Essay 3 reflection: 3 styles, 1 essay, what happened?

1: Group Interaction:
Very good, actually. Sergey, Kerri, and I all had lots of communication about this essay and what needed to be done, what had to be in it, and when these things had to happen. We helped each other on problems that arose, and usually got everything checked by each other. Nothing negative in this department.

2:Use of Contract:
No major violations as far as I saw. Everyone kept up communications, during and around classes, even after school. Sources were constantly being collected till the R.D. was completed, and everyone did a fairly equal share. By this I mean some people had more trouble finding sources and only got one, where others found multiple, although everyone worked equally as hard, just some had better luck. The annotations were very good, although there was an instance of a shorter annotation, which will be fixed after proper discussion. The reason for not being able to discuss this previously was that we were not able to hold an actual discussion, due to quantity of work. Consequences were not neccesary, as everyone was working equally as ahrd and doign their optimal preformance. I maintained the site as neccesary for this essay, creating pages and maintaining information as well as keeping a messaging system open.

3: Use of Wiki:
The wiki was used a lot. We posted all of our sources and annotations on it, we posted the outline and R.D. on it, and constantly used these examples to change pieces of the essay until it became our final draft. Also the wiki was used for communication by using the messaging system. Sources were constantly reffered back to during the construction phases of the essay, and were eventually put into the drafts.

4: Individual Progress:
I feel as though I have learned that not everyone writes the same. I know that most people know this already, and we all somewhat subconciously know this, but I actually realized this fully during the essay constructino and final proofing. After reading the whole essay, I saw 3 different styles of writing that were all attempting to display information in their own way. Every person had to write the essay, the problem was that every person had to write the essay. I mean that our styles conflicted and confused the reader, it seemed as though each style was trying very hard to display the most information as possible. In some cases the Syles mixed as a result of peer review in the group. This whole process of writing a collaborative essay has led me to realize that unless its 3 essays or 1 person, the styles will not mix the way they are supposed to.

Conflict Journal

Conflict Journal
Nov. 16, 2007:
Nothing today.
Nov. 17, 2007:
Almost had conflict, but avoided due to lack of actual importance to the argument. My sister is very stubborn and believed that she was treating the dog correctly. The book my mom got on the dog said otherwise, but instead of arguing, I just went upstairs, realizing that someone else who actually cared about the dog would interfere.
Nov. 18, 2007:
No conflict today either.
Nov. 19, 2007:
Once again, no conflict today and I am beginning to think that I am just so used to it that I actually don’t register that conflict is going on at the time unless it’s really big and obnoxious.
Nov. 20, 2007:
Finally had some conflict today, my sister once again lied, which is bad enough but then she has this attitude that she’s right and you’re nothing, which is one of my top pet peeves, so we got into an argument. I attempted to tell her to stop being such a brat, she wanted me to be quiet and mind my own business. I then continued to tell her that by acting in such a way she was becoming a spoiled cultured brat like all the other girls out there, where she then retorted by screaming that I was some collection of bathroom words. I then proceeded to relay to her that if she stopped being such a follower I would then cease to annoy her. Then she yelled and ran to mom, that being her favorite tool of “negotiation”.
Nov. 21, 2007:
I have no conflict today, being so elated about the 4 day weekend.
Nov. 22, 2007:
Turkey Day!!! Also 5k day, as I ran the 5k Turkey Trot with my dad, forcing me to realize the painfully obvious truth that I need to work out more. No conflicts, as I was either too tired or too full of food to argue about anything.
Nov. 23, 2007:
I’m still pretty happy about the lack of school, so I’ve been catching up on homework in my room for a good portion of the day. Not much time to have conflict with anyone.
Nov. 24, 2007:
Now that it is Saturday I am beginning to lose my happiness over the lack of school. Almost got into a conflict once again, but my father intervened and made my sister do her chores for once and me to get away from her.
Nov. 25, 2007:
It’s Sunday, so I was at church from 8:00 – 1:00 doing: barista job, service, and youth group. Finished up some remaining homework, and then went to bed at 11:00 (finally got to bed early).
Nov. 26, 2007:
Too much homework to have any conflict today.
Nov. 27, 2007:
My sister once again ran into my room and rearranged everything, on the ground, in many pieces. This conflict that ensued was more of a rampage than an actual negotiation. Luckily for her, my parents were there, so I told them what had happened, and that I did not want her in my room anymore, and if she does she would undergo severe punishment. They agreed to that as long as I stopped chasing after her when she did go in my room, and let her get punished by them. I thought about it and agreed as long as they became more diligent on discipline for all sides of the family, which they agreed to.
Nov. 28, 2007:
Busy with essay in my room, so I have had no conflict. Rather surprising that sister hasn’t come in as she usually does, just to be defiant. Either the negotiation worked or she forgot. Either way, I’m happy.
Nov. 29, 2007:
No conflict, just essay and working with group until 12:00 at night. Learned that collaborative essays are a very bad idea with more than 2 people.
Nov. 30, 2007:
No conflict today, although it’s not a full day report because today is when I turn it in.

