Wednesday, June 10, 2015

The Marie Antoinette Scandal

Marie Antoinette’s fondness for clothing and material things gave her the reputation for being an insensitive queen, as so many of the French people were poor and starving. One key event captured the feelings of the French toward their queen. “The Affair of the Diamond Necklace,” as it became known, was a famous misunderstanding which confirmed her reputation in the eyes of many French citizens. At the library or using the Internet, research this event and discover what happened. Then, pretend that you are a member of the Third Estate. Write a letter to the editor of a French paper describing your opinion of Marie Antoinette based on what you have discovered from learning about this scandal. 
Dear French editor,
     This is an outrage! Have your heard what our crazy Queen has been doing? She is living up her life while we die in vain! Wasting all the money we could be getting, on some piece of jewelry. She is more concerned with her goods and looks than the well being of the French people. We should be spending money for necessity rather than want. 
     Just this week I lost another one of my family members. They died of starvation because we good not afford any food. This injustice must stop! 
She doesn't deserve the position of the queen. The queen should care about the country and take care of us people rather than letting us fend for ourselves. It's the monarchy like The Queen that leave us in this position. 
      If you haven't heard the story, I heard from many people that The Queen was behind all the letters and the thievery involving Cardinal de Rohan. She and the Cardinal were corresponding to secretly gain money for the necklace. It was not even meant for Marie in the first place. She gave the Cardinal false hopes by  " romantically" being with him. This is not acceptable, he is a leader of the church and she is married. Just because she can't get pregnant doesn't mean she can sleep with everybody she wants to. If she thinks that she can cheat on her husband and purchase lavish goods under the nose of the French people, then she has got another thing coming
     The fact that she would do it in secret just to make sure that we couldn't find out is horrid. She already lives lavishly with big feasts and fancy clothing. Why does she need more? The necklace wasn't even made for her. It was ordered by Louis XV for his mistress. Why does she think that she can own it and sell it off for more money? 
     We deserve every dollar she gets from her selling the diamonds from the necklace. She has been taking the many diamonds off the necklace to trade with other places. It is so rude that she would take someone's hard work and give it all away. I hope she realizes how many people she is letting down, the whole country. The people of France deserve better than that scum from Austria. 
                                                                                       Anonymous Third Estate Member 

If interested in learning the real story visit these links:

Monday, June 1, 2015

Rebellious Reasons

In this lesson we were trying to answer the essential question which asked: is rebellion acceptable? How should the Government respond?  In order to answer this question we watched two videos and read a couple different articles. Our answers are based off of studying Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion. These were two of the major rebellious events that shaped America. We looked at how the people that rebelled were affected by the Government and their response to the situation. Then we learned about how the government reacted to stop the rebellion. This is how we were able to form an opinion to this question. After each part of the lesson we discussed our opinions and thoughts of what truly happened. This made it easier to fully understand what we needed to and hear others opinions along with forming our own. 
The Whiskey Rebellion

I believe that in the case of Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion that it is acceptable. I find that rebellion was acceptable because the things that the government were taking away from the people wasn't fair. In Shay's rebellion the farmers were fighting back because the government took their land away. The was OK to do because the farmers had fought in the Revolutionary War and they had not received money from the government for their service. So they all started their farms with little money and all the resources they were getting from their farm they used themselves or traded with other farmers. They were not making money and they deserved the money they earned from fighting.The government was being unfair by taxing them because they didn't have any money to give and they took away their land because they couldn't pay the taxes. What the farmers did next was justified because they found out that America needed to adjust the constitution. The Constitution was not allowing the government to collect taxes from the states to pay the war veterans and the government couldn't really form an army to stop the farmers. In this case the government should have fought back to make it end and then solve the problem by adjusting the Constitution and their abilities. However they were not able to fight back until they changed the Constitution which allowed them to do what they needed to. The whiskey rebellion was also acceptable because they government was taxing the wrong people. They added tax to the people that were making the whiskey rather than the ones drinking it. This was not justified because the people making the whiskey were poor and needed the money to survive. The government was just taking away their money rather than letting them get their money for all their work. Their fight back was acceptable because it was not right for the government to be taking away the farmers money just because they could. The government only wanted it because they treated whiskey like money at the time and so it was very valued and the government was getting a lot for it. The government then allowed their to be political parties in response to the the whiskey rebellion. In these the rebellion was because there was something wrong with the government which was able to be fixed. 

