former to the occupation of British personnel. I could also see definitive features of each character like Ben Franklin’s kindly, but inquisitive face. Adam’s often concerned , thoughtful complexion. And, of course, Sam Adam’s cocky smirk, nearly bleeding zeal and passion for his cause.
When reading my book, the first thing that caught my attention was how things changed like a snowball being rolled down a hill. It started off as a simple amount of squirmishes (not a real word, I know) that were dismissed by those that where not directly involved. Then, through the promotion of several large voices, such as Sam’s, others started to use their opinions to form several legitimate groups that added their own spice into growing conflicts. These included the loyalist, moderates, patriots, radicals, conservatives, etc. Of course, the groups overlapped each other in some respects, but what started as a few brawls turned into a large conflict both politically and physical with the introduction of General Gage.
And, on the topic of perspective, I greatly enjoyed the fact that the author amused the reader with the British perspective as well. Sometimes, it is easy to forget that a war is not good and evil - black and white. At first, I truly felt sorry for Gage, and his “fall from grace” so to speak. And, then to have to take on such a huge assignment when he considered his military days done must be very tiring for a someone who didn’t get the appreciation he deserved. Plus, I could also feel Huthinson’s embarrassment and failure to find solutions to growing problems. However, I can also so justification in the American cause too, making my own allegiance a little shaky.
I agree with Jasmin with her justification of the Boston Massacre. If I were a solider, I would have found it hard to react within my orders too. I would have found myself firing without understanding my limits as well.
Larissa:
ReplyDeleteexcellent insights. You have a good understanding of the people. The cast of individuals involved in the revolution was kind of a once in a momentin history gathering. It was a time of ideas and change that could be made at the right time. Good thoughts.
Jazzmin:
ReplyDeleteexcellent thoughts and insights. You captured the time period well. The uncertainty of what would happen in the revolution was a fearful thing. The colonists wanted their rights and independence. John Adams was a key figure in the movement. He was very rational and intelligent. People like him used the situation to their advantage to get support for the revolution.
Paige Wolfe
ReplyDeleteBefore I began to read the book, Rise to Rebellion, I decided to preview the cover. As I previewed the cover I looked at the title and thought that the book wasn't mostly going to be about the revolutionary wars battles, but about the causes and actions that made the colonies decide to revolt. Then I began to look over the title of the section. Immediately I knew that the sections had to do with the struggle of power between the colonies and the british.
As I began to read I realized that the author, Jeff Shaara, went through great detail to explain the events that went on in the time period. An example was when Ben Franklin came into the story. You were able to visualize the room with the window being open and the breeze blowing through. Also you could see the look of horror as Mrs. Stevenson coming in the room while Ben Franklin was undressed. The detail that Shaara used helped a lot in trying to understand what was going on in the events of the book.
At first when I got the book, I wasn't so thrilled that I had to read a book over the summer for a class that was happening next year. But then, when I was reading the book I thought I wasn't a bad book and that you could really get into it. I really liked the beginning of the book when it just started out as a guard on duty during a cold day to a mob forming starting a riot. It almost was like you there with the soldiers as the mob began throwing sticks and snow balls at the soldiers and you could see the look of fear on their faces. You really able to see the build up to the cause of the Boston Massacre and feelings that each had towards each other.
Also, another interesting part in the book was the trial in the book over General Thomas Gage. Before I read this book, I wouldn't have thought that a colonist that wasn't really loyal to the king would decide to be the lawyer for General Gage. And when Gage trail was going on he looked very nervous and scared at the fact that even though he didn't give the order to fire that he still might end up guilty. It just made me realize that the british were as human as everyone else and they should have been treated fair too.
I agree with Larissa that their was no good or evil in this revolution. It is only the way you look at one side that makes you think it was good or evil. If I had to pick my side back then when the revolution was going on it would have been hard for me to pick.
Jenna Terek
ReplyDeleteIn Rise to Rebellion I discovered that Jeff Shaara had discovered both sides of the revolution and not just what we have previously learned in our history classes. I believe that Shaara was trying to display that all historical events have at least two sides to the story and usually more. Also, that both sides were doing things wrong and making mistakes especially at the beginning. There isn't one side of human beings with feelings and another side of human beings with a personality of a brick wall. Each side will be passionate in their beliefs and change will begin when one side has enough power to be victorious over the other.
