Shannon Konkol. In these chapters, it has been a lot of background knowledge about the people involved with the Revolutionary war. I make a connection with how the King, King George III, always tries to get rid of people in his cabinet that disagree with him. And appoint people that either agree with him, or that make his job a lot easier for him. I notice this happening a lot in today's political world. I also question the author sometimes as why he choose to put some people in the story and give them long background stories for the readers. Some of these people don't really effect what happened in the Revolutionary war, at least not so far in the book. I wonder why he has to add so much of information for some people and not for others, even if the people with less information are less important. I think that cause and effect is really strong in this part of the story. With King George III appointing some people and taking out some people in his cabinet, like William Pitt, things changed and who knows if things could have been different if keeping the Whig party more involved. This book has lots of facts in it that come back to the present. As I stated before, with the King appointing people that make his job easier, it really shows how politics really haven't changed. This past helps make sense of the political presense. But we can also learn from the past by adding different perspective to our politics. If the King had done that, who knows what would have happened with the American colonies.
Julia Erickson Reply 1 Shannon, I agree on your question that states that the author chooses to introduce people in the story that dont really have much of a point to the story. I understand that they beggining 10 chapters are very factual, but for a while he seemed to ramble on, and on. Although I found the introductions and extra facts to be helpful in the understanding, I could have lived without serveral of them being described. It seemed like a waste of time. You also mentioned in the beggining of your post that the beggining has alot to do with the Revolutionary War, which of course it does because that is the big key part to the book. Although as I do recall in the first few pages the author refering to The Seven Years War. That was I felt gave alot of information and helped with my understanding of the rest of the 10 chapters.
Kelsey Jane Holdridge Your thinking on what may have happened if King George III would have left diversity within his Cabinet provokes thoughts for me. I agree that the outcome of the war as a whole may have been completely different if he would have kept away from creating a cabinet that only includes his own ideals. It also provokes the thought for me that perhaps our country would be different today if there was more diversity within our groups of leaders. Also, like you, I questioned the author’s long background stories of some not-so-important characters.
Julia Erickson Post 1 In the first half of the book (chapters 1-10) I reconized a number of important things. One quote of importance I reconized was in the very begginging of the book. Page 2-Paragraph 3: "England emerged from The Seven Years' War sure of her power in the world and determined to run the British Empire as she damn well pleased." From this quote I started to figure out more of the authors perspective and the message he wanted to send to his readers, in the very begginging that is. It showed how the British Empire and King George III was of itself/himself. As it nothing in the world could bring them down. Like they were at the top, which for all they knew, they were at the top; and that they were going to do anything and everything they could to stay that way. This was mainly a 'figure it out on your own' type of passage. This quote I picked out was the majority subject of the passage. While reading I also used the technique of preview and predict. While reading I took notes throught the begginging 10 chapters. One thing that I previewed while I was reading when the author was giving facts of the American Colonies growth and development. Saying how much the colonies had grown from a tiny population in Jamestown to a population of 1,500,000 by 1760. This sparked the start of the book entering in the subject of its main topic: The Revolutionary War. That part of the paragraph also predicted how the book would use its topic, "How England lost the American Colonies." The proggression and growth of the American Colonies over time. Within the first 10 chapters I found a good base on how the last chapters would fan out. With reading the last chapters I also found the first 10 to be of high importance, and the main part of the book. Nothing would make sense without them.
Shannon Konkol Julia, while I agree with that the quote that you choose is very important, I agree/ disagree with your comments about it. I do agree that the author was trying to show how important England was and how England was the top country in the world. However, I disagree with the fact on how the British Empire/ King George was full of itself/himself. Up to this time, the British Empire was the ruler of world. It was a cultural node, and very important to the world's economy and curture. So even though King George III was slightly full of himself (which does make a little sense because he was only in his twentys when he took the thrown, and not like that many things have changed with how people behave), the British Empire had every right to rule the world as she pleased. And also, isn't the British Empire then, kind of like the USA today? Trying to control everything and make it so that it feels superior? There isn't much a difference between back in the 1700s compared to today.
Julia Erickson Sorry I forgot my reading like a historian section of my post, my apologies, here it is: Using the Past: Realizing the downfalls made in the time period of the book can help us realize what we should and shouldn't do now. Knowing what the colonists did wrong and write and what England should have done or didn't can help us make the right decisions from the wrong possibilities today. Using the past can also show us how we got to where we are today, and how a tiny decision back then could have impacted us immensely today.