In my opinion I think that rebellion is acceptable if what the government is doing is wrong. If they are just doing things to get more money I don't think it is right of them. If the government is doing something in order to make America a better place or have a specific reason that most people agree with I don't think that a rebellion is acceptable. In the case of these to rebellions it was acceptable because they were in response to something wrong with how the government is run. If we used the essential question in the U.S.A today I would have to think that rebellion is not acceptable. I think this because we have been able to live by the government and laws pretty much peacefully for a while. So their would be no justified reason to fight back. I also think that the government has enough handle over America that they would just make harsh punishments like jail for whoever acts out. 

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

The Feelings or Actions of War

The lesson we currently finished in class was called Saratoga through Yorktown which is the second half of the Revolutionary War. Every lesson that we do in class we set a question. The essential question of this lesson was: Did the Americans win the war because they had high morale or because of a few big military victories? The goal of the lesson is to try and fully understand this question and be able to answer it when we have finished. There were many events and battles that made up the second half of the war. This means at sometimes they won and it boosted their morale and at other times they lost and the morale became very low. I think it's important to focus on the highlights and low lights when trying to answer this question because you can't just base opinions on one side of the argument. You need to understand how each piece of the war affected them and how they reacted in order to continue. Only focusing on the positive for the Americans may make the victory from our point seem easy for them. If we only focused on the Americans failing it would make us seem like they didn't deserve the victory and maybe that the British were terrible people. It is important to look at both sides because then the information is not biased and a real opinion can be formed on the whole second half of the revolutionary war.

The high morale was boosted at Saratoga. At Saratoga the British surrendered to the Americans. This was very important for the Americans because at the time they had to surrender a specific way. Each soldier from the British had to go over to the Americans and hand them their gun. The Americans were shocked and speechless as the British surrendered to them. This gave the Americans hope that they could defeat the British and they learned that the British weren't as strong as they once thought. Another event that occurred was Valley Forge. This helped the American's morale because they were able to get through the winter together. In order to survive the winter all the Americans had to work together. Although they lost some of their men due to the conditions they came out of winter stronger then they went in. They were able to train together everyday. This gave them an advantage over the British after winter because the British had been relaxing and partying all winter. One more place where the morale was lifted was at Trenton & Princeton. The Americans had kept the British from winning. Every time the British came to attack the Americans they were able to repel them. This boosted their hope because they were finally seeing that they could beat the British and weaken their forces. They were also able to outsmart the British by setting fires. This made them believe that they were actually better and more intelligent than the British. Once they won they were able to see that the British weren't as strong as they thought. The morale was also affected negatively at Charleston and Philadelphia. In Charleston the Americans had to surrender to the British. This made them feel weak and lowered their hope of defeating the British. They were also taken as prisoners and shoved on prison ships where half of them died. This made the hurt the Americans knowing that more of their men were dying prisoners rather than out on the battle field destroying the British. The Americans became very upset about losing Philadelphia. Philadelphia was the symbol of the cause of the revolution. It was where they put the philosophy of the revolution in the Declaration of Independence. This was not a good thing for the American's morale because they had just lost their main symbol of the revolution. It convinced some of the Americans that it was over and it was not worth fighting the British any longer. The morale was affected by many things however at the end of the war it began to increase maybe giving the Americans more strength to defeat the British. 

Battle of Saratoga

The Americans also had big military victories and it may have lead them to win the war. One big victory was at Saratoga. This was important to win because it proved to the French the Americans were able to win against the British. The Americans needed the French for all sort of things like supplies, arms and ammunition, uniforms, and the most important thing troops. The French were able to bring in reinforcements and help Washington and his troops in Virginia. It was also very important because they defeated most of the British so the British army was not as powerful and big as they used to be. There was also the big victory at Trenton & Princeton. After a very long battle with many different confrontations the Americans had finally won. They had worked really hard in order to finally beat the British. This helped them a lot because they were able to stop the British from taking anymore control of their land. Yorktown was the biggest victory for the Americans because it was the ending of the war. The Americans were only able to win at Yorktown because of the help of the French soldiers. If they had not won at Saratoga they would not have had the help of the French and may have lost the war. The French were able to take out some of the British and act as a distraction for the Americans to move around. There was one big loss though at Charleston that hurt the Americans. At Charleston there was a siege. The British had surrounded the Americans cutting off their supplies like food. They were also bombarded with cannon fire. What was so upsetting was the sheer number of Americans taken as prisoners. Well over 5 thousand Americans became prisoners this weakened the army. They became smaller making them weaker then the British at the time. The American victories may have lead to the Americans ending the war as winners.