Essay 3: The Feds

-----Sometime during the 1990s, the team captain of a football team had some of the best players in the league on his team, but they didn’t cooperate because each player was trying to get glory for himself. The team captain didn’t like the fact that they didn’t play together and tried to show them an example of how playing together can benefit them. At half time their team met together for discussion, and the coach gave his demonstration. He took out one pencil, and broke it in half. He later took out 13 pencils and tried to break them but couldn’t because they were too strong. All he said after that was, “If you play by yourselves, you will be beaten and broken, but if you play together, you will be strong and nobody can defeat you.” A similar situation happened during the 1800s. Some of the states, the Federalists, wanted to ratify the constitution and unite into one big country, while the others wanted to stay as states and grow by themselves. These Anti-Federalists states believed that the Constitution needed to have a bill of rights, that the executive branch and the national government had to much power, and that this unification under one government would overpower the individual identities and powers of the state governments. Georgia supported ratification because it created a large collective nation, which they believed was paramount for protecting independent rights. The Federalists believed that the connected states would be a stronger nation that better protected individual rights.
-----The Constitution promoted better protection for each state through the whole nation. One of the primary arguments anti-federalists used in their favor was that they were against the fact that in the ratified constitution, the nation had the right to hold an army during peacetime. For the growing states, ratifying the constitution would be a good idea because at the rate they were expanding, they would run out of room in the remaining states. This means that they would have to press upon the Indian lands, which would cause conflicts that would require a military. Even if the states banned this pressure on the borders, people would still push against the boundaries, as shown in previous conflicts. Without an army, they would have no protection and many innocent lives would be lost. Having an army during peace time is crucial to the states for the safety of its residents. For example, Georgia found it very important to ratify the constitution. The reason for this was, "Georgia sought the protection that a stronger national government would afford against hostile Indians and Spanish Florida to the South" (The American Promise pg. 275, paragraph 2). It was bordering enemy territory, and having a large national army would greatly help them in times of danger. This army would serve as the most important and primary defense against immediate and serious threats. If the states ratified the constitution, then their army would be very large in numbers and strength, protecting the nation, and the freedom of the citizens.
-----The check and balance system was the superior form of rights security because one did not have to list out individual rights, which would allow the government to find loopholes, but instead used the governmental actions themselves to hold itself in place. The check and balance system that was outlined in the Constitution, places the 3 branches in control of one another; the legislative branch controls the budget, pass laws, and impeach officials from the other branches, the executive branch can veto legislative acts and also nominates judges, and the judicial branch can declare executive acts unconstitutional as well as declare legislative laws unconstitutional. The Federalists knew this to be correct, as shown in this excerpt from a collaboration of their points, "The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all" (http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html). This system does not actually require any Bill of Rights at all, because the regular, every-day work in the branches follows the check and balance system; their jobs are to maintain the country, and by doing this they maintain each other. Not only is this system effective without a bill of rights, but also would be worse off with one. This point is proven by the fact that evil people do exist (by evil I mean those who are willing to break ethical boundaries to achieve power) and that these people have a chance of getting into the government. These people could use the concrete statements of rights in the bill and then find ways around them. This is actually possible, since these rights could not change with the times, being written as basic building blocks of the government. By not being written, the rights could be enforced by the branches, and if these malicious people somehow got into the government, they would be unable to find loopholes around an ever-changing right (these changes would be fueled by the people, not the actual government). This system of checks and balances held the government in a way that it could not free itself from the people’s control. The same dangers were also prevented by putting this effective system over the states.
-----The constitution brought the states together as one, but it also gave them their individuality. One of the most important factors of individuality in the states was the ability to set up their own laws. The state could control everything within itself. The state government was picked by the citizens in the state, not by the national government. The government controlled the schools, trade, and infrastructures. They could decide what would be built, where, when, and how, they could set laws picking what could be traded and with whom, and they could control how much money was put into the schools, who can attend, and who would teach in the schools. They also controlled the land where the citizens could live on. The national government still controlled most of the state, but that didn’t mean that they overwrote the laws of the state. Some of the government officials were there solely to represent the state in Congress, which prevented the state rights from being squashed by the national government: two were sent to Congress, and a number of representatives went to the House of Representatives, depending on the size of the state. This system of representation is plenty enough, which was also believed by the Federalists, "...Senate (with two representatives per state) adequately represented state interests" (http://www.polytechnic.org/faculty/gfeldmeth/chart.fed.pdf). The National government can still pass laws that affect the state, but these laws are more widespread, where the state laws are more specific. These abilities allowed them to maintain its individual identity, while also staying under the policies and rules of the national government.
-----The ratification was the better choice for protecting individual rights, not as separate states but as a nation. The United States Constitution increased the amount of physical protection, by defending and supporting the individual and their rights. They did not create a list of rights because there would be loop holes. The check and balance system left it to the actions of the branches of the government to hold themselves in place. States had their own identity, but still were a part of one nation. This created more stability and security for each state. If the ratification of the constitution never occurred, our country now would probably not have as a sufficient government as it does. People’s rights would probably not be protected to the extent they are, and they would be divided. As Abraham Lincoln said “United we stand, and divided we fall”.