Kelsey Jane Holdridge Part One: Chapters 1-10 Questions: It seems as though in a lot of these historical and informational books, the authors tend to add certain unnecessary details about some characters. Occasionally inserting lengthy descriptions and backgrounds on some people who played only very small roles in the Revolution or barely any at all, I’m sure it was most likely to put as much information as possible in the reading but its importance is limited. Preview/Predict: From reading 1776 before this book, I already suspected before even touching this book that the beginning chapters of this story would be very essay like and historical, not very interesting to read but full of information. I also predicted that these chapters would contain a lot of background information on the Revolutionary war and the characters who had played an important role in the events which occurred during the American Revolution. Seeing as this book was to describe events before and after the true events of the war, I also predicted there would be more knowledge given about the events leading up to the actual break out of war. Using the Past: If we take a look at past events in history, all past events, not only those that apply to the American Revolution or even past wartimes in general. Each thing that happens in our past causes something to happen in the future, teaches us what works and what doesn’t, helps us understand and make sense of what is today. This past example is the constant changing in the political leaders and ideas of the American Revolution. King George III and his changing of those in his cabinet so that their ideals match his ideals, this helps us understand the constant changes in our political groups and leaders, the way they leave some and gain some, always changing so almost everyone agrees, this as we have seen even today can be a fault because there isn’t debate and different perspective in our politics. The past helps us to understand the present, whether we notice or not. Through Their Eyes: In the past and even today people perceive the world they live in differently, in the 1760’s to the 1780’s there were two main perspectives on this particular issue: The English and loyalists, and the American Patriots. The English and Loyalists see the Patriots and the whole of the American Revolution as idiotic, they picture the patriots are idiot farmers and rebels. The Patriots see the English as a suffocating force after the war begins, but originally they see them as an unconnected mother country. This changes dramatically of course. The loyalist and English view of the Patriots causes them to underestimate their abilities with just the simple knowledge of the land and the force that drives them.
Madilyne Kane I also noticed that there was a lot of facts without much of the author's own thoughts and elaboration. I agree with what you said about using the past to prevent and solve problems in the present/future. I feel like that's almost a lost art lately because many of the problems we are facing now are ones we've been confronted with in the past and we're trying to do what didn't work then, so it isn't going to work now. The way the democrats and republicans respectively try to overtake the senate/house/a state/even the whole country is boorish and useless in bettering things. Also, your post made me wonder if perhaps things might have turned out differently if the English hadn't underestimated the American patriots.
Shannon Konkol Vocabulary: As I read this book, one word happened a lot and I did not know the definition so I looked this word, implacable, up. The definition is 'not to bring peace' (from dictionary.com). This word makes a lot of sense in this book with how many people were acting, especially King George III. He on many occasions refused to cooperate and insisted on war. He definitely was impacable. Importance: As I read this book, one fact really stood out to me. the fact of how many loyalists there really were in the colonies at this time. On page 325, there are three numbers on how many loyalists there are. John Adams said there that 1/3 of the population was loyalist, and then another time that only 1/10 of the population was loyalist. But the consensus by historians is that about 1/4 of population was loyalist. If this is true, why do we still learn in history class that 1/3 of the population was loyalist. Why haven't we updated our facts? Turning Points: One turning point that was stated in this book was on page 295. This was about a hearing on whether to finally recognize American independence. When the Chatham, William Pitt, came to speak, he said something that probably changed a lot of people's minds on whether to stay in this war. He said "If we must fall, let us fall like men". This was a turning point, for before the vote on whether to recognize American independence could have been in the American side. But with this speech, and this very important quote, the vote was to continue fighting. If Chatham couldn't have spoken at this event, who knows what would have happened in history? Cause and Effect: In this book, the author makes a very good point. On page 223, the author talks about General Washington. The author states that Washington was a loyalist and believed that America was part of England and should stay that way. He also served in the British Army. The author states that if the English had given him royal commission, and made him a full fleged officer, it is very possible that Washington could have been fighting on the other side. This is a very good point. Who knows what would have happened if the British had respected Washinton. Our country could be part of England still, or some other country could have taken over us, if we didn't have the powerful general, or country changing president. Washington helped make this country into what is today with democracy. Who knows where we would be if he was fighting with the British?
