AP+Responses+to+Essentional+Questions

Even though colonization was a difficult and deadly process throughout the Jamestown settlement, colonists collectively endured the hardships because to them it was worth it for many reasons. Some people went to the New World because they wanted liberty from the Parliament and basically have a new start on life, they were so determined for this that they were willing to sacrifice their lives. Other people went because because the investors, apart of the Virginia Company, paid them to go to the New World and start a colony, so it was their goal to do so when they arrived and once they were there, they were there (there was no turning back). Because the Spanish traveled to the west and found a ton of gold, many of the colonist, and England in general, thought that if they went to the New World (also in the west but a completely different area from where the conquistadors landed), they too would profit from the gold. I do not think that they were trying to keep up with Spain on a Global scale was not the main reason for England to colonize per say, but I’m sure it was considered. What I mean is they wanted the same profit as Spain (that would be one of the many benefits), but there were other, more important, factors in England at the time that also influenced and push the idea of colonization. In England, at the time, they were going through a depression, and becoming over crowed. If they colonized to the west (eventually Jamestown) the profit off of the assumed gold would help the economy, little did they know that there was no gold in the area for them to use. Now that they (the Virginia Company investors) invested all this money in the gold rush (which will happen a lot later on the other side of North America) they had no choice but to keep trying and trying, because if they backed out now they would be losing more money than if they kept paying people to go. If looking at it in a profitable way, pushing people to go with your investment even if it is not going to hot, especially to a new area where they can search for alternative was to make money (like natural resources), it is much more profitable then just ending the whole adventure. Not only would money be wasted but time and effort would have been too. Investors are known to take risks and that is exactly what they did, and look at what the result was**.** **__ September 6th, 2009 __** //__Essential Question ( 2) – __////In which of the colonies from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts would you have preferred to be a settler? Explain FULLY why. (Incloude thesis foucusing e // //specially on the social and economical make up of your choice)- Due Sunday by 8:00 pm // // Why would you not want to live in Pennsylvania? If you compare the life in Massachusetts to Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania is more beneficial politically, economically, geographically, and socially. //   Some people might not see a political structure in Pennsylvania but there is, just not as extreme like in Massachusetts. Because these rules in Pennsylvania’s laws are not so “utopianistic” everything is relaxed and not so paranoid of the people around you, which makes the whole society more peaceful. Some of the rules that are out are out there, were created so others would not be judgmental or competitive over something that is meant to be fun.  Pennsylvania’s economy is outstanding. Why would I want to live in a place who fights with most of their neighbors because they don’t believe in the same thing as me, then suffer for it in the long run economically? That just sounds silly. Because Massachusetts can only make money with lumber, fishing, and shipbuilding, they should accept other nationalities that are more skillful in other areas, so they can open the exporting products. This is exactly what Pennsylvania does creating everyone to have a job. This creates the society to have to work together and get the job done. Another plus from having all these nationalities doing their “passed down skills” keeps the colony up to date in technology.  Location, location, location. Everything is about location even in today’s world. Because Pennsylvania is inland, but close the Great Lakes and Canada they have a great “set up”, especially for trading. Being inland is good for trading because when traveling inland to get there they had met and made friends with a lot of different Native Americans that showed them the ways of the land and how to use the land to make them a profit. Being close the Great Lakes made it easier to trade in general, it opened the area of trading.  Being close to Canada made it easier to trade too because it allowed them to trade with different nations who settled there easier.
 * __<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14pt; text-align: center;">August 30th, 2009 __** __ Essential Question: __ // English colonization was a // // difficult and deadly process throughout the Jamestown // //settlement. Why did these colonists decide to collectively endure the hardships? Was the need to keep pace with Spain on a Global scale the primary motivation or were other factors throughout England forcing the colonists to make the new settlement work? Analyze the question and post your response to your personal wiki page.//

The political, economic, and geographic of Pennsylvania all help <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 14pt;">make up the social part of Pennsylvania (they all affect each other). Because of the way Pennsylvania works and flows, everyone is open minded and gets along. Nobody is judgmental about what type of religion you believe in. They also accept people’s cultures. It seems like Pennsylvania believes in the saying “tart words make no friends; a spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a gallon of vinegar”. This philosophy can be taken in many more ways then just talking. For example, if you show someone a new technique for work, they will reward you with something from showing you another technique to inviting you over for dinner. This is the way Pennsylvania works and it benefits them in many ways.