(Who done what:
Intro + Paragraph 1: Sergey
Paragraph 2 + 1/2 Paragraph 3 + Overview: Brady
1/2 Paragraph 3 + Conclusion: Kerri)

Essay (R.D.) 3: The Feds

Sometime during the 1990s, a team captain of football team had one of the best players. Each team member wanted their own glory and reputation. In order to achieve their own goals, each member tried to do everything by themselves. When they had the opportunity to play with their team members, they didn’t. During their last game of the season, they played their usual way and were losing. At the end of the first half time, they went inside their locker and their captain had a word with them. He tried to tell them that if they played together, they have a greater chance of winning. To prove his point, he took out one wooden pencil and gave it to one of the players and told him to break it in half. That player did it with ease. Then he took out all of the remaining pencils, put them together, and gave them to the same player with the same request. The player tried to break them in half but couldn’t because together they were too strong. At the end, he only said one sentence; “If you play by yourselves, you will be beaten and broken but if you play together, you will be strong and nobody will defeat you.” With those words in mind, they played their second half time like a team and won. A similar situation happened during the 1800s. Some of the states, the Federalists, wanted to ratify the constitution and unite into one big country, while the others wanted to stay as states and grow by themselves. These states, the Anti-Federalists, believed that the country shouldn’t be able to maintain an army in peacetime, that there had to be a bill of rights, that the executive branch held too much power, and that the Constitution gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments. The Federalist states supported ratification because it created a large collective nation, which they believed was paramount for protecting independent rights. The sates for the ratification of the constitution believed that the connected sates would be a stronger nation and a better way to rule the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution promoted better physical protection for every state through the whole nation. One of the primary arguments anti-federalists used in their favor was that they were against the fact that in the ratified constitution, the nation had the right to hold an army during peacetime. To the growing states, ratifying the constitution would be a good idea because at the rate they are expanding, the will run out of room in the remaining states for people to have private property. To satisfy the people, they will need more land and the only land they can get belongs to the Indians. A similar situation can happen that occurred during Bacon’s Rebellion. The states will prohibit people trespassing on Indian land but they will still do it. If people are going to do that, then the Indians will start fighting with those states. Without an army, they will have no protection and many innocent lives can be lost. Having an army during peace time is crucial to the states for the safety of its residents. For Georgia, it was very important to ratify the constitution. "Georgia sought the protection that a stronger national government would afford against hostile Indians and Spanish Florida to the South" (The American Promise pg. 275, paragraph 2).It was bordering unfamiliar territory and anything can happen from those. Having an army at peacetime is always needed and the American Revolution proved that. When the British attacked, there was no army at that moment and it took about 2 years for the army to form. If the army would have been present earlier, then there would have been less violence. It is better to have a big army fighting a small army rather than having a small army fighting a small army. If the states ratify the constitution, then their army would be very large in numbers and strength.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The check and balance system was the superior form of rights security because one did not have to list out individual rights, which would allow the government to find loopholes, but instead used the governmental actions themselves to hold itself in place. The check and balance system that was outlined in the Constitution, places the 3 branches in control of one another; the legislative branch controls the budget, pass laws, and impeach officials from the other branches, the executive branch can veto legislative acts and also nominates judges, and the judicial branch can declare executive acts unconstitutional as well as declare legislative laws unconstitutional. The Federalists knew this to be correct, as shown in this excerpt from a collaboration of their points, "The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another. A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at all" (http://library.thinkquest.org/11572/creation/framing/feds.html). This system does not actually require any Bill of Rights at all, because the regular, every-day work in the branches follows the check and balance system; their jobs are to maintain the country, and by doing this they maintain each other. Not only is this system effective without a bill of rights, but also would be worse off with one. This point is proven by the fact that evil people do exist (by evil I mean those who are willing to break ethical boundaries to achieve power) and that these people have a chance of getting into the government. These people could use the concrete statements of rights in the bill and then find ways around them. This is actually possible, since these rights could not change with the times, being written as basic building blocks of the government. By not being written, the rights could be enforced by the branches, and if these malicious people somehow got into the government, they would be unable to find loopholes around an ever-changing right (these changes would be fueled by the people, not the actual government). This system of checks and balances held the government in a way that it could not free itself from the people’s control. The same dangers were also prevented by putting this effective system over the states.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The constitution brought the states together as one, but it also gave them their individuality. One of the most important factors of individuality in the states was the ability to set up their own laws. The state could control everything within itself. The state government was picked by the citizens in the state, not by the national government. The government controlled the schools, trade, and infrastructures. They could decide what would be built, where, when, and how, they could set laws picking what could be traded and with whom, and they could control how much money was put into the schools, who can attend, and who would teach in the schools. They also controlled the land where the citizens could live on. The national government still controlled most of the state, but that didn’t mean that they overwrote the laws of the state. Some of the government officials were there solely to represent the state in Congress, which prevented the state rights from being squashed by the national government: two were sent to Congress, and a number of representatives went to the House of Representatives, depending on the size of the state. This system of representation is plenty enough, which was also believed by the Federalists, "...Senate (with two representatives per state) adequately represented state interests" (http://www.polytechnic.org/faculty/gfeldmeth/chart.fed.pdf). The National government can still pass laws that affect the state, but these laws are more widespread, where the state laws are more specific. These abilities allowed them to maintain its individual identity, while also staying under the policies and rules of the national government.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ratification was the better choice for protecting individual rights, not as separate states but as a nation. The United States Constitution increased the amount of physical protection, by defending and supporting the individual and their rights. They did not create a list of rights because there would be loop holes. The check and balance system left it to the actions of the branches of the government to hold themselves in place. States had their own identity, but still were a part of one nation. This created more stability and security for each state. If the ratification of the constitution never occurred, our country now would probably not have as a sufficient government as it does. People’s rights would probably not be protected to the extent they are, and they would be divided. As Abraham Lincoln said “United we stand, and divided we fall”.

