Portfolio: Reflective Letter

Well this has certainly been and interesting and eye-opening year for me. It’s been difficult and there have been a lot of challenges. That sad thing is I don’t think I’ve adequately fulfilled many of the challenges. I had lots of trouble with procrastination. I would get distracted and not focus on what I should’ve been doing. And a constant habit was waiting until the last minute to do the assigned work. This produced continual failings that showed me that this class was not intended to be a cakewalk. In other words, you’ve actually got to work for the grade. And if you don’t work, you certainly don’t get the grade.

Much of the procrastination was caused by plain laziness. But laziness wasn’t necessarily the only factor that contributed to my bad habit. Not to sound like a soft chump or anything, but I was also dealing with intense emotional problems and minor health problems. I also had difficulty with the They Say, I Say textbook. It wasn’t too hard to understand the concepts in the book, but it was just difficult to apply them in my writing. Not only did you have to write well-thought-out and relevant content, but you also had to fit and format the content into these templates. At first, I hated it. But the more I practiced using the templates, the easier it became.

Overall, I’m disappointed in my work and performance. As I’ve wholeheartedly learned, procrastination really doesn’t do any good for you. It decreases your focus, stresses you out, and ultimately produces bad results. And, unfortunately, this fact has been made evident by the work that I’ve turned in throughout this quarter. For example, my first essay had the potential to be great. But my own procrastination caused it to be a weak paper that got a low grade. I waited to the last minute, so I wasn’t able to have a fully developed/supported thesis. The entire paper was a bit underdeveloped and unorganized.

Sometime during the beginning of the quarter, Craig had everyone post their writing philosophies onto our blogs. At first, this was a bit difficult for me. I didn't really have a philosophy, I just wrote whatever I was assigned to write. But when I really started thinking about it, I started to understand how I approached writing, and maybe how I could improve that approach. I had stated that writing, to me, was a form of communication and expression. Writing is something that you use to communicate. Use it to relay a message, inform someone, or ask a question. Or, just express your feelings. So at that time, I thought that writing was pretty simple. But there's one thing about writing that I hadn't realized at first: writing is an art. If you really want to influence, enlighten, or inspire someone, you've got to be an artist. The pen is your paintbrush, the paper is your canvas. Sentences, clauses, phrases, and templates; these are all the different colors you put together to make your work of art. When I first started this class, I just wrote in order to get the assignment done. Little did I know that I was missing the whole point.

This quarter certainly didn't turn out entirely bad. I really did learn a lot of new things and improved my writing. I learned to actually "write" about something and not just puke it onto the page. This means no filler and no "BS". Instead, develop thoughtful analysis and genuinely communicate what you have to say. Think before you write, and structure and organize your work accordingly. I may not have mastered these aspects of writing quite yet. But I'm certain that, after taking this class, I'm on the right track.
Throughout the quarter, my writing has been plagued by several weakness and shortcomings. I wasn't very proficient with structure and organization, and didn't use my topic sentences very well. For example, in my first essay I started off a paragraph with the following: "Bacon and his followers attacked and killed many Native Americans-hands down." This sentence really didn't do much to guide the rest of my paragraph, and I ended up going off into a ramble about the value of human life. The good thing is that I'm learning from my mistakes and am constantly trying to improve my past mistakes whenever I get the chance.
Overall, this writing class has been very helpful for me. I've fumbled a lot, but I've also learned from my mistakes. This class really showed me the amount of dedication and work that will be needed in order to survive in college, and showed me the writing skills I'll need to succeed in the classes. I'm very glad that I was able to take this class, and I hope to continue applying the concepts I've learned.

Portfolio: Essay 2: Thoughts of a Carolinian Patriot

I’m a colonist living in North Carolina. I make a living from farming and most people would identify me as a commoner. In the recent years, Great Britain has become increasingly more despotic. They have tried to impose their will upon the colonies. With no consideration of our rights, they pass laws that weigh us down. Great Britain is indeed a mighty country, and our colonies can gain a lot from their economic power and political status. But the time has come for us to break away from Britain, before we end up having no rights at all. I fear that if I stay loyal to Britain, my way of life would be betrayed, and my entire livelihood at stake.

I’ve heard numerous stories about fanatical patriots who destroy private property and kill people. And all of their targets are loyalists, who are also known as Tories (Wood 38). I personally do not want to become one of those victims. Not only am I concerned about myself, but I must also think about the safety of my family and my plantation. Just the other week, the Whig Regime ordered everyone to swear an oath of allegiance to North Carolina or be identified as a Tory (Escott and Crow 385). I’d much rather be identified as a patriot so I won’t have to worry about being victimized. That way, I can focus on my funds and my trade.

Economically, my family and I are doing very well. I have the adequate funds to provide food, shelter, and a proper living environment for my wife and kids. Most of this success is due to my constant hard work, but I do indeed owe a lot of this prosperity to the few slaves that help work my plantation. Not many people in North Carolina own slaves, so I’ve got quite an advantage over my competition when it comes to producing crops (Escott and Crow 381). I’m afraid, however, that Britain’s campaign of tyrannical rule is also deterring my labor force. Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, has declared that any slave that runs away and fights for Great Britain will be freed (Crow 83). Consequently, several of my slaves have already escaped, and it is awfully expensive to replace them. Runaway slaves are nothing new, but I am infuriated by Great Britain’s promise of freedom. That tyrannical king is stealing away my property without my consent. I had paid a great deal of money for my slaves, and they are instrumental to the success of my farm. First it was the taxes, and now my property rights are under attack. The scary thing is that there are similar patterns of Britain’s tyranny in several other colonies also. For example, Great Britain recently closed down the Boston Harbor with a fleet of warships. We colonists can no longer allow Great Britain to treat us as a lesser people.

I’ve been able to live comfortable under British rule for many years, and for many years it has been a sound government. But within the past years, it has began to take away our rights as British citizens. If we aren't represented as equal British citizens, then why bother being apart of this oppressive British empire? The time has come for us to break away and become our own independent nation. If I must choose any side, I am most definitely an American patriot.