Yorktown Timeline

The big military victories were the main reason that the Americans were able to win the war. The most important event in the war was the Americans winning at Saratoga. This is pretty important because they were able to prove to the French that they were worth defending. If they had not gained the French they would have not been able to take down the British at Yorktown. The British had come after the Americans at Yorktown and the French were able to take them down. If they French had not been there to cause a distraction the Americans would not have been able to move secretly. They would have already been under attack. They were also able to storm the British at the same time. This is a huge advantage because they could come from different places and they had the numbers then to defeat the British. The Americans alone were not a big enough army to defeat the British. With the French they became bigger and the more men the stronger the army became. If the Americans would have lost at Saratoga they would have never gained the help of the French probably leading to the British winning the war. High morale may have affected the soldiers as a whole working together, but there were many more things that affected morale and it was easy to make the morale become high again. It was not easy to take back a loss and try to make it into a victory. The Americans won the war because they were able to win so many big battles. 

Monday, May 11, 2015

Washington's Leadership

A good leader is someone who can in force rules but be nice about it, trustworthy, and intelligent.

Washington was a good leader when he came up with a strategic retreat at the Battle of Long Island. After they had been defeated by the British at the Battle, General Howe gave the Americans time so that he could figure out what to do next. Washington secured all the boats overnight and personally got all of his soldiers on the boats to take them elsewhere. This was an example of good leadership because he was thinking about what could possible happen and how to get everybody out of there instead of just thinking about himself. He also made sure that they all got away by getting them on the boats himself. This is important because he could have just gotten one boat for himself to leave but instead he decided that as the leader he was responsible for the rest of his army. It must have taken a lot of work to get all the boats overnight showing that Washington is intelligent and had was eager to to do work for what he though was right.

Washington was not a good leader when he punished his men because he suspected they were thinking of a mutiny. Washington was so concerned for his well being that he was willing to kill some of his men to keep himself safe. As an example he was about to give lashes to a man named macaroni Jack and when Jack asked the army "brothers will you help me." Washington decided that he was planning a mutiny and had his officers shoot him. This is bad leadership because he is the one responsible for his men and if he is killing them then he is not thinking of them rather he is thinking of himself. If he was actually concerned with a mutiny he would have worried about how it would affect the army and plan on stopping it. It was not a trustworthy thing of Washington to do because his soldiers had faith in him that Washington would keep them safe. It wasn't a good way to treat his soldiers because they were willing to help him in defeating the British with the risk of their life, but in a way that they are actually helping in the conquering of the British instead of just because of Washington's concern.

I think Washington was a good leader in the first half of the war because he was able to get his men to do things quickly and without mistakes. It takes a good leader to be able to get all his men to abbey him and have trust in him. Washington although he was harsh was concerned with not allowing the a British to take what was rightfully thier's and was willing to risk his life.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

A Heart Breaking Declaration

The Declaration of Independence can also be described as a brake-up letter because the Americans are telling Britain that they are done with being under their control. The Americans say that they want to become self governed and don't want to be associated with Britain anymore. The British are making decisions and laws that the Americans are against. They believe that Britain doesn't care about them and treat them as one of their own. King George felt like the Americans were trying to break up with him because he thought he was doing a good job. He saw them as a far away part of England and he was thrown off when they presented to him the declaration. King George was offended because the Americans were complaining about taxes and saying that he didn't think about them, but he thought he was helping America succeed. In return for the break up he says he will get back at them by sending soldiers, making it impossible for them to trade and form alliances with other places. America and Britain both are upset about the break up because although it will do them good it will also cause conflicts.