Madilyne Kane Part 1: Chap. 1-10 Questions: These first few chapters spurred a lot of questions for me. I wondered if Grenville was to have taxed the colonies the same or less than he taxed the English with the Stamp Act, if the colonies would have been less bothered and more apt to peaceful agreement. I wondered if the Whig party had stayed in power the whole time, could the entire war been avoided altogether? I also wondered about the prime ministers. King George III had five prime ministers over the course of only a decade (page 147). I wondered if perhaps Lord North was apprehensive to accept, knowing so many others had fallen gracelessly from the position before him. Generalizations: When a leader is more focused on their own oddities and opinions rather than what is best for the people that they rule, it is almost surely disastrous. Repetition of a leader’s unwillingness to help their people often leads to riots, uprisings, and in extreme cases, war. Turning points: One of the biggest and most important turning points in the first part of the book and in the American Revolution itself was when Pitt and Newcastle lost their respective positions of power because that ended Whig rule, allowing King George III and Lord Bute to begin making their changes. Continuing in this pattern, each new prime minister was his own ‘turning point,’ and each played his own role in lighting the long fuse of the American Revolution. Differing perspectives: The thing I liked most about this book was that it was a great representation of what was happening according to the English. In fact, most of the book was written in perspective of the English, which is refreshing for someone from America because American schools and authors are more likely to teach from their own perspective (or at least from the perspective of the founders of their country). Additionally, I liked that it showed how each person, whether they were right, wrong, or crazy to believe what they believed, truly thought that they were doing what was best. The section that showed this best was on page 66 with the line “Mr. Grenville gave us a full hearing and told us he took no pleasure in giving Americans so much uneasiness as he found he did- that it was the Duty of his Office to manage the revenue- that he really was made to believe that considering the whole of the Circumstances of the Mother Country and the Colonies, the latter could and ought to play something, & that he knew of no better way than that now pursuing to lay such Tax, but if we could tell him of a batter way he would adopt it.” This passage eloquently showed that Grenville, though he went about it the wrong way, was really trying to help his country the way he best knew how and had not considered the colonies and had not wished to upset them.
Kelsey Jane Holdridge Part Two: Chapters 11-21 Connection: I made a connection with something that King George III did repeatedly. This connection would be that he insisted on the continuity of the fighting in the war and refused to create a diplomatic peace agreement or anything of the sort to end the war. Most of us do this almost every time we’re upset with someone or something. Instead of simply talking it out, everything someone says or does to you from the point they upset you on is wrong, and annoying, and terrible. So you yell, and you argue, and fight and you refuse to let anything go, until eventually someone wins or you realize you’re being an idiot. Many of us, resist making peace every day, even in small one person to one person settings. Evaluation-Questions: On page 325 there are several numbers for how many loyalists were in the American Colonies at this time, each different. Historians have come to the conclusion that one-fourth of the population was the most logical and most accurate number. I believe I’ve heard that in History class, but I think I might have also been taught that one-third and one-tenth are true within textbooks. So my question is are some of today’s textbooks that bias and outdated? Are those who claim that one-third of the population were loyalist bias to the side of the British? How can they be bias to the side of the British knowing that in the end they lost? Are those who claim one-tenth bias that the American Patriots had always outnumbered the British forces? Cause and Effect: This can also be a turning point in the history of the United States of America and the Revolutionary War. But to me this is also a prime example of Cause and Effect. In a general sense when a person says something that is full of pride and emotion and is powerful it sways many to follow them. In the healthcare industry today, if a doctor is confidant you’re sure they’re taking excellent care of you, even if in reality it’s their first day out of residency and they’re completely nervous. Having Washington as a confidant appearing leader caused many men to follow him and continue to fight for peace and freedom. Differing Perspectives: There were many different perspectives when it came to General Washington. One is the view of the American Patriots. Many of them believed in him completely and believed that he was totally for the cause of American Independence since the beginning of any inequalities between the Americans and British. Well, in reality it’s known that by Historian’s that Washington actually considered himself loyalist, hoping only for regained equality and peace between the Colonies and the Mother country. Eventually, he was swayed more so Patriot. One Perspective we have today is that he was always a Patriot, just like the Patriots of the Revolution, but that maybe because the American’s gained their independence. A last perspective is that of the Loyalists and British, seeing Washington as just another dirty rebel with generally poor skills, at least for the position in which he was seated, but at times he seemed like a true general.
Alexis Anderson: Reply Kelsey, I agree with the connection that you made with King George III talking about how he dealt with hard situations he was in. He very much resisted making peace between himself, his country, and the colonists. If he would have made the choice, and took a second to think about the positive outcomes of them working together I believe he would have taken that opportunity. There could have been less argumentation and better communication.