Escott, Paul D., and Jeffrey J. Crow. "The Social Order and Violent Disorder: An Analysis of North Carolina in the Revolution and the Civil War." The Journal of Southern History 52(1986): 373-402.

Wood, Gordon S.. "A Note on Mobs in the American Revolution." The William and Mary Quarterly 23(1966): 635-642.

Crow, Jeffrey J.. "Slave Rebelliousness and Social Conflict in North Carolina, 1775-1802." The William and Mary Quarterly 37(1980): 79-102.

Portfolio: Essay 1: Bacon's Rebellion

-------Some say that Nathaniel Bacon was a murderer. Others call him a hero. While many recognize him as a revolutionary. Different people have had different opinions throughout the different time periods. Nathaniel Bacon was the starter and leader of Bacon’s Rebellion, and has been the subject of many discussions. His actions during the rebellion are very controversial. He’s known to have rallied colonists against Governor William Berkeley and vie for justice in Virginia. But one important aspect of his rebellion that is often times overlooked is his attitude and treatment toward Native Americans. It is evident that Bacon harbored much animosity toward Native Americans, and this animosity was shown in his acts of hostility and violence. Also, many fail to recognize the unlawfulness of Bacon and his rebellion. Not only did he break the laws of Virginia, but he attacked Jamestown and several of the colonists that lived there. Bacon's violence didn’t stop there either. Bacon also attacked and killed masses of Native Americans, many of whom had never done anything hostile toward him. So, although some might recognize Bacon's Rebellion as a revolutionary even in American history, it was essentially a crusade of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of hundreds.


-------Bacon’s Rebellion was an uprising of poor farmers and former indentured servants in the Virginia colonies. It took place in the autumn of 1676, a time when Virginia was under the authority of an English governor named William Berkeley. Nathaniel Bacon rallied the inhabitants of Virginia against Governor Berkeley and rich plantation owners, and helped lead several attacks on various Native American tribes. There were a number of causes of these acts of violence. For one, the Virginia government repeatedly collected large taxes from the poor farmers and never explained what they were doing to their tax money. Another cause of the rebellion was that Native American tribes were consistently attacking many of the poor farmers and frontiersmen in Virginia. And poor farmers felt as though Governor Berkeley was not making any adequate attempts at stopping the Natives American attacks. Ironically, these Native American attacks were actually provoked by the poor farmers and frontiersmen who were encroaching on the Native American land in the first place. All of these frustrations finally led to a revolt against the Native Americans and the Virginia government. The poor farmers, under the leadership of Nathaniel Bacon, rebelled with political dissent and unlawful violence. They attacked and seized Jamestown, fought and killed many Native Americans, and sacked the plantations of wealthy farmers. Governor Berkeley and his troops fought back, and eventually recaptured Jamestown. After three months of continuous fighting, Bacon suddenly died of dysentery. Presently, several English ships, which were full of English soldiers, arrived in Virginia to reinforce Governor Berkeley. At this time, the rebellion was all but defeated. Governor Berkeley put an end to the rebellion by hanging Bacon’s allies and destroying farms that belonged to Bacon’s supporters. Ultimately, the rebellion failed. It didn’t produce any changes that Bacon and the rebels had been hoping for. But it did have some effects on the attitudes and mindsets of the inhabitants of Virginia during that time period. And even today, Americans are still intrigued by the story, and continue to converse and debate about the significance of such an event.


-------In discussions of Bacon’s Rebellion, one controversial issue has been the interactions between the violent rebels and the Native Americans. On the one hand, some contend that the rebel attacks on Native Americans were overly cruel and unjustified. Events recorded by writers like Michael J Puglisi shed on some of the violence that occurred during Bacon’s Rebellion. On page seventy-eight of his article, "Whether They be Friends or Foes," Puglisi recounts that "Bacon's extra-legal army, bent on revenge, attacked the peaceful Indian village, located in the Dragon Swamp, although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English." In making this comment, Puglisi is illustrating the inhumanity of Bacon and his actions. Bacon and his forces attacked a settlement of Native Americans that had never done any harm to them. Puglisi goes on to say, "The natives, including their leader, fled. Bacon and his forces followed, killing and taking them prisoners, and looking for... Plunder." Basically, Puglisi is showing how Bacon and his supporters unfairly and needlessly terrorized the Native Americans. The Natives were the victims here, and the rebels killed as many Natives as they could and ransacked their possessions. Puglisi realized that Bacon had an unreasonable thirst for revenge on the Native Americans. And this vengefulness was one of the main motivating factors for Bacon's barbarous actions. The writer Howard Zinn agrees on page thirty-seven of his book, "A Young People's History of the United States", when he writes about Bacon: "he probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor." And it’s clear that when Bacon was killing Native Americans, he didn’t care about whether or not the Natives were hostile or friendly. Observe the quote by the Royal Commissioners in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia which says, “Bacon had got over the [James] River with his Forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends…” Bacon and the rebels hastily went into Native American territory and killed Native Americans that were “best friends” with the colonists. This is illustrating the unfair cruelness that the rebellion inflicted upon friendly the Native Americans. It is evident that the described violence was misdirected and unwarranted.


-------But on the other hand, some argue that Bacon and his rebels were justified in their attacks against Native Americans. There were, in fact, many instances where Native Americans would attack and kill defenseless white colonists. Even women and children would get killed. Bacon's solution was to no longer be defenseless, but to instead take up arms and repel the savage attacks. An anonymous Virginia resident who was present during Bacon’s Rebellion wrote, "for in a very short time [in January 1676, the Susquehannahs] had, in a most inhumane manner, [murdered] no less than 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any [actual] injury [done] to these ill disarning, brutish heathen," (document #5). An interesting parallel to Bacon’s killings, the Susquhannah Indians attacked and killed sixty innocent colonists in a “most inhumane manner.” This recounting is a key example of Native American brutality toward innocent colonists. The cruelty of the Native Americans is expounded by the writings of Elizabeth Bacon, who was Nathaniel Bacon's wife. In a letter to Nathaniel Bacon's sister in London, Elizabeth Bacon writes, "I pray God keep the worst Enemy I have from ever being in such a sad condition as I have been in since my (previous letter to you), occasioned by the troublesome Indians,"(document #9). Elizabeth Bacon felt that the terror being caused by the Native Americans was so cruel, that no human should ever have to experience it. Not even her "worst enemy," which in this case would probably be the Native Americans themselves. So Elizabeth Bacon—and probably many other colonists at that time—were not hell-bent on taking vengeance on the Native Americans. Instead, there seemed to be a longing for some relief, restitution, and change. And this is exactly what Nathaniel Bacon had hoped to bring to the Virginia colonies. As Bacon stated in his very own words, "finding that the country was basely for a small and sordid gain betrayed, and the lives and fortunes of the poor inhabitants wretchedly sacrificed, [I] resolved to stand up in this ruinous gap, and rather expose my life and fortune to all hazards than basely desert my post and by so bad an example make desolate a whole country in which no one dared to stir against the common Enemy," (document #12). These words convey Bacon’s devotion to his people and his desire for the safety of those who could not defend themselves. Basically, Bacon wanted to bring a positive change to the Virginia colonies. He understood that his life would be at stake, but he still refused to stand idly by as his fellow colonists continued to suffer.