Reading of the Declaration
The preamble states opinions of Enlightenment and relate them to the American colonists' situation. There are three certain phrases that relate to the enlightened ideas. In the preamble it states "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit to Happiness." This would agree with the idea of natural rights. Natural rights say that everybody, no matter who they are should have certain rights. They are rights they are born with and can not be taken away from them. The preamble also declares that there should be consent of the governed. This is Enlightened because it means that who ever has power only has a little more than everybody else. They should be making decisions based off of everybody opinion and not just their own. In the preamble the Americans suggest "Safety and Happiness." This would agree with protecting against the State of Nature. So their is a government set up so that everybody will stay safe. It is not saying that the government has to have complete power, but that the government is protecting everybody rather than hurting them. This means that Britain may have been hurting the Americans with their laws instead of making it better for them. The American believed the British government should have been following the enlightenment philosophy.
The Declaration of Independence is made up of grievances. A grievances is a complaint or resentment, as unjust or unfair act. The Americans included these in the Declaration because they wanted to state all the reasons why they didn't want to be part of England. If they had just written a letter to King George that they were "breaking up with him" it wouldn't have been convincing. They needed to include the grievances because they wanted King George to understand all the bad things that he did that made them want independence. It was also important for the Americans to understand why they were breaking their ties with Britain. If they didn't have good reasons or didn't have any at all they may have realized that they actually needed King George. However, they knew exactly what he had done wrong and they were able to convince everybody by using the grievances. It was the evidence that King George should not rule because he had done wrong. In order to want to go against Britain they needed reasons and the grievances were their reasons. The grievances allowed the Americans to voice their opinions. There are many grievances in the Declaration of Independence, each one stating different facts about an action of King George. Grievance set 7 in our packet states "For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:" In this grievance the Americans are upset because King George has not allowed them to trade with other people and made them pay taxes without their permission. This made the Americans angry because the British are taking away their natural rights. This means that Britain is not allowing them the right to gain property from other places by trading. It is also taking away associating with other places which should be their right. In Grievance set 6 it argues "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us." In this grievance the Americans complain about how the King has sent over many soldiers to take control of their land. This agrees with the Enlightenment idea of the consent of the governed. King George is depriving the Americans of their right to have an opinion. He is not allowing them to have a say on what happens and what laws are being enforced. The Americans were growing more upset with everything that King George took away from them. They had finally agreed that they needed their independence.

Grievance 7

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Paine's Struggle for Recognition

Enlightenment fueled the American Revolution. The ideas that were presented during Enlightenment were appealing to the people.They wanted to have it for themselves. The people of American wanted to gain independence and break free from Great Britain's rule. Thomas Paine was a writer at the time that helped to spread the principles of the American Revolution to Europe. Paine was born in Thetford, England however after many failed jobs he decided to move to Philadelphia because of a letter from Benjamin Franklin. When he first arrived he became an editor of the Pennsylvanian Magazine. In Thomas Paine's Biography Part 1 he expresses many opinions that support those of Enlightenment. He supports the idea of the consent of the governed through this quote "At first, he believed the colonies should avoid armed rebellion, but once actual fighting had begun, he became convinced that only complete independence would work." In this he is saying that he really didn't want there to be fighting but since he couldn't stop it he thought it would be best if everybody had independence and were free from the British rule. Also later on in the biography we can see the idea of the consent of the governed come up again because Paine says "America could establish a central democratic republican form of government that could serve as a model and beacon to the rest of the world." He believes that America should have power over themselves allowing them to become a model for the rest of the world to support Enlightenment. Paine also brings up the idea of having a social contract to establish a set of rules that the people have to follow. "Paine advocated a declaration of independence to secure European aid and to unite the colonies." Paine agreed with the idea of having some rule and not just a State Of Nature however he also wants a limit on how much power the government could have compared to the people. Paine helped spread the ideas of an Enlightened rule and encouraged the American Revolution so they could achieve it.

When Paine first began expressing his ideas some American colonists were ready to support him and join the rebellion. However there were other colonists that were still loyal to the British and didn't want to go against them. People were scared to abandon what they had learned and been taught to do. They hadn't really been thinking about independence and Paine was presenting them with a new idea. Also many people didn't agree with Paine's ideas.They were skeptical of him and didn't know if they could trust what he was telling them. People like John Adams convinced themselves that Paine was not in favor of the same war as himself. He thought that Paine hated government and rule over all and not just the British rule. This means that Paine was an outcast and hated by everybody even for his successful efforts. They were willing to join the rebellion but Thomas Paine was never really seen as a heroic person because no one was willing to admit they were in favor of him.

In class we were given an excerpt form Thomas Paine's writing called Common Sense. I was assigned excerpt number nine and I worked alone. The goal was to find the main idea of the article and connect it to Enlightenment. We did this by forming poems from the excerpt. It is called black out poetry and the idea is to only keep the words that make up your poem and then black out the rest of the article. I first analyzed the text to understand what Paine was trying to portray and then I was able to form a poem from the words he used to get the idea of Enlightenment in America across. The purpose of the black out poetry was so that we could understand and analyze Paine's ideas. Black out poetry helped us because we weren't just taking notes on the excerpts but we were using creativity and knowledge to help other people understand Paine's point of view.
Original Excerpt
Blacked out Poem

Circled Poem

Thursday, March 12, 2015

War or Safety

A Social Contract is a agreement that citizens make in order to have their life and rights protected, but they have to be willing to give up their freedom. Thomas Hobbes believed that social contracts were necessary because he though that without them there would be a constant State of War. Hobbes was against a State of Nature because he believed that no one would be able to get along and would always be fighting. This is shown through is writings when he says the state of war is "solitary, poor, nasty,brutish and short" John Locke also believed that social contracts were necessary but for different reasons. Locke believed that they should have a social contract so that people's life, liberty and property were protected. Hobbes and Locke also have a different view on government. Hobbes thinks that government exists to protect people's lives and that it is absolute so that the government have unlimited power. However, Locke thinks that government exists to protect people's rights and that it should have a limited amount of power so that people don't rebel. Hobbes and Locke have unique outlooks on human nature that lead them to their views. 