Madilyne Kane Part 2: Chap. 11-20 Vocabulary: Right off, in only the second line of Chapter 11, there was a word I did not know or recognize- augur. It means “to serve as an omen or promise.” In the passage, it meant that it seemed like earl of Dartmouth’s arrival was going to be beneficial to fixing the conflict peacefully. Evaluation: Most of this information bodes well with what I already knew, but it elaborated greatly on a lot of things and it added the perspective of the English, which was almost entirely foreign to me. The most surprising thing to me was that Benjamin Franklin was almost neutral until the last minute. I had always assumed he was just as spirited a patriot as anyone else. A few people have brought up the number of loyalists as fluctuating between fractions and it’s inaccuracy, but I think that the most important thing to take from that paragraph was that there were many more loyalists than most people would assume.I think that the author had very little bias, which is commendable because it’s very hard to write a book about politics and have the reader not be entirely sure what the author’s politics are. That being said, one could fairly easily tell which figures he liked and which he didn’t, but it was based more on his analysis of whether they positively or negatively affected the eventual war and not his own politics. Using the past: If we forget and cannot learn from this very crucial part of our past, we will be doomed to repeat it. If lawmakers completely neglect to respect the rights and opinions of an entire group of people and continue to steadfastly disregard entire sections of peoples, and the lawmakers take no steps to right those wrongs, it will probably end in revolt. Cause and effect: The American Revolution is the most textbook case of cause and effect perhaps in all of history. Laws are passed, and the people affected by them are not going to take it, and they stage a rebellion. If the English had not taxed the American colonies, or at least not taxed them so harshly and ridiculously and instead in a more logical manner, they would have been happy to remain part of the English empire. However, if the Americans had offered better solutions to the problem instead of just demanding it be righted, perhaps the English would have been more likely to oblige.
I realized that the government in England way back when is no different than it is today. All it is is a big power struggle. King George the Third went through close to five different goverments before he found the one that he was looking for. All f the people in Prliment set up deals and bribes so that they could be reelected. They made bold speeches and made sure they were heard and remembered. That is a little bit like today. When canidates are running for something, they tour and make speeches. Thy try to get people to like them and show that they are the right choice. That was like back then. The people of Parliment made speeches and tried to win people of. If they liked you, you had a better chance of coming to power. There were lots of words in the book that were new to me was indefatigable, I learned meant tireless. It was used in describing how King George liked to write. And it was true. He ran his government and wrote lots of things for himself. That was one of the facts that suprised me. i had to think like a historian using cause and effect. Because the British beat the French in the war, this lead to suspicions later on that the French were going to attack America. This caused the British to move more troops to America instead of withdrawling, which eventually led to many many angry Americans and finally the war.
Julia Erickson- Post 2 Connection: I made a connection while reading the second half to King George III. The connection was made through the emotion he showed and how he handled difficult situations. It seemed to me that as most of us also do he did alot of things without a second thought. Sometimes we do things that later we wish we could take back because we didnt think about it hard enough, or give it a second thought. He did alot of decision making right there and then as the problem occured. For some people that works, for others such as himself, it does not. Visualize: Within the second half of the book, more than the first because the first half was more factual, I did a lot of visualizations. It was more story like. I really visualized the war through most of this. I visualized the hard-ships, decisions, and the stress. I visualized the differences between King George III and the new government that was then trying to grow into a fulfilled government. Through their eyes: During this time period of the book its so difficult imagining yourself living during it. You start to wonder how people back then viewed the situation that they lived through. Both in England and the american colonies. I imagine that people in England felt a bit betrayed, but yet amazed by the courage of the colonists for standing up against England. I also believe that the colonists felt a lot of power and strength being able to fight and win over such a strong and powerful country, but a lot of fear. They had to realize that if they won, and when they won that they were therefor on their own.
Alexis Anderson: Post 1 Connections: I connected in the first part of the book to King George III from making difficult decisions. Sometimes when making decisions we dont seek out the best opportunities we could take, which he didnt either. Questions: When reading it wasnt clear to me where the author got his information. Was it all accurate? Some of the quotes got me suspicious if all that was said was accurate. Using the Past: Reading the first half of the book made me think about how the past, expecially during this time effects us now. If any of the leaders would have made any random rash decisions our lives would be completely different. What if England would have won? Would we still be under there control?
Alexis Anderson: Post 2 Preview/Predict: In the beginning of chapter 11 I took a moment to predict what the rest of the book would be like. I started to predict, without thinking about what I already new about the revolution I began to think what if England would have won? If the british army would have had the strength and thinking of the colonists how would this book end? Or would it even exist? What if King George III would have thought more productivly, and argued less than he did. Would it have resulted less bloody? Visualize: While reading I visualized the revolutionary war. All the battles that took place, all the blood shed, and all the lives lost. I also visualized King George III as a very stiff, and mean man. Very in control, but also out of his mind. Through their Eyes: I wonder how the people who weren't battling felt about this. I bet there opinions were 50/50. Some thought it was a good idea, some thought it was ridiculous to be fighting another battle over land right after the French War just ended. I also bet there was alot of fear. Going to bed at night not knowing if one of your loved ones fighting out die, or if your hometown would become a battle ground or invaded by british troops. Fear.
Shannon Konkol.