-------Both sides of the argument have their merits. It's a well-know fact that Bacon led a rebellion which killed many Native Americans. However, under the circumstances, this would be the right thing to do. The poor farmers and their families were under constant attack by Native American tribes, so it's only human nature to defend and retaliate. If my family were under attack, I would be much oblige to take up arms and fight. And that's exactly what the rebels did. The problem is that Bacon and his rebels didn't stop there; they took it further. Not only did they assault the violent tribes, but they also attacked the more peaceful ones also. That, in my opinion, is where they cross the line. As we've already observed, Bacon and his rebels killed innocent women, children, men, and ransacked the Native American villages. Realistically, this is exactly what the violent Native Americans had done to the colonists in the first place. So Bacon and his rebels decided to fight terror with more terror, which would only create more bloodshed. Was this aspect of the rebellion justified? It was no more justified than the Native American attacks on the colonies. In my opinion, this rebellion is a perfect example of what not to do. Hopefully people will continue to look back and learn a lesson from history.


-------Bacon’s Rebellion conveys an important lesson to today’s population. From the rebellion, we learn and understand that small insurgence and pockets of rebellion don’t work on a national level. We’ve come to an age where nations have the power to destroy entire cities. The nations of this world could, if they all wanted to, destroy the planet. Not that anyone would want to do that, but the fact is that the kingdoms and nations of this day have become much too powerful to simply oppose with violence. Just like in Bacon’s day. The rebellion was able to last three months before it was crushed. The rebels could not successful overturn Governor Berkeley. And the rebels stood no chance at all when a few war ships arrived from mainland England. England, as an empire, had just gotten too strong. There was no way that Bacon and his rebel force could have made any real change through their rebellion and violence. Just like in today’s world, the best thing that Bacon could have done to make a change would be to act politically. Don’t act in violence, but instead work in the political arena. Use your rights, privileges, and laws to make a change. If Bacon had tried to do it that way, he could have potentially spared hundreds of innocent lives. Bacon’s Rebellion realistically shows us the consequences of not operating properly in our own nation. If someone were to grab a sub-machine gun and go attack the White House with an angry mob, they wouldn’t stand a chance. They would instantly be either arrested, severely wounded, or probably killed. And those exact same results occurred in Bacon’s Rebellion. It just took a little longer than it would nowadays. Bacon died. Most of the rebels were killed off. And, in the end, the rebellion ultimately failed.

-------Bacon’s Rebellion was full of unnecessary deaths. Many innocent Native Americans and colonists were killed needlessly. Bacon and his rebels marched unlawfully on Jamestown, attacking English soldiers and government officials. They marched into Native American lands, killing indiscreetly and plundering for goods. Immense suffering was present both in English lands, and in Native American lands. And the blame doesn’t completely lie with Bacon and his rebels. The evil was two-fold. Bacon and his rebels were, in many ways very barbarous. Likewise, the hostile Native Americans were, in many ways, very barbarous. Those innocent (both white and Native American) were simply caught in the middle of all the carnage, and unfortunately received much of the consequences. It doesn’t matter who started the conflicts. Instead, someone has to know how to step up and end them.

Portfolio: Final Exam Frame 1

Geoffrey Meredith brings up an important fact about a certain problem in our society. A substantial amount of citizens nowadays cannot operate successfully inside of our American system. According to Meredith “A much larger percentage are youths—high-school and even college graduates, who, despite their degrees, cant fill out a simple employment form.” In making this comment, Meredith argues that even some who go through schooling and obtain a degree have trouble functioning properly in this society. I agree with Meredith’s point, because my own experience confirms it. There’s actually been several times when I’ve had to help someone else (who had a much higher education than I did) fill out a job application. However, Meredith overlooks what I consider an important point about our society’s technological progression. I believe that our society has become so technologically advanced that many of the functions that were essential to older generations are no longer important. Computers and other electronics have the capacity to do a variety of operations. And there are many things that they do much better than humans. Remember just decades ago, before we had the calculator. People would have to use mere pen and paper to do most of their calculations. Now, calculators are so wide-spread that it’s customary to have one inside of your cell phone. In essence, our society has had a sort of evolutionary effect. The old skills and abilities that were once important are no longer necessary. Instead of going into a workplace, picking up an application, and interviewing for a job, someone can just send they’re application through the internet and work their job entirely from home.

Reflective Letter Rough Draft 1

Well this has certainly been and interesting and eye-opening year for me. It’s been difficult and there have been a lot of challenges. That sad thing is I don’t think I’ve adequately fulfilled many of the challenges. I had lots of trouble with procrastination. I would get distracted and not focus on what I should’ve been doing. And a constant habit was waiting until the last minute to do the assigned work. This produced continual failings that showed me that this class was not intended to be a cakewalk. In other words, you’ve actually got to work for the grade. And if you don’t work, you certainly don’t get the grade.
Much of the procrastination was caused by plain laziness. But laziness wasn’t necessarily the only factor that contributed to my bad habit. Not to sound like a soft chump or anything, but I was also dealing with intense emotional problems and minor health problems. I also had difficulty with the They Say, I Say textbook. It wasn’t too hard to understand the concepts in the book, but it was just difficult to apply them in my writing. Not only did you have to write well-thought-out and relevant content, but you also had to fit and format the content into these templates. At first, I hated it. But the more I practiced using the templates, the easier it became.
Overall, I’m disappointed in my work and performance. As I’ve wholeheartedly learned, procrastination really doesn’t do any good for you. It decreases your focus, stresses you out, and ultimately produces bad results. And, unfortunately, this fact has been made evident by the work that I’ve turned in throughout this quarter. For example, my first essay had the potential to be great. But my own procrastination caused it to be a weak paper that got a low grade. I waited to the last minute, so I wasn’t able to have a fully developed/supported thesis. The entire paper was a bit underdeveloped and unorganized.