In class we created a social contract with five rules that people had to follow. The easiest part about making the social contract was coming up with five different categories that had to be covered. However, the hard part was getting the rules to be specific enough so that people understand how to follow them and that they cover all the different situations that could happen. In contracts it is hard because there could be many different and unique circumstances that have to be covered so that the people know what they have to do when it happens. Also you have to be concerned with whether the rules are to specific that the people won't be willing to sign them and that no one will be able to find loopholes in the contract so that they can do whatever they want. It is hard to make the rules make sense while trying to please every bodies opinions. 

We had feedback by eleven of our classmates and we were able to make our rules better based on their ideas. We adjusted rule number one so that it now states "People must elect and follow the laws of a council that is made up of two boys and two girls every year. However, if the council can not perform its job new people can be added and council members can be voted out." We changed this rule because Chris suggested that there be an odd number of council member, but if there was an odd number then there would probably be an argument whether there should be more girls or more boys. Also we used Gina's question and changed it so that you can kick people off the council if you do not like them. Rule number two was also changed so now it is "Arguments that affect the well being of others should be brought outside. Any arguments between the community are always decided by the council and they should have the final say in it." We used Olivia's question of what would happen with arguments between the community and added that situation into the rules. Rule number three was just changed a little based on Kristine's advise, so that it is "Everybody needs to have a job that the community benefits from and the resources, such as food, water, clothing and tools are shared evenly." We did not change number four based on Liam's question because it is just a rule based on kindness and if you don't agree then you shouldn't be let into the community. Our rule number five was changed so that it is now "People that become sick are allowed to skip work, however if they are sick for more than a year they will be kicked out of the community." We changed five completely because when singing the contract you know that you will be kicked out of the community if you don'y follow it. Our rules now would probably satisfy most of our class and we would be able to make a community. 

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Power to the Citizens

Currently I am learning about Absolutists and Enlightened rulers. Our class always has an essential question we are trying to answer for each lesson. In this lesson we were trying to decide if Enlightened Absolute monarchs were more enlightened or more absolute. In order to answer this question our teacher gave us notes that we copied into our Evernote and discussed. Then we individually read a page in our textbooks that explained what Frederick the Great, Catherine the great, and Joseph II did as monarchs. With this information from the textbook we made a Venn diagram. In one circle we put actions that represented the Absolutists acts that the ruler did and then in the second circle we put Enlightened acts that the ruler did. Then where they intersected we put things that the ruler did that could be considered absolutist and enlightened. After we completed the Venn diagram we chose one of the ruler to focus on and formed a propaganda poster. This poster is used to persuade people to join the ruler by using only good things that they did, so I chose Joseph II and used one of his enlightened acts because the absolutists acts are all negative. Through this lesson we were able to form a better understanding of how the monarchs were persuaded by Absolutists and Enlightened ideas.
An Enlightened monarch is defined as someone who has or shows a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook. Monarch started to rule as enlightened in the 1600s because people were getting fed up with the lavish lifestyles and the costly wars of absolute monarch. An absolute monarch is a ruler with absolute authority which means they have complete control over the citizens of a country. Philosophers and scholars started to realize that reforms needed to happen, so they thought that it would be best if the reforms came from enlightened, benevolent monarchs. Benevolent monarchs are well meaning and kindly which is why enlightened rulers are more for the people then selfish like absolutists. Enlightened rulers are focused on giving power to the people rather then to themselves. 

Joseph II was the holy roman emperor from 1765 to 1790, and he was at first co ruling with his mother, Maria Theresa from 1765 to 1780 and then ruled Austrian Habsburg dominions from 1780 to 1790. This propaganda poster "plays up" Joseph's enlightened act of granting tolerance to Protestant and Jews even though he was Christian. This poster shows enlightenment by having the three religions but saying that they are all Austrians and are the same. The pictures on the poster show that Joseph II joined the three religions together in his own way. However Joseph II was not all about good deeds. He also did somethings that would be considered him as being an absolute ruler. Something he did was that he ended censorship. This was not for the best of the people so it was not an act of enlightenment. He also sold the property of monetarists and convents however he did it so he could build hospitals. Joseph II was a more enlightened ruler then Catherine or Fredrick the Great. Joseph II was rightfully called an enlightened monarch. 