A character that I was always excited to read about was John Adams. Before reading this book I knew only that he was a founding father and a lawyer and not much more. I found that I connected to him rather well and found his life very interesting especially during his conversations with his wife, Abigail. I was intrigued by how they contradicted each other but at the end of the day always agreed somehow. Abigail seemed to be very smart and always was very passionate about her point of view and seemed to stick with it. I connected to her because she resembled such a strong woman in American History, which is one of my favorite topics.
In the first part of this book it seems like all but very few are trying to avoid war which is very common and also sensible. By the end of the first part more people are coming to realize that war will might not be a choice if they want to be free from England. Many more citizens of the colonies are starting to realize that they could benefit from independence as long as they have a strong back bone to their beliefs. One person who it seems like has supported change since the first page of the book is Sam Adams. He also gives the idea of a character who will be strong and persistent throughout the book. I have a lot of faith in his persuasive ways and think that his support of change will carry on through many people he meets and talks to.
The times that Paige describes in the book are some of my favorite parts of the story I especially like the opening scene, and find a lot of humor in Ben Franklin and his strange ways. The description Shaara uses causes detailed movies in my mind.
Rachelle Belott
ReplyDeleteWhen I first opened up the book, I was expecting a very boring book about another war that we have learned about for many years. However, I was shocked to learn that it was not hard to relate with the colonists at all. I think Jeff Shaara does a great job with details and keeping the reader interested about the life that these people actually had to endure. I realize now that there are many different view points about the ACTS which caused the colonists to rebel. I enjoyed reading about John Adams most because he was a very civil man, it seems, and valued his work yet still kept his family first. Shaara said,
"As the law practice had grown and Adams found the days suddenly too short of hours for the work he had contracted, he yearned for the proper excuse, the legitimate cause, to leave his office in Boston and return to the quiet of the family home in Braintree."
This shows his obidience in the office, and at the same time his soft spot for his family. Lastly, I find Paige's comment about the cover interesting. I can relate with him on the fact that the illustration does give the "war-like" vibe that the book is just going to be about people killing each other. However, it does have to do with the colonists insights on the whole situation as well.
Paige, you've made some excellent insights about the book. I like your use of visualization related to Franklin and also the Boston Massacre. I think it was Captain Preston on trial. General Gage was the head general in Boston during the period 1770-1775. He was relieved of command after Lexington and Concord in 1775 and was replaced by General Howe. The lawyer defending Preston was non other than John Adams. Quite the surprise since he was a staunch patriot, yet a fair man who defended the soldiers well, getting most of them off without penalty. Keep up the good work and use some Thinking Like a Historian inquiry categories.
ReplyDeleteJenna, good use of the TLH category Differing Perspectives. Its always good to see things from both sides! Nice job making connections as well. I highly recommend that you rent or watch the HBO movie John Adam's, its based on McCullough's book by the same name. Sam Adam really is an interesting character. He's a true rebel, and founder of the committees of correspondence and sons of liberty. But he fades from history once the war begins. He doesnt have the same skill set as a John Adams, or a Jefferson, or a Washington or others that will lead the new nation! I've always been curious as to why he fades from history. Perhaps its because he did not favor the Constitution. He believed in really limited government and only in state governments not national level govts. that he believed were abusive. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteRachelle- Welcome back! good to hear from one of my former students! Great comments about differing perspectives and your interest in John Adams. I suggest renting the HBO movie, its really good.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Aubrey
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the first section of this novel, I discovered quite a bit more about the American Revolution. Growing up throughout the years and learning about American history, us students learned the basics of the Revolutionary War. In contrast, reading this book greatly expanded my knowledge and gave me a deeper understanding of this very important point in history. This novel emphasizes the importance of every specific event that happened during the Revolution. Each event holds its special purpose and importance in our history. For example, the Boston Port Bill. I had never even heard of the Boston Port Bill before reading this piece, and Shaara gave me the knowledge and understanding of its true meaning and importance. Without the Boston Port Bill the thirteen colonies would have never been established. Who knew? I also really enjoyed seeing both sides of the story. Meaning, I liked how Shaara gave us both point of views during the Revolutionary War; not only the colonists' sides of things. It was quite interesting learning and understand what went on on the British side of things. Going off of that, I appreciated Shaara's unbiased writing. He did a great job of giving readers both sides of the story without being opinionated.