Alien and Sedition Acts

The Alien Act

Who is writing?
The Congress

Who is the audience?
The citizens of America, including the lawmakers, judges, justices, Martials, and foreigners.

What is being said, argued and/or requested?
Whenever America is engaged in hostility with another nation, all citizens, natives, denizens, and subjects are subject to imprisonment and removal. It’s the duty of the courts of the US and of the judges and justices of the courts of the US. Also it’s the duty of the martials.

How is it being said argued and/or requested?
The new laws are being proclaimed authoritatively.

What proof and/or justification are being used to legitimize the request?
Not much. The writers don’t need much seeing as they basically are the law.


---------
The Sedition Act

Who is writing?
The Congress

Who is the audience?
The citizens of America

What is being said, argued and/or requested?
They’re enforcing some new laws. No one is allowed to gather or conspire to oppose the government. Also, it is illegal to write, print or publish anything that opposed the American government. Also, it is illegal to intimidate or prevent anyone from holding an office in government, or rightfully fulfilling their duty as an American politician.

How is it being said argued and/or requested?
The new laws are being proclaimed authoritatively.

What proof and/or justification are being used to legitimize the request?
Not much. The writers don’t need much seeing as they’re the congress so they’re basically are the law.

Essay #2 Reflection

Personally, I think I performed abysmally with this essay. The past couple weeks have been the procrastination highlight of my life. I certainly could've done a lot better. We had a lot less time for this essay than we did for essay number one, but I still did a lot worse on this one. The main problem was my extreme procrastination, which was caused by several different things. A mix of emotional problems, physical problems, and lack of discipline.

Final Essay #2

Thoughts of a North Carolinian Patriot

I’m a colonist living in North Carolina. I make a living from farming and most people would identify me as a commoner. In the recent years, I’ve been pretty neutral about Great Britain. However, I’ve recently become outraged by the recent course of events. I personally do not mind having a king who rules from across the ocean, but this king has recently been making some unnecessary power plays. Great Britain has been making decisions that would improve England, but these same choices also infringe upon our rights and livelihood as colonists.

As I’ve said before, I’m not one who cares much for politics. In my opinion, the whole political scene is for boring, old, lazy, and wealthy folk. I am apart of the working class. I know how to work with hands and I’m not afraid of getting a bit dirty. I feel comfortable just doing my own work and go about my own business without conducting a single thought on any political nonsense. With this revolutionary conflict, however, I am no longer privileged with such leisure. I’ve heard numerous stories about fanatical patriots who would destroy private property and kill people. And all of their targets are loyalists, who are also known as Tories (Wood 38). I personally do not want to become one of those victims. Not only am I concerned about myself, but I must also think about the safety of my family and my plantation. Just the other week, the Whig Regime ordered everyone to swear an oath of allegiance to North Carolina or be identified as a Tory (Escott and Crow 385). I’d much rather be identified as a patriot so I won’t have to worry about being victimized. Instead, I can focus on my funds and my trade.

Economically, my family and I are doing very well. I have the adequate funds to provide food, shelter, and a proper living environment for my wife and kids. Most of this success is due to my constant hard work, but I do indeed owe a lot of this prosperity to the few slaves that help work my plantation. Not many people in North Carolina own slaves, so I’ve got quite an advantage over my competition when it comes to producing crops (Escott and Crow 381). I’m afraid, however, that Britain’s campaign of tyrannical rule is also deterring my labor force. Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, has declared that any slave that runs away and fights for Great Britain will be freed (Crow 83). Consequently, several of my slaves have already escaped, and it is awfully expensive to replace them. Runaway slaves are nothing new, but I am infuriated by Great Britain’s promise of freedom. For some reason, they think that they can simply give my slaves freedom without my consent. I had paid a great deal of money for my slaves, and they are instrumental to the success of my farm. Great Britain thinking that they can steal away my property is just plain atrocious. What’s scary is that there are similar patterns of Britain’s tyranny in several other colonies also. We colonists can no longer allow Great Britain to treat us as a lesser people.

I’ve been able to live comfortable under British rule for many years. Government is government, and they must make sovereign decisions. With this impending revolution, however, Great Britain has been acting more tyrannical than political. They’ve speak as though the property of the colonists, is their property too. If I could, I’d abstain from all political engagements. But it seems that I must now take sides. And if I must choose any side, I am most definitely an American patriot.

Sources Cited

Escott, Paul D., and Jeffrey J. Crow. "The Social Order and Violent Disorder: An Analysis of North Carolina in the Revolution and the Civil War." The Journal of Southern History 52(1986): 373-402.

Wood, Gordon S.. "A Note on Mobs in the American Revolution." The William and Mary Quarterly 23(1966): 635-642.

Crow, Jeffrey J.. "Slave Rebelliousness and Social Conflict in North Carolina, 1775-1802." The William and Mary Quarterly 37(1980): 79-102.