ReplyDeleteIn these chapters, it has been a lot of background knowledge about the people involved with the Revolutionary war. I make a connection with how the King, King George III, always tries to get rid of people in his cabinet that disagree with him. And appoint people that either agree with him, or that make his job a lot easier for him. I notice this happening a lot in today's political world. I also question the author sometimes as why he choose to put some people in the story and give them long background stories for the readers. Some of these people don't really effect what happened in the Revolutionary war, at least not so far in the book. I wonder why he has to add so much of information for some people and not for others, even if the people with less information are less important. I think that cause and effect is really strong in this part of the story. With King George III appointing some people and taking out some people in his cabinet, like William Pitt, things changed and who knows if things could have been different if keeping the Whig party more involved. This book has lots of facts in it that come back to the present. As I stated before, with the King appointing people that make his job easier, it really shows how politics really haven't changed. This past helps make sense of the political presense. But we can also learn from the past by adding different perspective to our politics. If the King had done that, who knows what would have happened with the American colonies.
Julia Erickson
DeleteReply 1
Shannon, I agree on your question that states that the author chooses to introduce people in the story that dont really have much of a point to the story. I understand that they beggining 10 chapters are very factual, but for a while he seemed to ramble on, and on. Although I found the introductions and extra facts to be helpful in the understanding, I could have lived without serveral of them being described. It seemed like a waste of time. You also mentioned in the beggining of your post that the beggining has alot to do with the Revolutionary War, which of course it does because that is the big key part to the book. Although as I do recall in the first few pages the author refering to The Seven Years War. That was I felt gave alot of information and helped with my understanding of the rest of the 10 chapters.
Kelsey Jane Holdridge
DeleteYour thinking on what may have happened if King George III would have left diversity within his Cabinet provokes thoughts for me. I agree that the outcome of the war as a whole may have been completely different if he would have kept away from creating a cabinet that only includes his own ideals. It also provokes the thought for me that perhaps our country would be different today if there was more diversity within our groups of leaders. Also, like you, I questioned the author’s long background stories of some not-so-important characters.
Julia Erickson
ReplyDeletePost 1
In the first half of the book (chapters 1-10) I reconized a number of important things. One quote of importance I reconized was in the very begginging of the book. Page 2-Paragraph 3: "England emerged from The Seven Years' War sure of her power in the world and determined to run the British Empire as she damn well pleased." From this quote I started to figure out more of the authors perspective and the message he wanted to send to his readers, in the very begginging that is. It showed how the British Empire and King George III was of itself/himself. As it nothing in the world could bring them down. Like they were at the top, which for all they knew, they were at the top; and that they were going to do anything and everything they could to stay that way. This was mainly a 'figure it out on your own' type of passage. This quote I picked out was the majority subject of the passage. While reading I also used the technique of preview and predict. While reading I took notes throught the begginging 10 chapters. One thing that I previewed while I was reading when the author was giving facts of the American Colonies growth and development. Saying how much the colonies had grown from a tiny population in Jamestown to a population of 1,500,000 by 1760. This sparked the start of the book entering in the subject of its main topic: The Revolutionary War. That part of the paragraph also predicted how the book would use its topic, "How England lost the American Colonies." The proggression and growth of the American Colonies over time. Within the first 10 chapters I found a good base on how the last chapters would fan out. With reading the last chapters I also found the first 10 to be of high importance, and the main part of the book. Nothing would make sense without them.
Shannon Konkol
DeleteJulia, while I agree with that the quote that you choose is very important, I agree/ disagree with your comments about it. I do agree that the author was trying to show how important England was and how England was the top country in the world. However, I disagree with the fact on how the British Empire/ King George was full of itself/himself. Up to this time, the British Empire was the ruler of world. It was a cultural node, and very important to the world's economy and curture. So even though King George III was slightly full of himself (which does make a little sense because he was only in his twentys when he took the thrown, and not like that many things have changed with how people behave), the British Empire had every right to rule the world as she pleased. And also, isn't the British Empire then, kind of like the USA today? Trying to control everything and make it so that it feels superior? There isn't much a difference between back in the 1700s compared to today.
Julia Erickson
DeleteSorry I forgot my reading like a historian section of my post, my apologies, here it is:
Using the Past: Realizing the downfalls made in the time period of the book can help us realize what we should and shouldn't do now. Knowing what the colonists did wrong and write and what England should have done or didn't can help us make the right decisions from the wrong possibilities today. Using the past can also show us how we got to where we are today, and how a tiny decision back then could have impacted us immensely today.
Kelsey Jane Holdridge
ReplyDeletePart One: Chapters 1-10
Questions: It seems as though in a lot of these historical and informational books, the authors tend to add certain unnecessary details about some characters. Occasionally inserting lengthy descriptions and backgrounds on some people who played only very small roles in the Revolution or barely any at all, I’m sure it was most likely to put as much information as possible in the reading but its importance is limited.