In response to Rachelle's post, I agree with her on the point of Shaara's impressive job of including characters' personal lives and thoughts. It definitely made the book more interesting, rather than having just the dry facts. It makes it a lot easier for readers to relate to these characters, and as Rachelle posted, the lives they actually had to endure. I think it was a great way to spice up this novel.
Sarah Plummer
ReplyDeleteJeff Shaara's Rise to Rebellion really caught me off guard. Not only did it catch my interest in the very beginning, but it kept me intrigued throughout the entire book. In addition, I found it much easier to relate to the historical fiction aspect of the book.
In the first section, The Right and the Power, I continually looked forward to reading the chapters about John Adams. His unwavering consideration of right and wrong and his deep concern for justice fascinated me. However, it also aroused my curiosity as to when he would hit his breaking point. This occurred at the town meeting at which he provided his speech and, undoubtedly, became a Son of Liberty.
However, The Right and the Power also confused me in multiple parts. For example, I found it very hard to follow when Ben Franklin was appointed as Massachusetts' agent. When he travelled to Lord Hillsborough to share this information, why did Hillsborough become so angry with him? Because of this, I continued to concentrate on finding out why he reacted the way he did. In doing so, it was difficult to concentrate on the other Franklin chapters while I was still stuck on 6.
TLH
It was always obvious to me that the Revolution was a result of a large chain of cause and effect. However, by reading this book, I now can comprehend that there was no "wrong" side. The war was born simply because of a lack of understanding between the British and the Americans. The Revolutionary War, although brutal and bloody, was also a great learning point for the future. Because of the frustration between the Americans and the British, it has taught us to better communicate with other countries on any issues we may have.
Furthermore, I never realized how different John and Sam Adams' perspectives were. Additionally, Sam Adams really opened my eyes as to what the Boston Massacre really was. Because of the basic, biased perspective that we were initially taught when we were younger, I never had an understanding of the completely opposite possibility that the Boston Massacre was not an act of murder, but one of self defense.
Morgan did a great job in bringing up the point that every event is important to better understand the Revolution. I also agree with her praise towards Shaara. He truly wrote a masterpiece, and it is so much easier for the reader to further understand, comprehend, and connect to an unbiased novel. Moreover, she made a good point in explaining how unknown the Boston Port Bill is, but how significant it was in creating the thirteen colonies.
Josh Zahrt
ReplyDeleteI really liked how Jeff wrote the book it made it easier to make some connections to real life. But i really liked all the different ideas that Jeff was able to invoke. Before reading this i never thought that the Boston Massacre could have been a form of self defense for the soldiers it was just interesting to have my eyes opened to that fact
another thing that Shaara made me think about was the king sending more soldiers, he only sent them after the colonies started acting like they were heading towards rebelling so he was sending them to defend a portion of his holdings just as he would send soldiers to quell a larger disturbance in england
THL
Throughout the beginning of the conflicts we see that there are differing beliefs about what we should do but as the conflict grows you see many people change their view to be more towards having to gain their freedom through fighting, killing and for some sacrificing them selves for our freedom
This whole battle was a form of cause and effect, the colonists started it all then the king decided to act and try to keep control but it escalates the colonists which then makes the king send more troops and this goes on until we are at war
I agree with sarah in that it was very interesting to see what people would be saying and doing such as John Adams and then how that would change when they would reach their breaking points
Hannah Karlen August 31 at 3:39pm
ReplyDeleteHannah Karlen
Before I even started reading Shaara's book, Rise to Rebellion, already had a negative view on it. I figured it was just going to be another one of those boring books and about another war that we have learned so much about. I clearly remember learing about the American Revolution ever since grade school and we had heard so much about all the acts and such. However, once I picked the book up and flipped through the first few pages I realized how wrong I had been. Not only was the book intriguing, it held my attention and was actually a page turner at time. I feel like the fact that it was written in historical fiction format helped me to relate to it a lot easer and also kept me from getting bored, whereas a straight up historic telling would lose my interest quickly. I also enojoyed how shaara included a small preface and background on all the important characters. It helped to me to further develope an idea of each of them, which lead to making connections and analyzing information easier. After a while I felt as if I had personally konwn each of the characters ha. I found it very effective also that the author actually was able to tell the story after reading journals and documents written of or about the characters so he was able to better portray their ideas to us. Not to mention all the differing perspectives! However there were downfalls as well. There were many events in the story where I would as myself "did this really happen?" because it was historical FICTION so I was unsure of whether or not it was an actual happening of something Shaara just assumed would happen.