Essay 2: The Tory Report

This is a reflection on the second essay written for Writing 101.
1- My first essay contained a lot of writing and was all over the map. I said things using more words than neccesary and my topics were not always precisely answered. This second essay that I wrote (or at least the first part, the second part was written by my partner) had a centralized topic that was constantly reffered to and was checked five times over for wordiness, four of those times were by different people.
2- The meshing of the two parts was severly stubbed by a connection problem with my partner. His internet was down for the whole weekend until about one hour before the due time, so we had little time to mesh the two together, although he did have my thesis and an example of my writing style for the essay to go off of. We were attempting to copy a newspaper format, and the article would be the letter from a Royal Governor (loyalist)to warn the colonists of the Patriots, and the second part was the retort to the letter by a Patriot merchant. I think that the meshing in terms of points addressed is very good, for the points that are being touched upon are about the same events, but the discussion and ideas surrounding those events are different due to the opposing views.
3- Luckily, our views were fairly similar in the sense of the format and writing, and as long as we followed the format we had agreed on, it was ok how we wrote. If one of us saw a problem, the other one was actually expecting a problem to be found so that they could fix it. What I mean by this is that we checked each others works because the other was looking for any mistakes he might have made. Overall, we both worked hard and that was evident in the reports from each other and the meshing between the two sections was fairly suprising in the way it was accomplished, which was that it was actually accomplished in that short amount of time. If I were to grade the project, I would say it earns an P+ for the first section and a P for the second.

"New England Times: The Rift: Loyalist or Patriot?" by Brady McConnell and Johan Horton

-- This Article is written by the royal governor of Connecticut, Terrance Gladstone, during the time when he was living in the loyalist area of New York before he left for Nova Scotia. His views are directed towards the loyalist side of this situation. Here is some background information before we post his argument: Terrance Gladstone was born in Norfolk, Connecticut, he attended Northern Charles University, and he became married to Elliot Granton, who bore him two children, one of which died while in the process of labor. He became a prominent figure in the colonial trade with Britain as a successful merchant and fought in the French and Indian War under a British commander. Afterwards he ran for the position, Royal Governor of Connecticut, and won. During his reign in office, he was constantly pushing the significance of the bond between Britain and the colonies and always enforced loyalty as the highest policy. When the split began, he frantically worked to hold back the rebellion in Connecticut, but the people were becoming angry and discontent as his British loyalty, so he fled to New York. The following letter he wrote was meant to be published by the papers in order to warn the colonists of the danger in their actions and ideals.






