MB+-Responses+to+Essential+Questions

In 16th century Jamestown, the English settlers forced themselves to colonize the New World due to its intrinsic rewards. These men and women persevered through many hardships in order to make money for themselves and their investors back in England, as well as live as independent people. The acts of these settlers would set the stage for free-thinking Americans in the centuries to follow. The ideals of these Englishmen –especially the pursuit of freedom- reflect the motivation for such famous Americans as Ben Franklin and John Adams. The most obvious motivation for the Jamestown settlers was the prospect of finding gold and making money. The investors of the Virginia Company paid these men and women to come to the New World for only that purpose. Any colonist who found gold would instantly become not only famous, but fabulously wealthy. Returning to England empty-handed meant throwing away others’ money and being chastised for their failure. It was always easier for the settlers to stay another day at Jamestown than to bear the months of starvation on the voyage home or ridicule of their fellow Englishmen. Accounts from the settlement show that gold was the only thing on the people’s minds, and mining for gold took precedent over safety and even eating. The settlers' obsession for finding gold was responsible for thousands of deaths over a very short period of time. This trend of sacrificing human lives for monetary gain is present in all history, and the settlers of Jamestown were not immune to the gold’s allure. It wasn’t until John Smith took control of the colony that actual work was done in Jamestown. Even so, making money remained the settlers’ first and foremost desire. The other reason why the Jamestown settlers endured such hardships was the pursuit of independence from England. The settlers were inspired by events back home to make a settlement free from English rule. At this time, many Englishmen had witnessed the revolution of the Protestant Reformation, and the value in creating new, independent ideals. Not only that, but the Renaissance was in full swing, encouraging new radical ideas all over Europe. The social, economic, and artistic norms of the past had been torn down to make way for more progressive and prosperous lifestyle. Instilled with these new perspectives on life, the Jamestown settlers had intentions of creating an entirely new society in the New World. The settlers quite literally thought of America as a blank slate to be written on. The notion of impressing their religion, their ideals, and their culture on the land and people of America was very enticing. In this new society, all of the desires of //the people// would be met, as there was no omniscient king to lord over everyone. In Jamestown, where there was limitless opportunity, where there was no royalty, a more democratic nation could be built. The New World nation would be free of the dogma of monarchy and all-powerful dictators. It’s obvious that the free life of Jamestown kept settlers from returning to England.

2nd Essential Question:

In late seventeenth century colonial America, each colony was different, and had distinct values and ways of life. Being founded by completely different types of people and colonized for different reasons, the type of person an immigrant was basically decided the colony for him. Two colonies that clashed in almost every way were the Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Bay colonies; the former being founded as a haven for all cultures, the latter as a religious utopia. History shows us that at this time, many more colonists flocked into Pennsylvania than Massachusetts, and their society prospered like nothing ever seen in the colonies. If given the choice, I would have settled in the Pennsylvania colony over the Massachusetts Bay colony due Pennsylvania’s tolerant society and prosperous economy. When William Penn first settled in the colony of Pennsylvania, he had a vision of a peaceful society that tolerated and embraced all walks of life. For him and his followers, there was no social hierarchy due to race, religion, or ethnicity. This was to be an ultra-modern colony that embraced the values of the Renaissance. Penn’s “holy experiment” was wildly successful, and attracted a diverse array of colonists. As an immigrant, I would definitely feel safer in Pennsylvania than I would in Massachusetts, where there was no such thing as trust, and men and women cowered in fear of a vengeful God. In Pennsylvania, there was for the first time peace with the Native Americans, and there was little need to fear attacks by them that the Puritans frequently received. I would also feel empowered that I had the right to vote for officials that weren’t part of the clergy, and thus have my interests better served. The general feeling in this new colony was hopeful and optimistic, and the people in Pennsylvania were by far the happiest in the colonies. While the intrinsic motives for settling in Pennsylvania would be strong, building a life in “Penn’s Woods” would also be a smart economical decision. Being a man, I was eligible for the gift of free land from William Penn himself on which to settle with my family. I wouldn’t have to pay taxes to the Church of England, either. Due to the colony’s toleration of different cultures, many of the world’s finest craftsmen and workers came together in this colony. A virtual All-Star team of Dutch engineers, Swedish farmers, and German builders made the colony //beyond// prosperous. In a very short amount of time, Pennsylvania was the England’s most advanced colony, and had by far the best economy in the New World. Not only internal products powered Pennsylvania, but trade with the Indians. With peace between Europeans and the natives, there was more intercultural trade here than anywhere else in the colonies. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Bay colony had little economy to speak of. The pompous clergy members had pigeon-holed themselves to only accepting one type of person into their colony, and their economy suffered as a result. Although they worked hard, the Puritans were sitting on crappy land, and only made money off of selling lumber. In the end, Pennsylvania’s diversity is what made it such a prosperous colony. The toleration of different lifestyles brought people together like no Holy Bible ever could, and the superior economy and society in Pennsylvania wins my vote for the best colony to settle in.