Preview/Predict: From reading 1776 before this book, I already suspected before even touching this book that the beginning chapters of this story would be very essay like and historical, not very interesting to read but full of information. I also predicted that these chapters would contain a lot of background information on the Revolutionary war and the characters who had played an important role in the events which occurred during the American Revolution. Seeing as this book was to describe events before and after the true events of the war, I also predicted there would be more knowledge given about the events leading up to the actual break out of war.
Using the Past: If we take a look at past events in history, all past events, not only those that apply to the American Revolution or even past wartimes in general. Each thing that happens in our past causes something to happen in the future, teaches us what works and what doesn’t, helps us understand and make sense of what is today. This past example is the constant changing in the political leaders and ideas of the American Revolution. King George III and his changing of those in his cabinet so that their ideals match his ideals, this helps us understand the constant changes in our political groups and leaders, the way they leave some and gain some, always changing so almost everyone agrees, this as we have seen even today can be a fault because there isn’t debate and different perspective in our politics. The past helps us to understand the present, whether we notice or not.
Through Their Eyes: In the past and even today people perceive the world they live in differently, in the 1760’s to the 1780’s there were two main perspectives on this particular issue: The English and loyalists, and the American Patriots. The English and Loyalists see the Patriots and the whole of the American Revolution as idiotic, they picture the patriots are idiot farmers and rebels. The Patriots see the English as a suffocating force after the war begins, but originally they see them as an unconnected mother country. This changes dramatically of course. The loyalist and English view of the Patriots causes them to underestimate their abilities with just the simple knowledge of the land and the force that drives them.
Madilyne Kane
DeleteI also noticed that there was a lot of facts without much of the author's own thoughts and elaboration. I agree with what you said about using the past to prevent and solve problems in the present/future. I feel like that's almost a lost art lately because many of the problems we are facing now are ones we've been confronted with in the past and we're trying to do what didn't work then, so it isn't going to work now. The way the democrats and republicans respectively try to overtake the senate/house/a state/even the whole country is boorish and useless in bettering things. Also, your post made me wonder if perhaps things might have turned out differently if the English hadn't underestimated the American patriots.
Shannon Konkol
ReplyDeleteVocabulary: As I read this book, one word happened a lot and I did not know the definition so I looked this word, implacable, up. The definition is 'not to bring peace' (from dictionary.com). This word makes a lot of sense in this book with how many people were acting, especially King George III. He on many occasions refused to cooperate and insisted on war. He definitely was impacable.
Importance: As I read this book, one fact really stood out to me. the fact of how many loyalists there really were in the colonies at this time. On page 325, there are three numbers on how many loyalists there are. John Adams said there that 1/3 of the population was loyalist, and then another time that only 1/10 of the population was loyalist. But the consensus by historians is that about 1/4 of population was loyalist. If this is true, why do we still learn in history class that 1/3 of the population was loyalist. Why haven't we updated our facts?
Turning Points: One turning point that was stated in this book was on page 295. This was about a hearing on whether to finally recognize American independence. When the Chatham, William Pitt, came to speak, he said something that probably changed a lot of people's minds on whether to stay in this war. He said "If we must fall, let us fall like men". This was a turning point, for before the vote on whether to recognize American independence could have been in the American side. But with this speech, and this very important quote, the vote was to continue fighting. If Chatham couldn't have spoken at this event, who knows what would have happened in history?
Cause and Effect: In this book, the author makes a very good point. On page 223, the author talks about General Washington. The author states that Washington was a loyalist and believed that America was part of England and should stay that way. He also served in the British Army. The author states that if the English had given him royal commission, and made him a full fleged officer, it is very possible that Washington could have been fighting on the other side. This is a very good point. Who knows what would have happened if the British had respected Washinton. Our country could be part of England still, or some other country could have taken over us, if we didn't have the powerful general, or country changing president. Washington helped make this country into what is today with democracy. Who knows where we would be if he was fighting with the British?
Madilyne Kane
ReplyDeletePart 1: Chap. 1-10
Questions: These first few chapters spurred a lot of questions for me. I wondered if Grenville was to have taxed the colonies the same or less than he taxed the English with the Stamp Act, if the colonies would have been less bothered and more apt to peaceful agreement. I wondered if the Whig party had stayed in power the whole time, could the entire war been avoided altogether? I also wondered about the prime ministers. King George III had five prime ministers over the course of only a decade (page 147). I wondered if perhaps Lord North was apprehensive to accept, knowing so many others had fallen gracelessly from the position before him.
Generalizations: When a leader is more focused on their own oddities and opinions rather than what is best for the people that they rule, it is almost surely disastrous. Repetition of a leader’s unwillingness to help their people often leads to riots, uprisings, and in extreme cases, war.