By: Terrance Gladstone
-- I feel that as a royal governor that I must bring forth my opinion of this ever-growing political split as a way to revive the sense of loyalty and sanity to the British Colonies. There seems to be a collection of colonists, most of which are located in Boston, who believe that the British government is unfairly taking advantage of its colonies. These rebellious men are ignoring the fact that they are not being suppressed, but asked, to help. Not only are they ignorant of this, but they are also unaware of how their actions affect the rest of us. Their boycotts and unreasonable actions are diminishing our economy by preventing trade. Not only that, but Parliament has to come down more forcefully, not just on these rebels, but everyone. Loyalty in Trade and loyalty in obedience are the only actions that Britain requires in return for its aid. These Patriots are taking away the only thing allowing us to survive: loyalty to Britain.
-- First off, these Patriots have attacked our loyalty of trade by committing such offensive actions as the Boston tea party. The tax on Tea was a necessity for the British Empire due to its noble actions during the French and Indian war. These “patriots” are just being ignorant of the fact that Britain is our main lifeline and we would not be in our current position of such success if it were not for the British Empire and the power and energies they have spent to maintain these collective Colonies. Such acts as these are attempts to revive what used to be contained in the holes that are currently residing in Britain’s national treasury due to the war that was recently fought on our behalf. Of all things, we should be grateful that we are not all dead, or worse, controlled by the French, whose king is not concerned with the needs of his Nation, but more with the needs and wants of himself and his nobles. The Tea Act, and others like it, are only duties we should be fulfilling since we are British citizens.
-- The next action that I am lamenting about is the outrageous happening of the riot in Boston that is currently dubbed the Boston Massacre, which shows the absolute disrespect for the protection of the British. I cannot say this enough, we should be grateful for what the British are providing us, especially their protection, since it has been shown recently in the war with France. We should not bite the hand that feeds us, or in this case, shields us. The rioting and actions that occurred on this day were deserving of discipline, and although I do not give my consent to the deaths of those people, I do believe that punishment was in order for such outrageous behavior to Britain’s own military force that is here to protect us, no less! Rioting and throwing objects at the military who risk their lives for us is not at all acceptable behavior in any circumstance. Any repercussions from those actions were brought on for that reason, not for the intent of a tyrannical massacre!
-- Another series of actions have come to my attention, and that is the
frequency of meetings, consisting of those who wish to oppose the government, which is a direct violation of our loyal obedience to Britain. These people, who so thoroughly oppose the government set in place by the British, are even further betraying our strong relationship with Britain. All we have to give Britain in return for its superior support is loyalty, and betraying this gift with meetings and conferences, with the sole purpose of opposing laws set in place by the government, is breaking apart our side of the bond with Britain.
-- The actions of the Patriots will not bring its members liberty, but death. All of this talk of freedom from the tyrants is the sure way to receive a quick separation from the nation that protects, trades, and supports us, which will lead to a complete annihilation of these colonies. The British have showed their willingness to sustain us and our needs time and again, through wars, trades, and influence. All that they require from us is to honor our side of the bargain, and provide our loyalty. When we deny them that part of the agreement, they will leave us to rot without any security, permanent trade partner, or increasing economy.








-- THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER BY THE ROYAL GOVERNER, TERRANCE GLADSTONE. IT WAS WRITTEN BY LAWRANCE CODWELL, A WELL KNOWN MERCHANT FROM MASSACHUSETTS. HE HAS BEEN A MERCHANT MOST OF HIS LIFE AND HAS ALWAYS RESIDED IN MASSACHUSETTS ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER CHRISTOPHER AND HIS TWO SISTERS SUSANE AND MARGRET; LAWRANCE IS ALSO THE HUSBAND OF ELIZABETH CODWELL AND THEY HAVE FIVE CHILDREN TOGETHER. LAWRANCE SHARES AN OPENLY PATRIOTIC VIEW AND WAS VERY UPSET WHEN HE READ GLADSTONE’S LETTER IN THE NEW YORK PAPER. IN THIS LETTER, HE ADDRESSES AND CONTRADICTS GOVERNOR GLADSTONE’S ARGUMENTS AS WRITTEN IN HIS LETTER FROM NEW YORK.