Synthesis

The video we watched in class illustrated the characters and attitudes that were present in America before the Revolutionary War. For a long time, the colonists had an inferiority-complex toward the British. They believed that all of the sophistication, opportunity, riches, and knowledge were in mainland Britain. Therefore, most peoples in the colonies were proud to be British. But they wanted more than to just be British; they wanted to be specifically like those in Great Britain. The colonists desired to walk like them, talk like them, dress like them, and ultimately be them. And this mindset was abundant in the colonies just fifteen years before the revolution. But what happened during those fifteen years? Why did the colonies go from admiring Great Britain, to breaking away from them? Well, according to Jonathan Adams, “The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected, from 1760-1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.” Basically, Adams is saying that the war wasn’t the actual revolution. The real revolution was taken place in the minds of the colonists. As the years passed by, the colonists began to realize that they could become a force to be reckoned with. But before they could obtain this self-confidence within themselves, they had to first begin to despise those whom they had used to admire. Events like the passing of the Stamp Act and the blocking of the Boston port stirred up frustration and animosity toward Great Britain. A just like the great quote says, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” So the colonists united. The unity that was present in the colonies is vividly portrayed in primary source documents like The Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence. In which Samuel Adams says to the colonists of New York, “Now therefore is the time when all should be united in opposition to this violation of the liberties of all.” In other words, Adams believed that it was time to rebel against Great Britain. He pushed for the unity of all the colonies of America so that, together, they could protect and promote their liberty. And it was through moments and dialogues like these in which the colonists could see the corruption of Great Britain. They could see the beauty of their American ways. They finally realized that they didn’t need Great Britain. They were ready to break apart and stand alone. And that’s where the revolution took place—in the minds of the colonists. The Revolutionary war was merely a result and byproduct of the revolution.

My Responses to the Primary Source Documents

Circular Letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence

I kind of liked this letter because it was promoting unity and trying to get all the colonists on one page. In their eyes, Great Britain was being too dominant and disrespectful. The colonists apparently felt as though they were being taken advantage of and looked down upon. So the colonists finally decided that enough is enough. And that’s the aspect of the letter that I don’t really like. If you think about it, Great Britain had every right to close down that port. That was colonists’ land, but the colonists didn’t necessarily own it. All of the colonies belonged to Great Britain, so it’s only fair that they handle the land as they see fit. The colonists only felt violated because they had been governing and looking out for themselves for a long time. I suppose it’s almost like having a big brother. When you’re young, he can kind of boss you around and tell you what to do. Then he gets married and moves out and you grow up a bit. Then, he returns several years later and starts trying to boss you around again as-if you were still a little kid. Obviously that doesn’t work out too well. If I were in the colonists’ position, I would have probably done the same thing. Contact the other colonists in private and get everyone on the same page in order to repel the British injustice.

Letter from New York Committee to Boston Committee

This was another letter that really strengthened the unity between the colonists. The New York Committee welcomed Boston with open arms. They expressed their empathy for the recent blockade, and told Boston that they’re ready to help out. In fact, the New York Committee says that it’s their “duty” to assist Boston. This clearly shows how unified the colonies have in fact become. In the end, they once again emphasize their desire to work together with Boston and other colonies in order to insure American liberty and justice.

Declaration of American Rights

This document feels really firm and strong. It seems that, at this time, the colonists are starting to feel all bad-ass like they can contend with the will of Great Britain. Most of the resolves seem to make sense. But, in my opinion, the whole tone of the document is kind of bratty and selfish. They’re asking for all the rights and liberties of the citizens of mainland Britain. But at the same time, they want to be immune from all the negative connotations and laws. I understand their desire for more independence and benefits, but come on. If you belong to a king and country, you’ve got to abide by the laws and regulations, even if they aren’t all that easy.

Circular Letter of Boston Committee of Correspondence
Text Analysis

Who is writing?
The Boston Committee of Correspondence-specifically Samuel Adams

Who’s the audience?
I think the main audience is New York, then anyone in Boston, then finally anyone in all of the colonies.

Who do the writers represent?
They’re representing Boston. They’re speaking out for the best interest of Boston and the other colonies.

What is being said, argued and/or requested?
The long and short of what they’re saying is that Great Britain can’t be trusted so all of the colonies need to unite in order to preserve their liberty. They refer to the recent incident in which the Boston port has been closed down and blocked by British warships. The writers express their grievance over the recent event and insist that it was unfair and unjust. Then they make a call to action, urging everyone to unite against Great Britain.

How is it being said, argued, and/or requested?
It’s being said in the form of a letter. The writers give an account of the British blockade in order to convey the British unfairness. In a sense, the writers are trying to create some sympathy in the reader. They try and persuade their readers by saying that this blockade is an example of what Great Britain will do to other colonies that don’t obey. According to the letter, it was supposedly written without any sort of intimidation.

What proof and/or justification is being used to legitimize the request?
The writers are depending on the sympathy and empathy of their fellow colonies. The writers stress that, even though they are separate colonies, they are all Americans. The writers recount on the closing of the Boston port to conjure sympathy and make Great Britain look like the bad guy.

Essay Reflection #1

My Previous Writing Philosophy

To me, writing is a form of communication, expression, and discovery. When I write, I usually use my writing as a means to communicate my thoughts and ideas. Other times, I simply write to express myself. Whether I'm mad, glad, or sad, I can always write something to express my feelings. Even if no one ever reads my writing, there is still some sense of emotional fulfillment when I am able to express myself on paper. And in expressing myself, I can sometimes understand myself more than I did before. And that's where the discovery aspect comes in. When I'm writing to communicate with someone, my objectives are to clearly and effectively compose my thoughts, theories, and ultimately my message on paper. And hopefully the reader will understand what I'm trying to say, possibly learn something new, and obtain a clear view of my perspective

The aspects of my first writing philosophy still remain true. Over the past several weeks, however, I've learned and experienced some things that have augmented my customary approach to writing. I've learned that when you're trying to make a point in your writing, you've got to be able to back it up with evidence and be persuasive. At the same time, you should remain truthful and try not to be too bias. I think that you should try to represent the truth properly and accordingly, and then represent your opinion properly.

In the past, I've usually BSed most of my papers. I usually didn't care much about the topic, but I just wanted to write enough filler to get at least a decent grade. This meant coming up with a random and easy thesis, and then finding some data/research/info to support it. Then, pour out a whole bunch of academic crapola and turn it into the teacher. And, obviously, writing like that never worked out too well. With the Bacon's Rebellion essay, Craig really challenged the class to approach the project a bit differently. He encouraged us to do most of the research first, and then come up with a thesis based on your interpretation and response to the research. This process really opened up new horizons in the way I approach writing academically. This essay made me actually care about what I was writing and think about the subject. And when I was actually interested in what I was writing, I was able to tap into my writing zone and started to enjoy the writing. 