Hannah Karlen continued...
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual TLH and content of the book, I was really suprised that the whole lead up to the revolution and the actual events weren't at all what I had always pictured them to be. The text book, very vague, idea of all the acts and rebllious events were indeed not what I, and others, had inturpreted them to be. As Americans we naturally are more concearned with the colonist's actions and views. And as studentst that is what we have focused on up until this point. I realized after reading this first section that maybe it was not just the colonist full out being angry right off the bat with unecessary violence, but instead I saw both sides of the story. That maybe at first England was not totally abusing its power and instead all of the chaos came from misunderstanding and lack of communtication. A good example would be the way this piece portrayed the Boston Massacre. It made me view the event as more of a act of protecting themselves and trying to enforce peace (ironic) rather than a pointless murder. The biggest eye opener for me was the Boston Port Bill. It actually had one of the biggest impact on the colonist (that being that it brought them together) and yet I had never heard of it. I found this to be somewhat troublesome actually because it is of somewhat larger importance than other events. I have come to realize after reading this book that it is important to have a solid foundation on all the events that happended and a lot of them were of more importance than I originally had thought.
The differing views in this piece, whether it was of the generals, colonist, England or any encounters on the other side of the Atlantic, really helps the reader to better understand what is actually happening during this time period. This is because you get more than one side so that you are able to develope your own unbiased opinion on what happened. Which brings me to my next major point of how much I could easily relate to, and respected John Adams. I feel like with his first impressions he was very opposing to the idea of rebeling against England and was very critical of the Sons of Liberty doubting they had a just cause they were fighting for. He did however later find that he was able to see their reasonings, because he was unbiased and later came to support them.
One last comment I wanted to make about the book in general was that at times I found it very difficult to understand or even see point in some of the soldiers motives. Especially when it cam to acts of violence. The opening scene in sentry is the vivid one that came to mind because it was what immediately caught my attention. In this part, Hugh White was made to stand guard outside the Custom House and here we learn of the gangs and different violent groups involved during this time period. Here you see many aspects and such but the way the soldier(s) delt with the angry crowd and the unfolding of the shooting blew my mind. Even throghout standing guard Shaara tells us that White had to repeatedly tell himself they were "just keeping the peace." So I found that I connected with White in a way that I saw some of what they were doing was absurd in some ways and not always just, at least not on the surface.
I really like Sarah's point of the fact that we all know the Revolution was a chaotic event of cause and effect. That's why there was so much violence it was one group acting up in anger of anothers actions. However she said there is no "wrong side" for lack of better terms. And if you think about it she hit it right on the head. There was no wrong side in that they all made mistakes and communication was poor therefore leading to much misunderstanding. I think this is a very valid point that needs to be recognized.
Hannah Karlen continued...
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual TLH and content of the book, I was really suprised that the whole lead up to the revolution and the actual events weren't at all what I had always pictured them to be. The text book, very vague, idea of all the acts and rebllious events were indeed not what I, and others, had inturpreted them to be. As Americans we naturally are more concearned with the colonist's actions and views. And as studentst that is what we have focused on up until this point. I realized after reading this first section that maybe it was not just the colonist full out being angry right off the bat with unecessary violence, but instead I saw both sides of the story. That maybe at first England was not totally abusing its power and instead all of the chaos came from misunderstanding and lack of communtication. A good example would be the way this piece portrayed the Boston Massacre. It made me view the event as more of a act of protecting themselves and trying to enforce peace (ironic) rather than a pointless murder. The biggest eye opener for me was the Boston Port Bill. It actually had one of the biggest impact on the colonist (that being that it brought them together) and yet I had never heard of it. I found this to be somewhat troublesome actually because it is of somewhat larger importance than other events. I have come to realize after reading this book that it is important to have a solid foundation on all the events that happended and a lot of them were of more importance than I originally had thought.