**__September 16th 2009__** //__ Essential Question (2) - __// //Why is the French and Indian War a major turning point between British and colonial relations? Cite specific examples focusing specifically the economical and social aspects of the period. (1763-1774) Due Thursday 2nd Period.// //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic;">The French and Indian War is a major turning point between British and colonial relations because it gave the colonist a feeling of independence and opened their eyes to the difference they already have. This was proven by seeing how the British soldiers acted different from the colonist and by the ways Great Britain relies on the colonists for their own economical benefit. // <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; msotabcount: 1;"> //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic;">When the British soldiers were sent over to the colonies they were forced to live, work, and fight (team up) with the colonist in order to win the French and Indian War. Living with each other pointed out how they were all called Englishmen, when really the colonist have involved away from being one. When you compared the Great Britain Englishmen to the colonized Englishmen, the British ones were proper, still had tea and were truly English, while the colonists had lost that side of them. They were also different because the colonized Englishmen were supposed to have the same “Englishmen Rights” as they would if in Great Britain, but the do not, so really they are not Englishmen at all. Another way people started to see why Great Britain “cared” so mush was how they took advantage of the colonists’ economy. // <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic;"> // After the French and Indian War Great Britain used the excuse “we helped you fight //// your //// war and now we are broke from it, so now we are going to tax you as a way to get //// our //// money back.” That statement right there alones shows how Great Britain already sees them becoming more independent, but just uses them to make a profit for their economy. This didn’t become a concern until Britain started to tax the colonist without colonist representatives to give the colonist point of view. (Mainly caused a problem when the Stamp Act occurred, it was the starting point and ending point of the American Revolution).This was a sign that they were being taken advantage of and decided that there should be “no taxation without representation”. // <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic;"> //<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 14pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic;">All of this started to appear, after and during the French and Indian War, to the common people in the colonies which created the turning point between the British and the colonists. //

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">__ **September 23rd, 2009** __ __ **Essential Question (2) -** __ //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif';">Justify the actions of the American colonists in declaring and fighting for their independence. Essential Question Due Thursday 2nd period. 9/24/09 // <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; text-align: left;"> //<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;">The American colonist had the right in declaring and fighting for their independence because Great Britain is just using them to make a profit for their own economy and does it in a way that shows that they do not care about the colonists there (their life). //<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;"> //<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;">Great Britain’s economy is very bad right now because of all the wars they have been apart of. They mainly use the colonies for their source of imports, this way they can turn the raw materials into products and sell it right back to them, for a hefty profit. Great Britain also starts to come up with all these ridiculous taxes (like the Stamp Act. and the Tea Act), while having no representation in parliament about these Acts. The Stamp Act really makes the colonists mad because they had no say in the tax being okay, which lead to the Loyal Nine and the Son’s of Liberty creating many protest and mild terrorists attacks. (These groups of terrorists also react to the Tea Act, known as the Boston Massacre and/or Boston Tea Party). The day Great Britain got rid of the Stamp Act they created the Declaratory Act, allowing them to make any laws seen fit, without the colonists’ representation. This got the colonist even madder and opened their eyes to how Great Britain was using them for their own profit. Another way colonist saw how Great Britain didn’t care about them, as citizens, was when they committed an act of salutary neglect. // //<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;">The reasons why the colonist wanted freedom occurred for many reasons, but when they realized that Great Britain didn’t care about them, their opinions really started favor reedom. When Great Britain salutary neglected the colonist they felt this feeling of freedom from Great Britain, they enjoyed it and brought up the idea of what it would be like if they were independent. This also created the colonist to see that Great Britain does not care about their way of living in the New World, but only care about how they get their money. The colonist saw how much Great Britain needs them to survive, and how they, themselves, are strong enough to become their own nation. Based off of how far they have come from settling in the New World till now, the only thing that is causing them problems is Great Britain, so that is what they need to get rid of. // <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;"> //<span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;">The colonist had the right to become independent because Great Britain was unfairly using them for a profit and economy boost. They also did not care about how the colonist lived as long as they got their pay. All of these things showed the colonist that Great Britain is becoming reliable on them, and they are becoming more independent from Great Britain. The colonist have the right to be free and have “their cord cut” because they have earned it through hard work and advances. // <span style="color: black; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: left;">  <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 22px; font-style: normal; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: center;">**__October 11th, 2009__** <span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 12pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; text-align: center;"> **__ Essential Question- __** // How does the constitution allow for an enduring political debate? Use support from activity completed in class. (Due Sunday by 8:00 pm) // The Constitution allows for an enduring political debate because it’s politics. It seems like no matter what you are talking about, politically, it’s something that will go on forever. The Constitution was different though because, it is something that would help set up the government, it was a more important topic then two people today talking about their view on the government. The meeting about the Constitution would have been a great debate because two political views have to be heard, some people are “hard headed”, people can be miss understood,. When making such an important decision, like what the Constitution should have, both sides of the story need to be heard, rather or not you agree or disagree with them. This was seen in our class debate when talking about the National Bank ideas. I was on Thomas Jefferson’s side and said that this could lead to problems because we would be creating a centralized power, while Alexander Hamilton was say it would unite us in some way. Both sides bring up good points and make it a harder to make a decision without acknowledging the other. At one point you will have to just say that one concern is not currently important, compared to the other. What makes it even harder to listening to both sides is, they both bring up good points to be considered, but the other side is so stubborn they won’t listen to it, or put both ideas together or compromise. This was something that had to be done in order to create the constitution. When debating, it is important to accept the other side’s opinion to get to a conclusion. When deciding on how to set up the Constitution both sides are going to “bump heads” in opinions. Sometimes people will get so caught up in their own opinion, that they will stop listening to the other side. This leads to three things, one people just start repeating their comments (this leads to a back and forth game, which to me is quite annoying) this can lead to number two, people get emotionally into it (this happens to many people in our class debates, I am not going to name names. I will admit that I do), and three, the debate will never end because an agreement is never made. If you go back and forth about the same idea and do not combined opinions, its common sense nothing is going to get resolved, unless one side gives in which is very uncommon. These symptoms of stubbornness can also be created with miscommunication. Communication is key in a political debate. Being able to express your opinions in a way everybody understands it is an extremely hard thing to do. This is because of many reasons. Some reasons are, people interrupt words and situations deferent than others, some people do not know how to correctly express their views understandable to other people (this happens to me all the time, and did that last debate when talking about how a National Bank is not necessary because each state can help each other if needed), and some people are just arrogant to the whole topic and continue to talk like they know what truly went down. If you can not say your view point correctly, then it’s not going to be heard correctly, which could make or break the decision. Having bad communication skills is not a good thing, especially when talking about an important topic like the Constitution. All three of these reasons, bad communication skills, being stubborn, and having two voices makes a debate hard enough. Once politics are involved these tribulations become inevitable, especially when talking about what the document that will say how our government works is the topic of debate.