All in all, the completion of this essay was a big accomplishement for me. It was a daunting task, but finishing it was so fulfilling. Lately, my confidence in my writing has been dangerously low. But after completing this essay, my confidence has really been boosted. Now I must admit that I did procrastinate sometimes. I was way overly stressed about the assignment and got it done at the last minute. In the future I hope to break any bad habits of procrastination so I can be stress-free and put forth my best work.

Bacon's Rebellion: Final Draft

-------Some say that Nathaniel Bacon was a murderer. Others call him a hero. While many recognize him as a revolutionary. Different people have had different opinions throughout the different time periods. Nathaniel Bacon was the starter and leader of Bacon’s Rebellion, and has been the subject of many discussions. His actions during the rebellion are very controversial. He’s known to have rallied colonists against Governor William Berkeley and vie for justice in Virginia. But one important aspect of his rebellion that is often times overlooked is his attitude and treatment toward Native Americans. It is evident that Bacon harbored much animosity toward Native Americans, and this animosity was shown in his acts of hostility and violence. Also, many fail to recognize the unlawfulness of Bacon and his rebellion. Not only did he break the laws of Virginia, but he attacked Jamestown and several of the colonists that lived there. Bacon's violence didn’t stop there either. Bacon also attacked and killed masses of Native Americans, many of whom had never done anything hostile toward him. So in reality, Bacon’s Rebellion was essentially a crusade of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of hundreds.

-------Bacon’s Rebellion was an uprising of poor farmers and former indentured servants in the Virginia colonies. It took place in the autumn of 1676, a time when Virginia was under the authority of an English governor named William Berkeley. Nathaniel Bacon rallied the inhabitants of Virginia against Governor Berkeley and rich plantation owners, and helped lead several attacks on various Native American tribes. There were a number of causes of this violent rebellion. For one, the Virginia government repeatedly collected large taxes from the farmers and never told them what was happening to their tax money. Another cause of the rebellion was that Native American tribes were consistently attacking many of the poor farmers and frontiersmen in Virginia. And poor farmers felt as though Governor Berkeley was not making any adequate attempts at stopping the Natives American attacks. Ironically, these Native American attacks were actually provoked by the poor farmers and frontiersmen who were encroaching on the Native American land in the first place. All of these frustrations finally led to a revolt against the Native Americans and the Virginia government. The poor farmers, under the leadership of Nathaniel Bacon, rebelled with political dissent and unlawful violence. They attacked and seized Jamestown, fought and killed many Native Americans, and sacked the plantations of wealthy farmers. Governor Berkeley and his troops fought back, and eventually recaptured Jamestown. The fighting continued for three months. Then Bacon suddenly died of dysentery. His death was a big stumbling block for the rebellion. Presently, several English ships, which were full of English soldiers, arrived in Virginia to reinforce Governor Berkeley. At this time, the rebellion was all but defeated. Governor Berkeley put an end to the rebellion by hanging Bacon’s allies and destroying farms that belonged to Bacon’s supporters. And that was the official conclusion of Bacon’s Rebellion. Ultimately, the rebellion failed. It didn’t produce any changes that Bacon and the rebels had been hoping for. But it did have some effects on the attitudes and mindsets of the inhabitants of Virginia during that time period. And even today, Americans are still intrigued by the story, and continue to converse and debate about the significance of such an event.

-------In discussions of Bacon’s Rebellion, one controversial issue has been the happenings and interactions between the violent rebels and the Native Americans. On the one hand, some contend that the rebel attacks on Native Americans were overly cruel and unjustified. Events recorded by writers like Michael J Puglisi shed on some of the violence that occurred during Bacon’s Rebellion. On page seventy-eight of his article, "Whether They be Friends or Foes," Puglisi recounts that "Bacon's extra-legal army, bent on revenge, attacked the peaceful Indian village, located in the Dragon Swamp, although it was well known to the whole country that the Queen of Pamunkey and her People had never at any time betrayed or injured the English." In making this comment, Puglisi is illustrating the inhumanity of Bacon and his actions. Bacon and his forces attacked a settlement of Native Americans that had never done any harm to them. Puglisi goes on to say, "The natives, including their leader, fled. Bacon and his forces followed, killing and taking them prisoners, and looking for... Plunder." Basically, Puglisi is showing how Bacon and his supporters unfairly and needlessly terrorized the Native Americans. The Natives were the victims here, and the rebels killed as many Natives as they could and ransacked their possessions. Puglisi realized that Bacon had an unreasonable thirst for revenge on the Native Americans. And this vengefulness was one of the main motivating factors for Bacon's barbarous actions. The writer Howard Zinn agrees on page thirty-seven of his book, "A Young People's History of the United States", when he writes about Bacon: "he probably cared more about fighting Indians than about helping the poor." And it’s clear that when Bacon was killing Native Americans, he didn’t care about whether or not the Natives were hostile or friendly. Observe the quote by the Royal Commissioners in A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia which says, “Bacon had got over the [James] River with his Forces and hastening away into the woods, went directly and fell upon the Indians and killed some of them [which] were some of our best Friends…” Bacon and the rebels hastily went into Native American territory and killed Native Americans that were “best friends” with the colonists. This is a prime example of Bacon’s ruthless backstabbing on the Native Americans. Even though those Natives were not enemies, they were still hunted and killed at the hands of Nathaniel Bacon.