The differing views in this piece, whether it was of the generals, colonist, England or any encounters on the other side of the Atlantic, really helps the reader to better understand what is actually happening during this time period. This is because you get more than one side so that you are able to develope your own unbiased opinion on what happened. Which brings me to my next major point of how much I could easily relate to, and respected John Adams. I feel like with his first impressions he was very opposing to the idea of rebeling against England and was very critical of the Sons of Liberty doubting they had a just cause they were fighting for. He did however later find that he was able to see their reasonings, because he was unbiased and later came to support them.
One last comment I wanted to make about the book in general was that at times I found it very difficult to understand or even see point in some of the soldiers motives. Especially when it cam to acts of violence. The opening scene in sentry is the vivid one that came to mind because it was what immediately caught my attention. In this part, Hugh White was made to stand guard outside the Custom House and here we learn of the gangs and different violent groups involved during this time period. Here you see many aspects and such but the way the soldier(s) delt with the angry crowd and the unfolding of the shooting blew my mind. Even throghout standing guard Shaara tells us that White had to repeatedly tell himself they were "just keeping the peace." So I found that I connected with White in a way that I saw some of what they were doing was absurd in some ways and not always just, at least not on the surface.
I really like Sarah's point of the fact that we all know the Revolution was a chaotic event of cause and effect. That's why there was so much violence it was one group acting up in anger of anothers actions. However she said there is no "wrong side" for lack of better terms. And if you think about it she hit it right on the head. There was no wrong side in that they all made mistakes and communication was poor therefore leading to much misunderstanding. I think this is a very valid point that needs to be recognized.
*sorry that second one posted twice
ReplyDeleteJosh Paulson
ReplyDeleteRight away from chapter one my perspective was changed. We have always seen the redcoats as the "bad guys" just because they wear the same uniform. It can be proven by people like Hugh White. He picked no fights with the colonists, yet they consist on picking a fight with Hugh the sentry guard. I cant help but think that some of these conflicts are the colonists' faults more than the redcoats.
Jumping forward, I used visualization to see how healthy John Adams' baby Charles was. At that age, it was common for children to die really early. John must've been quite happy to have a healthy child.
I used my second TLH as a turning point perspective. Ive always heard about the Boston Tea Party but after reading Rise to Rebellion, it really showed this events importance. It was an action to prove and show that the colonists wont tolerate these taxes imposed upon them.
Lastly, my last Reading Thought comment goes towards the Sons of Liberty. This small group of men will start one of the greatest rebellions of all time. Their spark on Boston will ignite such a large conflict and make a change to the world. We can learn from the Sons of Liberty that such a small group can make such a large change.
I also must agree with Hannah's comment on both perspectives. The colonists were quite rash with their decisions even though at some points Britain wasnt even abusing their power. Things couldve been much different if the colonists took different actions.
Beeca Bacon
ReplyDeleteAt the end of last year when I found out about this assignment I had a negative view on reading just another long boring book about history. When I first received my book, the title "Rise to Rebellion" made me think that it would mainly be about all the causes and effects that led up to the American Revolution. After I started reading it, I was surprised that it was actually interesting. Being able to understand the characters on both sides made it easier to read instead of a book that is just facts. Plus, it is easy to visualize a movie playing in my head and it reminds me of all the paintings from the American Revolution that are in our history text books.
The actions the colonists took, for instance with the Boston Tea Party, affected their future because it angered the king and his followers. The colonists made it difficult for the king to end their rebellion. The causes of the past events were the colonists in Boston, Massachussetts did not want to be governed or ruled by the king's men or the king himself. With the help of a newly formed group, the Sons of Liberty, many people from Boston started to rebel against the king without the support of the loyalists who still believed in the king. Some colonist would speak out against the king just to get reactions and get people angry. With more people following the Sons of Liberty it would become easier to think about Independence and spread the idea around.
I agree with Josh that after reading the first chapter, it does change your perspective. You can't call the British the "bad guys" because they were the colonist's enemy. Some of the conflicts between the Americans and the British were the colonist's fault, but both sides are responsible for their actions.