3rd Essential Question:

With the end of the Seven Year's War in 1763, the American colonists and the British showed their true colors to each other for the first time. With the sudden influx of not only British citizens, but British leaders and influence, tensions between the two groups reached an all time high. In response to the unwanted British presence in the colonies, the colonists doubted their status as Britons, and protested passionately against the taxes put in place by British legislature.

When the French and Indian War was officially ended by the Treaty of Paris, the remaining thousands of British troops and citizens didn't simply hop on a ship to go back home; they stuck around in the colonies. With all of these "pure" British people hanging around, the colonists began to realize that they weren't like the British anymore. Their goals, mindsets, and basic social make-up were completely different from these people who claimed to support the same crown. Over the past hundred and fifty years, the colonies had in fact made their own type of country, with a new society, economy, and culture. Many colonists began to ask themselves, "Should two completely different types of people be ruled by the same government?". To make this division even more apparent, the British stragglers treated the colonists as second-hand citizens, and not at all as fellow Englishmen. These British turned their noses up to the gritty colonists, and asserted the power of the crown over the colonists by strength of arms. Colonists across the colonies wondered whether they were true Englishmen anymore, because they sure weren't being treated like regular Englishmen. Going along with the whole 'not being treated like Englishmen' theme, with the institution of the Greenville Program- most noteably the Stamp Act- in the 1760s made colonists doubt the crown's insurance of their supposedly "unalienable rights" including unjust taxation. Laws like the Stamp act made it clear to the colonists that King George III wanted to assert his control over the puny American colonists. The thought of Briton's opression of the colonies was present every time a colonist bought paper, drank tea, or drew up a legal document. This constant annoyance of the colonists is what eventually led to protests by the Loyal Nine and the Sons of Liberty in Boston and New York City. Most importantly, the Stamp Act infuriated educated colonial lawyers and congressmen like Patrick Henry, who started coly-wide protests to the taxation on all printed documents in the colonies. In every case, the British legislation had to repeal the Acts due to colonial opposition, but the damage was done. The colonists would never forget that Britain had tried to tax them without representation in parliament. The fact that they hadn't been treated like Englishmen stuck with them, and eventually encouraged the colonists to formulate ideas of creating their own country in defieance of the British Empire.

How the colonists were justified in fighting with Britain: From 1760 to 1775, British-Colonial tensions were at an all-time high. A rift was building between the governors and the governed, and the colonists' patience for British opression was waning. Order was kept only by the constant supply of British soldiers and laws designed to supress the uppity Yankees. The laws instated during this time by King George III, coupled with the continual presence of the military in the colonies, drove the colonists towards independence and war.

Starting with the Writs of Assistance in 1761, Britain passed dozens of laws aimed specifically on tightening their grip on colonial affairs. After the period of salutory neglect, King George III had a definite chip on his shoulder to reclaim control over his outer territories. Colonists feel so strongly against these types of laws that the Bill of Rights ends up being directly influenced by the Writs of Assistance, the Greenville Program, and other laws. Colonial defiance is first seen in the Sons of Liberty and the Loyal Nine, who aimed to open the colonies' eyes to the tyranny of Britain. Taxes-especially the Stamp Act- serve as a constant annoyance to the colonists and a reminder of the power and influence of their soverigns a world away. The fact that they had to pay an axtra few pennies for a court document isn't what angered the colonists most, but the fact that their interests were not voiced in British parliament, and what Britain was doing was taxation without representation. These unjust laws give the colonists the ammunition they need to garner support for independence.