-------But on the other hand, some argue that Bacon and his rebels were justified in their attacks against Native Americans. There were, in fact, many instances where Native Americans would attack and kill defenseless white colonists. Even women and children would get killed. Bacon's solution was to no longer be defenseless, but to instead take up arms and repel the savage attacks. An anonymous Virginia resident who was present during Bacon’s Rebellion wrote, "for in a very short time [in January 1676, the Susquehannahs] had, in a most inhumane manner, [murdered] no less than 60 innocent people, no ways guilty of any [actual] injury [done] to these ill disarning, brutish heathen," (document #5). An interesting parallel to Bacon’s killings, the Susquhannah Indians attacked and killed sixty innocent colonists in a “most inhumane manner.” This recounting is a key example of Native American brutality toward innocent colonists. The cruelty of the Native Americans is expounded by the writings of Elizabeth Bacon, who was Nathaniel Bacon's wife. In a letter to Nathaniel Bacon's sister in London, Elizabeth Bacon writes, "I pray God keep the worst Enemy I have from ever being in such a sad condition as I have been in since my (previous letter to you), occasioned by the troublesome Indians,"(document #9). Elizabeth Bacon felt that the terror being caused by the Native Americans was so cruel, that no human should ever have to experience it. Not even her "worst enemy," which in this case would probably be the Native Americans themselves. So Elizabeth Bacon—and probably many other colonists at that time—were not hell-bent on taking vengeance on the Native Americans. Instead, there seemed to be a longing for some relief, restitution, and change. And this is exactly what Nathaniel Bacon had hoped to bring to the Virginia colonies. As Bacon stated in his very own words, "finding that the country was basely for a small and sordid gain betrayed, and the lives and fortunes of the poor inhabitants wretchedly sacrificed, [I] resolved to stand up in this ruinous gap, and rather expose my life and fortune to all hazards than basely desert my post and by so bad an example make desolate a whole country in which no one dared to stir against the common Enemy," (document #12). These words convey Bacon’s devotion to his people and his desire for the safety of those who could not defend themselves. Basically, Bacon wanted to bring a positive change to the Virginia colonies. He understood that his life would be at stake, but he still refused to stand idly by as his fellow colonists continued to suffer.

-------Bacon and his followers attacked and killed many Native Americans-hands down. It’s history. I personally do not like the killing of human beings. In my mind, human lives are one of the most valuable things in this world, and they shouldn’t be sacrificed needlessly. There are certainly some instances where human bloodshed is necessary, but I believe that there are usually alternate solutions that do not involve the loss of human life. The killings of all those Native Americans were unnecessary, and at many times they were plain murder. However, there are many that would probably disagree with my assertions. Seeing that, in a war, there’s always going to be a certain amount of death and bloodshed. Well that’s true, unless you’re talking about a cold war or a political war. But still, we all know that Bacon’s Rebellion was both a political war and a physical war. Well then, a question that I bring up is whether or not Bacon’s Rebellion needed to be anything more than political. Could Bacon and his rebels have accomplished just as much without all of the violence? In my opinion, anything is possible. But in Bacon’s case, I would agree that his rebellion required some violent behavior. We know that there were several Native American tribes that were regularly attacking the colonists. And Governor Berkeley did little to stop the attacks. So Bacon was in the right to defend himself and his people. In fact, I think it would be wrong for Bacon to sit idly by and do nothing while those around him were being brutally murdered. But the problem is that Bacon did much more than just defend the colonists. He, in the midst of his animosity and vengefulness, did exactly what the “barbarous” Natives had been doing in the first place. Bacon and his rebels went out and ruthlessly killed scores of innocent Native Americans. They invaded friendly Native villages, raping the women, killing both women and children, and plundering any valuables they could find. Those were definitely horrifying acts. There’s no justice in murdering innocent women and children. There’s no justice in taking away someone’s father just because they’re a Native American. If Bacon and his rebels would have merely attacked the violent Native Americans with the intent on keeping the colonists safe, it would have been a more justifiable warfare. But that was not the case. So yes, in a war, death, defense, and attack are often times required. But what Bacon did was certainly much too brutal and unnecessary to be considered reasonable warfare. It was more than just warfare; it was a campaign of terrorism on Native Americans. And this Bacon’s terror was not exclusive to the Native Americans. Bacon’s form of terrorism stretched all the way to Governor Berkeley and the rich farmers in Virginia.

------- Americans today tend to believe that Governor Berkeley was a sort of anti-hero, and that Nathaniel Bacon was a hero that acted when he was needed. It is often said that Governor Berkeley consistently appeased the violent Native Americans while the colonists continued to suffer. Elizabeth Bacon agrees in a letter to Nathaniel Bacon, in which she writes, “If you had been here, it would have grieved your heart to hear the pitiful complaints of the people, the Indians killing the people, the Governor not taking any notice of it for to hinder them, but let them daily do all the mischief they can,” (document #9) Elizabeth Bacon’s point is that, while the colonists were being victimized by the Native Americans, Governor Berkeley was not doing anything at all to try to stop violence. From this we can understand that, in Virginia, the government was not doing nearly enough to protect the colonists. In the Royal Commissioners Narrative, Mrs. William Bird testifies about Bacon’s Rebellion. She states, “[T]hat before ever Mr. Bacon went out against the Indians, there were said to be above two hundred of the English murdered by the barbarous Indians, and posts [messages] came in daily to the Governor, giving notice of it, and yet no course was taken to secure them, till Mr. Bacon went out against them,” (document #14). According to this statement, Governor Berkeley was notified daily of the Native American attacks. And, regardless of the turmoil, Berkeley was consistent in his inactiveness. Basically, William Bird is saying that Governor Berkeley was well aware of the Native American violence, but he still refused to do anything about it. And that’s exactly why Nathaniel Bacon stepped in when he did. He did what Governor Berkeley refrained from doing; he went out and fought the Native Americans. Colonists were being slaughtered every day, and Bacon decided that he was going to try to defend them. Nathaniel Bacon himself writes about his own intentions, “I sent to the Governor for a commission to fall upon them, but being from time to time denied, and finding that the country was basely for a small and sordid gain betrayed, and the lives and fortunes of the poor inhabitants wretchedly sacrificed, resolved to stand up in this ruinous gap, and rather expose my life and fortune to all hazards than basely desert my post and by so bad an example make desolate a whole country in which no one dared to stir against the common Enemy,” (document # 12).. In other words, Bacon is saying that he’s not going to stand idly by while his countrymen need him. Governor Berkeley was persistent with his appeasement, so Bacon had to step up to the plate. And, of course, stopping the Native Americans would be awfully dangerous. Nevertheless, Bacon was willing to risk his life and livelihood in order to make a change.