October 25th, 2009 <span style="color: black; display: none; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-hide: all; msohide: all; text-decoration: none; textunderline: none;"> // **Essential Question-** //// Was the Revolution of 1800 truly a Revolution? // Due Sunday by 10:30pm Dictionary.com’s definition of a revolution is “an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed”. Based off of that definition and my understanding of the so called “revolution”, I would not consider the election of Jefferson a revolution. This is not a revolution because his way didn’t replace the government, the people were not the one who was changing the government, and the word is merely being used as an exaggeration. Because Jefferson was being elected into an already established government and was just taking role of the old president it is not a revolution. Jefferson may have increased the Democratic Republic role in the government, but that didn’t change the government in a whole, meaning the government wasn’t recreated. Like most presidents there were laws that changed or have been added or taken away and probably changed the government because the laws would have been more Democratic Republican than Federalist, but he did not change the government structure. According to what the definition of a revolution he did not over take the government he just made changes to laws, but not the whole government. <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Another reason why it is not considered a revolution is because the people did not go against the government. The people were looking for change in their governemnt and went with the new ideas Jefferson was promising because they were the answers to their problems. This still happens in today’s government. People want change they elect the person who seems is going to solve the world’s problem, but that person really doesn’t. Because the people themselves did not rise against the government, and just went for the best way for change, the Revolution of 1800 is not a revolution. If every time the common people sided with the president who promised ways to help the economy, there would have been a lot of revolutions. The word revolution is being used lightly in this situation. When thinking about the word revolution most people do not think of a president being elected and influencing the government, most people would think of a battle. A revolution does not incline influencing it is making a complete change, and over all change, not a few changes. A better word for this situation could be words like change or influence, not revolution. I can see why some people see it’s a revolution, but the word revolution is being misplaced. The Revolution of 1800 is not a revolution because Jefferson was the only one who influenced new ideas for the government, and the word revolution is just not the proper word who the situation.

<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 18pt; font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; msobidifontstyle: italic; msotabcount: 1;">