Monday, February 16, 2015

Cardinal Richelieu for Absolutopia

The nation of Absolutopia is seeking applicants for an immediate opening for ruler of the country. Qualified candidates will have significant experience as an authoritarian leader. The new king or queen will act in the best interests of the nation, promote its stability and expansion, rule in the name of God, and eliminate all threats both internal and external. Experience managing an army/navy, crushing rebellions, and/or instituting reforms is a plus.

Dear Lord and Lady Manager of Human Resource,
The candidate I am presenting to you is Cardinal Richelieu. He was born on September 9, 1585 in Paris. His father was Grand Provost François du Plessis, Sieur de Richelieu, the chief magistrate of King Henry III, and his mother was Suzanne de la Porte, the daughter of the Councillor of the Parlement of Paris. When Richelieu was only five his father died and his mother decided to move to Poitou with five sibling to live with their grandmother. Richelieu grew up in a family with difficult circumstances. Showing his strength through childhood he went on to be appointed as Cardinal in 1620. Not only had he earned his title for completing his studies but he had become the mediator between Luyne and the queen mother. Four short years later he was appointed as the first minister of the royal court. The supporters of the King had finally convinced him that Richelieu was the right person for the job. He ruled under King Louis XIII of France. In my professional opinion he has accomplished more than the King himself. Richelieu has continued to show his dedication to his job and I believe he is a good candidate to become the next ruler of Absolutopia.

Richelieu has many strength that would qualify him as a model of an absolute ruler. There are six main features that you can find in an absolute ruler. Richelieu contains all these features, but he particularly excels in four of them. Richelieu is a great ruler because he has divine right giving to him by God himself. Richelieu was sent by God making it so that Pope Paul V was able to consecrate him bishop at a young age; on April 17, 1607 Richelieu had officially become bishop of Luçon. Richelieu continued his claim to power by becoming cardinal in 1620 and later on in 1624 being appointed as the first minister of the royal council. As the first minister Cardinal Richelieu decided to use his power to enforce France's powerful army. In 1624 he sent his troops to occupy the Val Telline in northern Italy. Richelieu was trying to protect the area against the ambitions of Spain in response to the pleas of the Protestant Swiss Canton of Grison. However not only had the Spanish become a problem but the Huguenots had signed a treaty with the Spanish. One year after the signing, 1627 Richelieu’s army defeated the Huguenots and they went to claim their new city. Through the struggles of war Richelieu was able to reform the army and navy so they could continue conquering land for France. Richelieu has been appointed to Secretary of State and War for his talents that went unnoticed by Concinci. As you can see Richelieu has been able to use his position to develop a strong army that can protect France and give them more power. With all the power that France has gained Richelieu has not failed to keep the Nobility and Church officials in line. Richelieu has been working on limiting the power of nobility and church officials. He succeed at this in 1630, when he hand picked people for the administration based on their skills and not their family’s ranking or power. He has made it so that the senior nobility are excluded from the important positions and put in places that represent their ability. Richelieu had also made sure that all the provinces that had called their own Estates Generals were brought back into royal authority. He did this by removing powerful nobles from their governing positions and establishing an office of intendants. Now the royal emissaries in the provinces are helping to establish the king’s authority rather than hurting it. Not only was the royal will being jeopardized by just provinces but parliaments were playing a big role in it too. So in 1641 Richelieu was able to take all the power of parliaments and put them back under the ruling of the royals. Richelieu has worked continuously so that parliaments can’t interpret the laws in their regions. When ruling Richelieu has always been strict and he enforces the laws and dispenses justice. So far he has succeeded at crushing any rebellion in hopes of advancing royal absolutism. Not only is enforcing laws important to France but also for the Richelieu's life. Richelieu had to execute some of the minor nobles such as Chalais while throwing the higher nobility in prison for their attempt at killing Richelieu himself. Count of Boutville another highly ranked noble was beheaded outside of Richelieu's window on his order because he had challenged the rules Richelieu had made. Boutville had been dueling and he also rejected all please of clemency. Richelieu had successfully ruled France for years trying to enforce absolutism. This makes him the perfect person to rule Absolutopia because he has already achieved it in France so why wouldn't he be able to do the same thing in Absolutopia.