Turning points: One of the biggest and most important turning points in the first part of the book and in the American Revolution itself was when Pitt and Newcastle lost their respective positions of power because that ended Whig rule, allowing King George III and Lord Bute to begin making their changes. Continuing in this pattern, each new prime minister was his own ‘turning point,’ and each played his own role in lighting the long fuse of the American Revolution.
Differing perspectives: The thing I liked most about this book was that it was a great representation of what was happening according to the English. In fact, most of the book was written in perspective of the English, which is refreshing for someone from America because American schools and authors are more likely to teach from their own perspective (or at least from the perspective of the founders of their country). Additionally, I liked that it showed how each person, whether they were right, wrong, or crazy to believe what they believed, truly thought that they were doing what was best. The section that showed this best was on page 66 with the line “Mr. Grenville gave us a full hearing and told us he took no pleasure in giving Americans so much uneasiness as he found he did- that it was the Duty of his Office to manage the revenue- that he really was made to believe that considering the whole of the Circumstances of the Mother Country and the Colonies, the latter could and ought to play something, & that he knew of no better way than that now pursuing to lay such Tax, but if we could tell him of a batter way he would adopt it.” This passage eloquently showed that Grenville, though he went about it the wrong way, was really trying to help his country the way he best knew how and had not considered the colonies and had not wished to upset them.
Kelsey Jane Holdridge
ReplyDeletePart Two: Chapters 11-21
Connection: I made a connection with something that King George III did repeatedly. This connection would be that he insisted on the continuity of the fighting in the war and refused to create a diplomatic peace agreement or anything of the sort to end the war. Most of us do this almost every time we’re upset with someone or something. Instead of simply talking it out, everything someone says or does to you from the point they upset you on is wrong, and annoying, and terrible. So you yell, and you argue, and fight and you refuse to let anything go, until eventually someone wins or you realize you’re being an idiot. Many of us, resist making peace every day, even in small one person to one person settings.
Evaluation-Questions: On page 325 there are several numbers for how many loyalists were in the American Colonies at this time, each different. Historians have come to the conclusion that one-fourth of the population was the most logical and most accurate number. I believe I’ve heard that in History class, but I think I might have also been taught that one-third and one-tenth are true within textbooks. So my question is are some of today’s textbooks that bias and outdated? Are those who claim that one-third of the population were loyalist bias to the side of the British? How can they be bias to the side of the British knowing that in the end they lost? Are those who claim one-tenth bias that the American Patriots had always outnumbered the British forces?
Cause and Effect: This can also be a turning point in the history of the United States of America and the Revolutionary War. But to me this is also a prime example of Cause and Effect. In a general sense when a person says something that is full of pride and emotion and is powerful it sways many to follow them. In the healthcare industry today, if a doctor is confidant you’re sure they’re taking excellent care of you, even if in reality it’s their first day out of residency and they’re completely nervous. Having Washington as a confidant appearing leader caused many men to follow him and continue to fight for peace and freedom.
Differing Perspectives: There were many different perspectives when it came to General Washington. One is the view of the American Patriots. Many of them believed in him completely and believed that he was totally for the cause of American Independence since the beginning of any inequalities between the Americans and British. Well, in reality it’s known that by Historian’s that Washington actually considered himself loyalist, hoping only for regained equality and peace between the Colonies and the Mother country. Eventually, he was swayed more so Patriot. One Perspective we have today is that he was always a Patriot, just like the Patriots of the Revolution, but that maybe because the American’s gained their independence. A last perspective is that of the Loyalists and British, seeing Washington as just another dirty rebel with generally poor skills, at least for the position in which he was seated, but at times he seemed like a true general.
Alexis Anderson: Reply
DeleteKelsey, I agree with the connection that you made with King George III talking about how he dealt with hard situations he was in. He very much resisted making peace between himself, his country, and the colonists. If he would have made the choice, and took a second to think about the positive outcomes of them working together I believe he would have taken that opportunity. There could have been less argumentation and better communication.
Madilyne Kane
ReplyDeletePart 2: Chap. 11-20
Vocabulary: Right off, in only the second line of Chapter 11, there was a word I did not know or recognize- augur. It means “to serve as an omen or promise.” In the passage, it meant that it seemed like earl of Dartmouth’s arrival was going to be beneficial to fixing the conflict peacefully.