Reading Rise to rebellion really opened my eyes to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War. I really like how Shaara wrote from the different perspectives of the major players in the Revolution. It was much more interesting to read about the view points on different events from both people who supported the American cause, and from people who supported the British cause, rather than just reading about all the events from the view point of one character. I also liked how the book was written in a historical fiction format, I feel it really helped keep my attention and made the book more interesting to read.
ReplyDeleteI was really intrigued during the first chapter while reading about the solider guarding the Customs House and the Boston Massacre. I was always under the impression that the Boston Massacre was really just the first time that they British soldiers had attacked the Americans, I had never heard any tellings of it being in self defense. This reminded me that there are two sides to every story, and I held that idea with me throughout the rest of the book and kept an open mind to listening to the British side of things.
I was also very interested in the section of the book that talked about the Boston Tea Party. I was always under the impression that the Americans were just revolting against the taxes that the British had imposed upon them. It was very interesting to have deeper insight into the even and read that the Americans were actually trying to find a way to help the owner of the ship.
This section gave great insight into the events leading up to the Revolutionary War. I had always had the preconceived notion that the British were just mindless tyrants forcing unfair taxes and laws against the Americans, but after reading this I have come to think it was a lack of communication and understanding on both sides that escalated the happenings to the point of war.
In response to Josh's post, I would agree that the Son's of Liberty really showed how a small group of people can make such a huge difference in the world if their passion for their cause is strong enough.
*The above post was from Dakota Rine
ReplyDeleteJordan Brinkman
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of the book 1776, the author, David McCullough, Brings the reader to a very interesting viewpoint. He starts by discussing the events that took place in the British commons, which is like their congress, where he talks about their debates and votes that they are having over their dilemma in the colonies.
My first connection that I made was with this british congress. It reminded me alot of our governement(congress) today, the way they hold votes on certain happenings and aspects of the nation. Crazy as it may seem this is a very big similarity between our government, and our opressors in 1776
Another good point that I noticed in the first section was how events kind of slowly led up to the war. I had always thought that it happened very suddenly, where the colonists declared independence, dumped some tea, and the the British attacked. However, it turns out that their was a lot of pre-war preparation that went on before the war actually started'; such as the British deciding what should be done about the colonies and The colonies trying to round up their first army.
A reading like an historian thought I had in the first section was that of the British and american views on the war. The Americans were fighting for what they felt was independence and liberty from an unjust nation that wasn't even on the same continent that was showing them much oppressiveness. the British however, most likely saw the war as a riot from a piece of their nation that needed to be controlled for the greater good of the nation as a whole.
My second reading thought came from the information of the British's massive and powerful navy. At the time the British had undoubtedly the most powerful navy in the world. this led me to make a prediction that the British navy is going to be a very tough adversary for the colonists and a key part of the British's strategy.
Jordan Brinkman
ReplyDeleteIn response to Dakota,
I also agree with the fact that before I started reading this book I thought of the British as just a cruel and oppressive nation that was taking advantage of the colonists. I now know that they were a sophisticated nation with a commons, which acts a lot like our congress does today.
Tanner Jaglinski
ReplyDeleteRise to Rebellion was a book I started and intended to read as an assignment. Do like the normal assignments and force my way through it. However that was not the case at all! Jeff Shaara presented many well known events in his literature that were easily relatable to due to the prior knowledge in other class. In section one of the readings it became aware to me that the different aspects in the novel would be of much value as it showed multiple sides of events such as the Boston Massacre. General Gage and John Adams as each side could really set the feeling and mood to show an almost apposing point of view in what I believe to be the spark of the revelation. John Adams seemed to be a suspicious character though in my mind because at first he seem so mellow and not the Adams we all know as in the Sons of Liberty and a strong voice in the crowd. It was during the sections that a real change was made and an obvious character who would be speaking for the colonies. This section to me was a strong base of what was to come later in the story I felt and was a set up type event system. However, during the events that occurred such the Boston Massacre and later the events that occurred in the Boston harbor, confusion was building inside of me about Benjamin Franklin. Events such as meeting with Lord Hillsborough confused me due to the fact that he became angered and I didn’t understand want an agent even was. Why would Franklin seek him out to just make in angered by the news? As many people have state I have also seen the British solders as the villains or the cruel enforcers of injustice in the colonies. The Boston Massacre was always presented as a brutal killing as it says in the name however it was just an accident. The colonists in my view were even at fault for the killing. The colonists just kind of lived with crap them from England such as taxes and in my opinion were waiting for their fuse to run out before an out break such as the Boston Tea Party. They were placed under so much harassment from England that it seemed to be a turning point saying that we will not take it any long. In response to Jordan, I didn’t the story 1776 so I’m an not quite familiar with the novel completely but I can see how it really was a lead up to the war as you stated. It just didn’t happen over night but it was a series of events like taxation and a rebellion to it. Also as you had stated the British did have a great deal of military power. This was represented well in the events of Boston.