Cardinal Richelieu is a good candidate for this job. He models with success the many factors of being an absolute ruler. It is even said that he might become one of the key figures in the growth of royal absolutism in Europe. Cardinal Richelieu is a little ambitious and ruthless however he is genius and is devoted to what he is doing. He has been able to run France under absolutism so he should be able to establish absolutism in Absolutopia.


Saturday, January 31, 2015

Colonies formed by Persuasion

The Middle Colonies
The Southern Colonies
The Middle and Southern colonies were settled by many different people looking for a better life away from their old one. In order to fully understand the reasons why these colonies were settled we took a look at each one individually. In class we were put into groups and assigned a colony to focus on. I was put in a group with two other classmates of mine and we were assigned the New Jersey colony. After we were assigned the New Jersey colony we read an article that our teacher had picked out for us. Using this article we were able to answered the assigned questions. These questions focused on why this colony was founded, by who, and what went on in the colony. After my group had answered the questions and got them checked over by our teacher we went on to start the video. We wrote a script and found images that would represent the New Jersey colony in a positive way. The goal of the video was to try and persuade people to move to the New Jersey colony. When the videos had been completed by each group we watched them as a class and were able to discuss. For each colony we wrote down the main points that answered the questions we were assigned. This way we were able to view each colony in more depth.
The New Jersey colony was founded in 1603 by Henry Hudson. Henry Hudson had claimed the land for the Dutch although he was British because he worked for the Netherlands. They decided to settle in New Jersey because it allowed for expansion, trading, and refuge for the Quakers that came from England. New Jersey was claimed by the British in 1664 and was placed under the rule of two leaders, Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. Berkeley had control over the west side and Carteret controlled the east side. In order for the settlement to thrive they set up trading colonies along Hoboken and Jersey City. New Jersey was also a colony that had many manufacturers. They manufactures all sorts of things like iron, plows, tools, kettles, locks, and nails which they then exported to England. New Jersey was also a very diverse colony. The dutch, Swedish, and Fins were the first to settle joining the Delaware Indians that had lived in New Jersey before the colony was established.  Also there were many people settling because land was sold at low prices and Carteret and Berkeley allowed religious freedom to the people. The result of this was a colony that had about 100,000 people. The video below explains this all in an attempt to try and convince people at the time of the New jersey colony to settle there. 

Many articles and commercials  use ethos, pathos and logos to convince people to buy or do something. In our commercial we used ethos and pathos. Ethos is appealing to the audience using credibility and trustworthiness. In our case we talked about the leaders of the New Jersey colony and what they allow the settlers to do. Pathos is more of an emotional feel, so the argument appeals to the audiences emotions and makes them believe you. We were able to use ethos by allowing many different options for what you can do in the New Jersey colony that can apply to all sorts of people. The one appeal we did not use was Logos. Logos is using facts and data to persuade your audience. This could be shown by using numbers to describe something or percent of things.The people that settled in New Jersey were persuaded by others to come and settle because they thought there was something in New Jersey for them.