Throughout the time when Parliament was making all of these laws, thousands of British soldiers remained in the American colonies to "keep the peace", but only fanned the flames of revolution. The presence of troops showed not only Britain's distrust of her colonies, but her willingness to stop at nothing to keep control over her subjects. Trajedies such as the battles of Lexington and Conchord, the Boston Massacre, and the battle of Breed's Hill would have never occured if it wasn't for the agressive British troops. After the Boston Tea Part in 1773, King George III authorized not only additional troops in Boston, but the institution of martial law in the city of Boston. The fact that these armed men were acting like bullies to frustrated, hardworking people enraged colonists in New England. They saw this as playing unfairly, and to even the odds, American colonists needed to arm themselves and fight back against this overreaching enemy. Peace was never meant to be kept by force of arms, but by the happiness of the people and the relationship between the people and the state. When Britain broke this fundamental law, the colonists had no choice but to fight back and seceed from the mother country.

Essential Question- How does the constitution allow for an enduring political debate? In the late 1700's, the wording of the Constitution served as a hotly debated topic between opposing viewpoints within our government. The fact that our founding fathers wrote such a comprehensive, seemingly infallable government outline created different factions of Americans: some who wanted to follow what the Constitution said word for word, and do nothing more, while others wanted a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution, which allowed for institutions such as the Natiuonal Bank of the United States. These political rivals were called Democratic Republicans and the Federalists.

As soon as the Constitution was written, there was unrest as to how this outline was to be followed, and it gave birth to the first political parties in America. Thomas Jefferson, the leader of the Democratic Republicans, was a self proclaimed man of the people, and fought to give induvidual states more power than a centralized government. At the same time, Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the Federalists, was less trusting in "the mob", and believed in a natural order of how power was distrubuted in the government: the wealthier, more educated men should rule the "lesser sort" of people in the world. Hamilton loved the Constitution for its vagueness and utilized it in making his National Bank. Most of the problems Washington had to deal with in his presidency stemmed from differing interperetations of the Constitution. Staying on the issue of whether to have a Nationalized Bank, President Washington heard both sides of the arguement from both Jefferson and Hamilton becuase both worked directly beneath him as part of his cabinet. Jefferson argued that since the Constitution said nothing of allowing a central authority to control the nation's debt, it shouldn't be established. Hamilton countered that the Constitution laid out specifically what wasn't acceptable in our government, so anything that doesn't break the rules should be allowed, including the bank. Eventually, Washington sided with Hamilton, and the National Bank was approved. This isn't to say that Washington was one-sided, however. Over the term of his presidency, he approved laws for both Democratic republicans and Federalists. If he hand't been unbiased and sided with either party, there would have been little political debate over the Constitution, and America definately wouldn't have gotten off to such a great (and lucky) start.

//__Was the Revolution of 1800 truly a Revolution?__// At the dawn of the 19th century, America was in turmoil both internally and with foriegn powers. Napoleon leading France after the French Revolution and the violent tendencies of the British, many Americans were anxious about the future of their young country. Federalist policies were becoming more and more unpopular, and John Adams' presidency seemed to be a waste to many citizens. As a result, Thomas Jefferson was elected President, as were many other Democratic Republican government officials. The drastic change in the political mindset of America after the election of Thomas Jefferson was definately a revolution. Although no shots were fired (except for Aaron Burr), a revolution did occur in America when Jefferson became the first Democratic Republican President. John Adam's unpopularity had done a lot to tarnish the Federalist reputation in the government, especially the trouble he had dealing with Great Britain and France. The election of 1800 came as America was on the brink of war with either Great Britain or France, who still were the world's strongest countries. Much like the recent election of Obama, Americans didn't necessarily want Jefferson to be President becuase we was an exceptional leader, but he wasn't a Federalist. Much like today's shift towards new economic, social, and political views, the new Democratic Republican policies would change the life of Americans across the country. Although Jefferson's Presidency didn't completely right all of the wrongs in America, he got the ball rolling for future presidents, such as James Madison and James Monroe. The Revolution of 1800 was vital for the Dems to gain more political power that would eventually lead into the Era of Good Feelings, where there was basically no opposition to Democratic Republican laws. The course of American history for the next few decades was changed due to Jefferson's election, so I'm pretty sure that it can be considered a Revolution, at least in a mental sense, much like the revolution we are experiencing right now.