So, just what exactly is this thing called "HISTORY"?
-It's an account of the past.
-The accounts/narratives differ depending on one’s perspective.
-As historians, we rely on evidence to construct our accounts of the past.
-Any single piece of evidence is insufficient...therefore, we must consult multiple pieces of evidence in order to build a plausible account.
What would you say about a person that formed an opinion about a topic after only viewing one source of information? Can you then build an historical account based on only one side of the story?
Take the Founding Fathers, for instance. They risked EVERYTHING they had earned and/or inherited, legally and illegally, to form a more perfect union out of 13 English colonies hugging the eastern seaboard of the North American continent (if you want to know what sort of danger the Founders were in during the struggle, check out the account in "American Pageant" of how King George III dealt with a few Irish rebels at the same time). But why? Out of a sense of duty to create something better for posterity? Because Parliament and King George III taxed them too heavily? Are there other reasons?
We all know how the American Revolution ended...and we all know that the winners write history. Have you ever checked out the English side of the story, though?
http://www.redcoat.me.uk/Rev-War.htm
I think you'll agree that there account of the facts is a little bit different than ours.
Here is a list of what's coming up:
1.) "American Pageant," Ch. 8 Guidebook - due by Mon., 9/12
2.) "Loyalists" - some colonists remained loyal to England during the fight for independence (like colonists in East & West Florida, the 14th & 15th colonies that never get mentioned). Why? At what cost? On my McKeel webpage, there are a series of primary documents in .PDF format titled "Loyalists"; read the accounts and complete the graphic organizer attached. Then answer in paragraph-form the following (using your knowledge of the topic):
• Why did some colonists oppose independence?
• Do their arguments seem reasonable?
• What might Patriots have said in response to these arguments?
• Which side do you think was more reasonable?
*This "Loyalists" assignment is due on Tues., 9/13.
3.) You will need to view the following lessons (and complete the activities) on the Monterey Institute's AP US History I website () http://www.montereyinstitute.org/courses/AP%20US%20History%20I/nroc%20prototype%20files/coursestartc.html:
A.) Watch Unit 2, Chapter 4, Lessons 10 ("Imperial Reorganization") & 11 ("Philosophy of the American Revolution")
B.) Complete the Writing Assignment for Chapter 4 ("Reasons Many Americans Felt Pushed Toward Independence" - one-to-two paragraph response.
C.) Complete the Discussion Question (as a response to this blog or on paper) for Chapter 4 - "Why did the British change their economic and political policies towards the colonists from 1763 to 1775? Were the colonists justified in their response to the British policies? What groups were the colonists defending/neglecting in their revolt against the British?"
D.) Watch Unit 2, Chapter 5, Lessons 12 ("The Declaration of Independence") & 13 ("The Revolutionary War")
E.) Complete the Writing Assignment for Chapter 5 ("5 Grievances in the Declaration of Independence")
Assignments A-E from the Monterey Institute's APUSH website are due by Wed., 9/14.
1 comment:
Before 1763, the colonies were pretty much left alone to do as they pleased, including developing governments, politics, laws, social classes, religious freedoms, etc. After 1763, however, things began to change for the colonists. Britain began to exert more control over what they assumed to be rightfully theirs. They started with the Proclamation of 1763 to keep the colonists from moving out west. They began to impose taxes on the colonials, which they were unused to, to try to regain a bit of the money lost while trying to protect the colonies in the French and Indian war. As the colonists began to rebel against the new laws, however, the policies became less and less about re-establishing revenues and more and more about demonstrating British authority over the colonies. The Intolerable Acts, for example, were to punish the Americans for the Boston Tea Party. The Americans, especially later when the policies began to be completely about showing force, had every right to feel sorely towards and rebel against said policies. Acts such as the Quartering Act would infuriate anyone. The patriot colonists, it seemed, attempted to defend every group they were likely to get support from, though it is likely that many of the wealthy Patriots did it for personal gain just as much, if not more, than for the benefit of their people. They obviously neglected the Loyalists, as well as slaves, and appear to only make the idea of independence seem agreeable to the poor whites, though, even after independence, their condition did not change for most.
Post a Comment