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A City Upon the Ground

In this lesson the goal was to try and fully understand the Puritans that settled in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. We did this by trying to answer the essential question helping us focus on the main idea of what we were learning. The essential question we were answering for this lesson was; Were the Puritans and Massachusetts Bay Colony a "Model of Christian Charity" as John Winthrop claimed they would be? It is important to answer this question while we study because this is what most of the Puritans and citizens of England were debating themselves. The Puritans didn't know if they had fulfilled their duties of being a representation of the perfect settlement and the citizens of England didn't know if it was worth it to leave and go to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. We also need to realize that this is the most important topic and the goal of what we should be learning. We were able to find the answer to this question in class by doing multiple activities. We analyzed three sources one by John Winthrop, one by Reverend John Cotton, and one by Anne Hutchinson. We also watched a video while taking down the key points and we read a couple of articles about the Salem witch trials from different people's points of views. These all lead us to the idea that John Winthrop was wrong about the Puritan colony and they were not a "Model of Christian Charity." 
The Puritans came to the New World in search of a place they could practice their religion openly because they were not excepted by King Charles in England. When they got to the New World they planed on being a model for the rest of the settlements that would take place in the New World. The Puritans goal was to try and make the church pure. In 1625, King Charles becomes king and he hated Puritans just as much as his father did. So, the puritans wanted to leave England to get away from King Charles and practice their religion. John Endicott started this by getting permission from Plymouth colony to settle 60 puritans in Salem. Then King Charles agreed to let the Puritans set up a charter to settle in New England while in England he tried to push the citizens to worship in the Anglican Church . This upset a lot of people and they left to go to New England along with the Puritans. Since so many people were leaving England King Charles decided that he would cancel the charter. However, the people decide to fight rather then give it up and King Charles at the time was having problems in England so he kept the charter as it was. John Winthrop, a founder in the Massachusetts Bay Colony wanted to make the colony one to be looked after, so he told the people that "We must treat other settlers as our brothers. We must enjoy each other. We must make others' problems our own. We must rejoice together, mourn together, work and suffer together, always remembering that we are one." John Winthrop was saying that in order for their colony to succeed they all had to be selfless. He wanted everybody to look out for one another and work as one team. For John Winthrop's idea of having the settlement be a representation for others everybody needed to act a certain way there were no rules that could be broken. This wasn't very realistic though because even the most selfless person by human nature will make mistakes and focus on themselves.
When the Puritans arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony they thought that God had made the land just for them, so people that where there before them like the Pequot Indians were not welcomed and were attacked by the Puritans on their own land. In John Cotton's speech he stated that "God either lets man discover a country themselves or, upon hearing the land had been discovered by others, God sends them to it." The Puritans thought that they owned the land in Massachusetts and it was all for them because they thought God had put it there for them. The Puritans thought that God had set up the perfect spot for their settlement when they got there because there were already cleared fields from the colony of Indians that had died from disease. They also believed that if God made this land there then they were the only ones who were supposed to occupy it. "God makes room for a people to live there when he drives those who live there away with a just war." (John Cotton) The Puritans though that they were allowed to take the land away from  the Indians. They saw the dying of the Pequot's from diseases as a sign that they were being taken away from the land so that the Puritans could have it by God. So they thought that the only way to rightfully own all their land was to kill off the rest of the Pequot with a war. The Puritans then decided to plan a surprise attack on the Pequot village. However, when they were planning it out it turned a massacre not a war. The Puritans had planed the attack out thoroughly. When they got to the Pequot village they attacked everybody even women and children. They soon realized that hand to hand combat was not going to work so they decided to start burning down everything. There is nothing about this massacre that was justified on the Puritans part. They did believe God had given them the land and that they could have a just war to move them from the land but this was not a just war. In order for this to have been justified the Pequot people would have had to know about the fight and they wouldn't have women and children there; only men. If the Puritans truly believe that they were doing this because of God they wouldn't have planned out the attack as much as they did because they would have thought that God would help them win it. Even in the colony you can see that they are not "a city upon a hill." The people in Massachusetts Bay Colony were not at all excepting of Anne Hutchinson or anybody like her. The women in the colony were not treated fairly and Anne Hutchinson is a great example of this. She was a very religious women and had thirteen kids these qualities of her appealed to the colony's ways. However, she tried to interpret the Bible for herself and she held public meeting criticizing for the local ministers. Although this was not excepted at the time Anne Hutchinson was not treated fairly at the trials. All the facts that she stated at her religious trial were accurate and people were offended at the thought of her being right so they banished her. This is not fair because they should not have looked at her differently then they would have a man. Another example is Mary Dyer, a follower of Anne Hutchinson was hanged for supposedly being rebellious while all she did was just speak her mind. Then there were the Salem Witch trial which were truly unfair and unjustified. For example Sarah Good a lady who was hanged for supposedly practicing witch craft. When she went to trial the only evidence that the judge had was the accounts of three little girls. This is not fair at all because they were just children and all they had for evidence was the girls acting out which any child does at their age. During the Salem Witch Trials the people were just to afraid to let ladies that went to court go free with their life. They were willing to except one small piece of evidence as if it were enough to imprison and hang them. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was more of a representation of the cruelest colony then the kindest colony. 
I believe that John Winthrop was inaccurate when he claimed the Massachusetts Bay Colony was a "Model of Christian Charity." The Massachusetts Bay Colony was an example of prejudices and unjustified behavior. If they really wanted to be a model of the ideal Christian they wouldn't have planed a massacre and killed all the Pequot. They would have left it up to God and had a small just war if they even had one. Also they wouldn't have punished people for wanting to understand the Bible they would have respected them and treated them as if they were one with the rest of the citizen. Then they wouldn't have hanged people just for the reason of them being different and on accusations instead of real evidence because God would have taken that person away himself. The Puritans did not understand what it truly was like to be a follower of God because they betrayed Him in their actions. They were not a colony that others looked up to or should have looked up to. 

Pequot Video - (Part 1)  (Part 2)
Notes from Pequot Video - 
Lesson Notes (Including the documents) - 
Salem Witch Trials -