By Lawrance Codwell
-- NOBODY HAS BEEN MORE OF A WITNESS TO THE OFFENSES OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE ON THE COLONIES THEN THE MERCHANTS OF NEW ENGLAND. EVERY DAY WE SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE EXTREME AND UNNECESARY TAXATIONS ON THE PEOPLES OF THESE COLONIES OF AMERICA. THEY HAVE BEEN TAXED TO THE LIMITS OF WHAT THEY CAN HANDLE AND AFFORD AND HAVE HAD THEIR RIGHTS VIOLATED, AND YET THE BRITISH AND THE LOYALISTS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO FIGHT BACK FOR OUR OWN RIGHTS; THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO STAND UP FOR OURSELVES AGAINST THE MIGHTY BRITISH SEEMS UBSURD TO THEM. YET WHEN WE TRY TO REASON WITH PARLIAMENT THEY IGNORE OUR WORDS, AND WHEN VIOLENCE IS IN OUR STREETS AND THE THREAT OF WAR KNOCKING ON OUR DOORS, THEY INACT MORE ACTS THAT FURTHER DEFILE OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES AS CITIZENS OF GREAT BRITIAN. THESE ACTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLAMENTED ON THESE COLONIES BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE, SUCH AS THE STAMP ACT AND THE COERCIVE ACTS, OR OTHERWISE NAMED THE INTOLERABLE ACTS, DEMINISH OUR RIGHTS AS BRITISH CITIZENS AND HAVE DRIVEN US TO REBEL AGAINST OUR HOME COUNTRY OF GREAT BRITAIN.
-- THE BOSTON TEA PARTY WAS SEEN BY THE LOYALISTS AS, AS TERRANCE GLADSTONE PUTS IT, AN “OFFENSIVE ACT”, ALTHOUGH THIS WAS A DIPLAY OF BRAVERY, NOT OF “IGNORANCE”. THE BOSTON TEA PARTY WAS A NECESSARY ACT, A GATHERING OF COURAGEOUS MEN STANDING UP FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONIES; THE RIGHTS THAT BRITAIN HAS TRAMPLED UPON IN THEIR SELFISH PURSUIT OF TAXATION. THE TEA ACT THAT THESE MEN REBELLED AGAINST WAS NOT ESSENTIAL TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT. THE CITIZENS OF GREAT BRITAIN ARE NOT SUBJECT TO SUCH A TAX ON TEA. ARE THEY TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED BRITISH CITIZENS; ARE WE OF LESS VALUE TO THE KING IN OUR DISTANT COLONIES THEN THE PEOPLE RESIDING IN GREAT BRITAIN. WE, AS CITIZENS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, DESERVE AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO EQUAL LIBERTIES AS THOSE IN GREAT BRITAIN. IF IT WEREN’T FOR THE BRAVE MEN RESPONISIBLE FOR THE BOSTEN TEA PARTY, THERE WOULD MOST LIKLEY BE MANY MORE TAXES AND ACTS PASSED THAT WOULD FURTHER EXPLOIT THE COLONISTS.
-- IF SUCH AN EVENT AS THE BOSTON MASSACRE WERE TO HAPPEN IN GREAT BRITAIN, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AUTROCITY, BUT IN THE COLONIES IT HAS BEEN DOWNPLAYED CONSIDARABLY BY LOYALIST OFFICAILS SUCH AS TERRANCE GLADSTONE. HE SPEAKS AS IF THE MEN WHOSE LIVES WERE TAKEN DESERVED TO DIE IN COLD BLOODED MURDER; BUT I ASSURE YOU, THE MURDERS OF THESE FIVE INNOCENT MEN IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY, ESPECIALY WHEN THE SOLDEIRS ARE “ HERE TO PROTECT US” AND ORDERS WERE GIVEN TO THE SOLDIERS NOT TO FIRE ON THE CROUD. THE THROWING OF SNOWBALLS DID NOT GIVE SOLDIERS THE RIGHT TO SHOOT INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE AND TAKE AWAY OTHERS LIVES. THE FACT THAT SOLDEIRS ARE EVEN PRESENT IN THE COLONIES IS A VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHTS AS BRITISH CITIZENS. WE DESERVE TO BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH THE STREETS WITHOUT THE THREAT OF SOLDIERS SHOOTING US.