Evaluation: Most of this information bodes well with what I already knew, but it elaborated greatly on a lot of things and it added the perspective of the English, which was almost entirely foreign to me. The most surprising thing to me was that Benjamin Franklin was almost neutral until the last minute. I had always assumed he was just as spirited a patriot as anyone else. A few people have brought up the number of loyalists as fluctuating between fractions and it’s inaccuracy, but I think that the most important thing to take from that paragraph was that there were many more loyalists than most people would assume.I think that the author had very little bias, which is commendable because it’s very hard to write a book about politics and have the reader not be entirely sure what the author’s politics are. That being said, one could fairly easily tell which figures he liked and which he didn’t, but it was based more on his analysis of whether they positively or negatively affected the eventual war and not his own politics.
Using the past: If we forget and cannot learn from this very crucial part of our past, we will be doomed to repeat it. If lawmakers completely neglect to respect the rights and opinions of an entire group of people and continue to steadfastly disregard entire sections of peoples, and the lawmakers take no steps to right those wrongs, it will probably end in revolt.
Cause and effect: The American Revolution is the most textbook case of cause and effect perhaps in all of history. Laws are passed, and the people affected by them are not going to take it, and they stage a rebellion. If the English had not taxed the American colonies, or at least not taxed them so harshly and ridiculously and instead in a more logical manner, they would have been happy to remain part of the English empire. However, if the Americans had offered better solutions to the problem instead of just demanding it be righted, perhaps the English would have been more likely to oblige.
Katie Koenig
ReplyDeletePart 1
I realized that the government in England way back when is no different than it is today. All it is is a big power struggle. King George the Third went through close to five different goverments before he found the one that he was looking for. All f the people in Prliment set up deals and bribes so that they could be reelected. They made bold speeches and made sure they were heard and remembered. That is a little bit like today. When canidates are running for something, they tour and make speeches. Thy try to get people to like them and show that they are the right choice. That was like back then. The people of Parliment made speeches and tried to win people of. If they liked you, you had a better chance of coming to power. There were lots of words in the book that were new to me was indefatigable, I learned meant tireless. It was used in describing how King George liked to write. And it was true. He ran his government and wrote lots of things for himself. That was one of the facts that suprised me. i had to think like a historian using cause and effect. Because the British beat the French in the war, this lead to suspicions later on that the French were going to attack America. This caused the British to move more troops to America instead of withdrawling, which eventually led to many many angry Americans and finally the war.
Julia Erickson- Post 2
ReplyDeleteConnection: I made a connection while reading the second half to King George III. The connection was made through the emotion he showed and how he handled difficult situations. It seemed to me that as most of us also do he did alot of things without a second thought. Sometimes we do things that later we wish we could take back because we didnt think about it hard enough, or give it a second thought. He did alot of decision making right there and then as the problem occured. For some people that works, for others such as himself, it does not.
Visualize: Within the second half of the book, more than the first because the first half was more factual, I did a lot of visualizations. It was more story like. I really visualized the war through most of this. I visualized the hard-ships, decisions, and the stress. I visualized the differences between King George III and the new government that was then trying to grow into a fulfilled government.
Through their eyes: During this time period of the book its so difficult imagining yourself living during it. You start to wonder how people back then viewed the situation that they lived through. Both in England and the american colonies. I imagine that people in England felt a bit betrayed, but yet amazed by the courage of the colonists for standing up against England. I also believe that the colonists felt a lot of power and strength being able to fight and win over such a strong and powerful country, but a lot of fear. They had to realize that if they won, and when they won that they were therefor on their own.
Alexis Anderson: Post 1
ReplyDeleteConnections: I connected in the first part of the book to King George III from making difficult decisions. Sometimes when making decisions we dont seek out the best opportunities we could take, which he didnt either.
Questions: When reading it wasnt clear to me where the author got his information. Was it all accurate? Some of the quotes got me suspicious if all that was said was accurate.
Using the Past: Reading the first half of the book made me think about how the past, expecially during this time effects us now. If any of the leaders would have made any random rash decisions our lives would be completely different. What if England would have won? Would we still be under there control?
Alexis Anderson: Post 2
ReplyDeletePreview/Predict: In the beginning of chapter 11 I took a moment to predict what the rest of the book would be like. I started to predict, without thinking about what I already new about the revolution I began to think what if England would have won? If the british army would have had the strength and thinking of the colonists how would this book end? Or would it even exist? What if King George III would have thought more productivly, and argued less than he did. Would it have resulted less bloody?
Visualize: While reading I visualized the revolutionary war. All the battles that took place, all the blood shed, and all the lives lost. I also visualized King George III as a very stiff, and mean man. Very in control, but also out of his mind.
Through their Eyes: I wonder how the people who weren't battling felt about this. I bet there opinions were 50/50. Some thought it was a good idea, some thought it was ridiculous to be fighting another battle over land right after the French War just ended. I also bet there was alot of fear. Going to bed at night not knowing if one of your loved ones fighting out die, or if your hometown would become a battle ground or invaded by british troops. Fear.