-------Many people assume that Governor Berkeley was some sort of corrupted villain during Bacon’s Rebellion. And, in contrast, Nathaniel Bacon was some kind of revolutionary defender. But there are many others who might imply quite the opposite. There are some out there that view Governor Berkeley as an upright man that was a victim of Bacon’s lawlessness. In The History and Present State of Virginia, Robert Beverly writes, “For it cannot be imagined, that upon the Instigation of Two or Three Traitors, did not only hazard their Necks by Rebellion: But endeavored to ruin a Governour, whom they all entirely loved and had unanimously chosen; a Gentleman who had devoted his whole Life and Estate to the Service of his Country; and against whom in Thirty Five Years Experience there had never been one single complaint,” (document #1).. In making this comment, Beverly argues that Governor Berkeley was indeed a noble man that was well-liked by the colonists. It was merely a few traitors, like Nathaniel Bacon, that stirred up contention, dissension, and hostility toward the governor. Beverly also mentions that there had not been a single complaint in the thirty-five years before Bacon’s Rebellion. In other words, the corruption lay with Bacon, and not the governor. William Sherwood, who was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, wrote, “A nation of Indians called [Susquahannahs] having killed some of the inhabitants of this Country [in the fall of 1675] were pursued and several destroyed by the English and Sir William Berkeley our honorable Governor who hath had long experience of war with the Indians that he might provide for the safety of this Country caused by our Assembly….to…enact that forts should be built at the heads of several rivers, being the most way for security of our frontier plantations,” (document #15).. According to this account, Governor Berkeley was certainly not inactive during the Native American attacks. It is said that he had been fighting with the Native Americans for a long while, and had recently killed several of the violent ones. In addition to that, Sherwood states that Governor Berkeley built forts at the heads of various rivers to help prevent attacks on the colonists. While the previous quotes give praise for Governor Berkeley, the following shows a darker side to Nathaniel Bacon’s character. In A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, the Royal Commissioners give a short description of Nathaniel Bacon, “Nathaniel Bacon was of a most imperious and dangerous hidden Pride of heart, despising the wisest of his neighbors for their Ignorance and very ambitious and arrogant. But all these things lay hid in him till after he was a councilor and until he became powerful and popular," (document #18). According to this depiction, Bacon was not exactly the most stand-up guy. He apparently had a few character flaws, and it sounds like he had some attributes of a corrupt politician.

-------I think that Governor Berkeley gets a bad rep nowadays. Often times, Berkeley is portrayed as the antagonist, and Bacon is portrayed as the protagonist underdog. But that’s not an entirely factual representation. Nathaniel Bacon wasn’t much of an underdog himself. Sure, he was rebelling against a wealthy governor, but Bacon had his own fair share of wealth too. He owned a successful plantation, and could be considered one of the wealthier farmers in Virginia. And while it may seem that his motives were for the well-being of his fellow colonists, Bacon seemed to have a few personal incentives of his own. Keep in mind that Bacon was merely a human, and that all humans lie. He may have expressed intentions of defending the colonists and bringing improvement to Virginia, but he could have easily had ulterior motives. For one, he might have simply wanted to kill Native Americans, and used “defense” as an excuse to rally more support. Second, he could have merely wanted to damage wealthy plantations so that he himself would have less competition. Third, he may have even wanted to be the new governor himself. Don’t misunderstand me though. I’m not trying to totally portray Bacon as a man without virtue. Many of his actions were indeed noble. He was a man of courage that risked his life many times. But in the midst of all his heroism, there was also some evil. It’s no secret that he hindered Native American attacks on colonist, but he also murdered many innocent and friendly Native Americans. He pushed for lower taxes and more accountability, but he also unlawfully attacked Jamestown and plundered wealthy plantations. He stirred up dissent among the citizens of Virginia, and he influenced the people to rebel against their established government. So Bacon certainly did several things to help improve the Virginia colonies, but really he was just a man with his own intentions. And the fact is that many of those intentions were dissented and corrupted, or at least resulted in deadly, dissented, and corrupted actions.

-------Bacon’s Rebellion conveys an important lesson to today’s population. From the rebellion, we learn and understand that small insurgence and pockets of rebellion don’t work on a national level. We’ve come to an age where nations have the power to destroy entire cities. The nations of this world could, if they all wanted to, destroy the planet. Not that anyone would want to do that, but the fact is that the kingdoms and nations of this day have become much too powerful to simply oppose with violence. Just like in Bacon’s day. The rebellion was able to last three months before it was crushed. The rebels could not successful overturn Governor Berkeley. And the rebels stood no chance at all when a few war ships arrived from mainland England. England, as an empire, had just gotten too strong. There was no way that Bacon and his rebel force could’ve made any real change through their rebellion and violence. Just like in today’s world, the best thing that Bacon could’ve done to make a change would be to act politically. Don’t act in violence, but instead work in the political arena. Use your rights, privileges, and laws to make a change. If Bacon had tried to do it that way, he could have potentially spared hundreds of innocent lives. Bacon’s Rebellion realistically shows us the consequences of not operating properly in our own nation. If someone were to grab a sub-machine gun and go attack the White House with an angry mob, they wouldn’t stand a chance. They would instantly be either arrested, severely wounded, or probably killed. And those exact same results occurred in Bacon’s Rebellion. It just took a little longer than it would nowadays. Bacon died. Most of the rebels were killed off. And, in the end, the rebellion ultimately failed.

-------Bacon’s Rebellion was full of unnecessary deaths. Many innocent Native Americans and colonists were killed needlessly. Bacon and his rebels marched unlawfully on Jamestown, attacking English soldiers and government officials. They marched into Native American lands, killing indiscreetly and plundering for goods. Immense suffering was present both in English lands, and in Native American lands. And the blame doesn’t completely lie with Bacon and his rebels. The evil was two-fold. Bacon and his rebels were, in many ways very barbarous. Likewise, the hostile Native Americans were, in many ways, very barbarous. Those innocent (both white and Native American) were simply caught in the middle of all the carnage, and unfortunately received much of the consequences. It doesn’t matter who started the conflicts. And the intentions may have been good, but the ends don’t always justify the means, especially when you’re dealing with human lives.

Citations