Aubrey, you need to use the reading thoughts and the Teaching like a Historian categories. That said, you are correct in that the Boston Port act along with other Coercive acts placed on the colonists as punishment for the Boston Tea Party was a decisive set of laws that resulted in the Continental Congress and eventual independence. I would consider that cause and effect!
ReplyDeleteSarah, nice work with your overall analysis of cause and effect! Also looking at the Boston Massacre from multiple perspectives gives you a whole new appreciation of what was going on.
ReplyDeleteJosh, I need you to dig deeper into the reading by using the Thinking like a historian categories. Also if you are going to use connections - then give examples of how things in the book connect to today or to your life.
ReplyDeleteHannah, good start, Im glad you found the historical fiction format to be of interest. Of course, the author does take some liberties, but overall he is following the historical events to a T. Good use of making connections and seeing cause and effect in the events leading to the war. Seeing peoples ideas change over time is also part of being a historian. You also did a nice job pointing out the unbiasedness of the book due to using multiple perspectives.
ReplyDeleteJosh, its always enlightening when you read about an event you know from a different perspective! I think your focus on the sons of liberty is warrented. I too would like to study them more to see just how important their impact was on getting this rebellion off the ground. Was it the mob or the statesmen like John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Henry and Paine?
ReplyDeleteBecca, Im glad you enjoyed the historical fiction format and his style of presenting both sides. It really does make the Revolutionary period come alive! I think you were getting into cause and effect as your blog continued. Remember to be clear as you tie to TLH and the Reading Thoughts.
ReplyDeleteDakota - Im glad this book broaded your thoughts about the events leading to the Revolution. Clearly writing from differing perspectives gives one a lot more to think about, especially when comparing the new perspective to what you thought you knew!
ReplyDeleteJordan, very good analysis of the goings on in Parliament and making connections to the American Govt! Clearly they are both representative democracies, so why did we revolt against the English Govt???? And good prediction about the British navy which will come roaring into N. Y. in 1776!
ReplyDeleteTanner, nice blog, some very insightful statements. Excellent description of the use of perspective in this book. But don't get John and Sam Adams mixed up!!! Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteZachary Schneider
ReplyDeleteThis book gave me the insight to the british i have not seen nor heard in my schooling on the
American Revolution. Before reading this book, I had never heard of the Boston Port Bill and its importance in establishing the thirteen colonies. Shaara made this book intriguing. The book gave both sides which I thought was very important as when we learn about the Revolution, we only hear our side of the story not the Britishs'.
The character that I always wanted to know more about was John Adams. In my schooling I was only told that he was a founding father a lawyer and had a part in the revolution nothing more though. When I read that he and his wife had fights and always resolved them, mad me realize how important this could be towords the revolution. His son charles was healthy and in thes time that was rarity as medicine was not very good.
The different perspectives both suprised me and intrigued me. They helped set how the revolution actually started. The colonist thought of the british as impeading on them as they tried to get away from the British rule in Britan. The Britsh owned the colonies and was just trying to maintain order and come back from the finacial expenses of the French and Indian war by imposing taxes. I Agree with the British as they were just doing as they thought necessary to pay for the war. The colonist rebelled and had almost no reason to rebel. The Boston Massacre also seemed from the British perspective as self defence not a massacre.
In response to Josh's post,
I would agree that even though the Son's of Liberty was small, they made and enormous difference in the rebellion.
Zachary
ReplyDeleteGlad you learned something new..seeing personal histories can help make the whole history come alive.