-- ANOTHER “PROBLEM” THAT GOVERNER GLADSTONE ADDRESSES IN HIS LETTER IS THE PATRIOT MEETINGS BEING HELD BY THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO STAND UP FOR THE RIGHTS WHICH GREAT BRITAIN HAS CRUSHED. HE SAYS THAT THE PEOPLE HOLDING AND ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS ARE “BETRAYING OUR STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH BRITAIN”; THAT ALL BRITAIN WANTS FROM US IS “LOYALTY”. WELL I SAY THAT’S COMPLETE RUBBISH! BRITAIN IS ONLY WORRIED ABOUT MONEY AND POWER, NOT THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COLONIES. IF PARLIAMENT REALLY CARED ABOUT THE “STRONG RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN THE TWO THEN OUR RIGHTS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND WE WOULD HAVE NO NEED TO HOLD SUCH MEETINGS. THESE MEETINGS DID NOT TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE RIGHTS OF THE COLONISTS WERE TAKEN AWAY BY THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND THE NUMEROUS ACTS EMPOSED BY THEM. THEY ARE A RESULT OF BRITAIN’S PURSUIT OF POWER AND MONEY, AND ARE AIMED TOWARD ABOLISHING THE ACTS PLACED ON THE COLONIES AND RESTORING A BETTER RELATIONSHIP WITH GREAT BRITAIN.
-- GOVERNER GLADSTONE’S VEIWS OF THE RECENT INCEDENTS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE COLONIES GREATLY SHOWS HIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION. HE IS BLINDLY FOLLOWING IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF A NATION INTENT ON CAPATALIZING THEMSELVES AS MUCH AS POSIBLE, NOMATTER WHAT RELATIONSHIPS THEY BREAK OR HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY ANGER. MANY MEN HAVE TRIED TO REASON WITH PARLIAMENT. MANY DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TOWARDS CHANGING AND ABOLISHING UNFAIR ACTS AND TAXES, WHICH WERE THE CAUSES OF UPRISINGS SUCH AS THE BOSTON TEA PARTY AND THE PROTEST IN BOSTON THAT SPARKED THE BOSTON MASSACRE. NONE OF THESE THINGS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND THEIR DIM-WITTED DECISIONS AFTER THE FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR. IF GREAT BRITAIN DID NOT BLATENTLY DISREGARD THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN COLONISTS, THEN THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR CHANGE OR REBELLION AS THERE IS NOW.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Loyalist Sources:
For Introduction and Character Background:
The American Promise, pg. 227, map
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0028-4866%28193806%2911%3A2%3C308%3ATROLIC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
For Main Article:
The American Promise, pg. 212, 2nd paragraph.

Patriot Sources:
Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act ( 30 May 1765)
Petition of the Virginia House of Burgesses to the House of Commons: December 18, 1764
Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 13, 1774
The American Promise: Chapter 6



(The poat-class posts (its a pun!) are on Johan's blog and the sources are located on the respective wiki's)

AoD (4)

I am currently volunteering at my church's little coffee hut and I need to train every Sunday in order to become a dependant worker there. My problem was that I had somethings going on for 2 weeks, and needed to negotiate with the coordinator in order to have everything there run smoothly.

After my initial training program that gave me a general overview of how things worked, I had to go to train again for a couple more Sundays, but I couldn't becuase of some things I had in my schedule. The coordinator of the volunteer barista program wanted me to come anyways, because she thought I would begin to forget everything if I didn't follow up. First, I told her what I wanted, which was to go to my group event that weekend, and had to miss the training this weekend. I then listened to what she wanted, which was for me to come in and train, even if I had my group event that weekend. I prepared to give up my next Sunday after the event for training, and to make sure that I did not miss my event. I discussed with her that I needed to go to the event, and that I could give up my next Sunday to train. She seemed to still be worrying about it, so I decided to tell her that if I could have a copy of the training packet we recieved during my first training, I would read that during the off time in my event. This satisfied what she wanted, which was for me not to forget what I had learned so far, and I was also going to work the next Sunday. I got to go to my event as I had wanted. In the end, the situation was a win-win, I got to go to my event, she got me to review my training information and train more the next Sunday.