As a new student to Puget South Early College, I was very nervous to take college level classes. I was so afraid I might have messed up or misunderstood, especially the writing class which I worried the most. To me, writing is always a way to express my feelings and thoughts, just like write an angry letter when I am mad, and make up a song or poem when I am happy. There is no limitation for me in writing. Maybe there are some mistakes I always make but as long as I can be creative and express it freely, I do not think there will be anything problems. But at beginning of the class of Writing 101, my style of writing did not work well. Since I am an ESL (English as Second Language) student, an immigrate and not an English native speaker, the language is my weakness, but as the class went on I learned what I need to write a good essay by reading my classmates’ essays. The two essays that I have prepared for this portfolio will show my changes of writing style in a good way from my writing experiences in this class.
****
I did not do well on my first essay since I had never write a college essay before and always practiced writing in ESL level in the ESL class. To tell my strength on my first essay which is the “Bacon’s Rebellion”, the only two things I was good at were to describe what was happening during that time and compared it with the modern world. As a new student to the college with a little weak English skills, I did not get what am I suppose to do with the essay, so I did it the way that I used to write for my ESL essays, and it did not work. And the weaknesses I had on this essay were not having enough historical evidences, quotes, clear arguments , good hook , and some grammar mistakes. The most important part I made mistake was not giving a good theme, which did not show a clear argument. So what I did was keeping the most important and useful information and rewrite other parts. I added my voice of argument, give quote, changed a hook and focus more about my topic since I was out of topic at first time. And I believe the revised version of first essay will show a huge difference from the original one.
***
On my second essay, I did a better job because it was a partnered essay. I was glad to work with my partner. I gave him my ideas and words, and he fixed and wrote it down for me, so this essay actually looked smoother then my first essay. It was an essay about a loyalist having an interview with a patriots, and I believe my partner and I brought out good questions for each other to explain each side’s situations. And the only weaknesses we had was a little mistake on the grammar and did not have a good citation, because instead of giving a citation to our source we gave an annotation. So I fixed the grammar and used a website called “ esaybib” for the citations. There was too much things to change around on the second essay, but after fixing it, it looked a little bit better.
***
For my final, I think I did a good job because I tried my best and used what I have learned in this class. I know it might not be prefect, but to me it was the best work I have ever done this quarter. I was a little bit in hurry so I made a lot grammar mistakes, but I printed out a copy for myself to correct my mistakes right after the test. And this time, I might have a good hook and showed a sense of understanding the quote. And it is pretty much the end of the quarter, I learned how to focus and not to be off the topic, and more understanding of how to use historical evidences on the essay to support my argument. Over all, I learned more about college writing and grew from the ESL writing. I am glad I took this class which will help me to prepare for writing essays in the future and got a sense of how might the classes look like if I was in a class of big number students in a university.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Portfolio: Essay 1
Vicky Lay
Essay #1
Bacon’s Rebellion - Class
What catch my attention the most and quickest are those events that changed the history or happened with interesting reasons. Just like what happened in the World War II, Japan attacked the Pearl Harbor which belong to United State of America, just because they thought the U.S. government would help their enemies to fight them, so Japan decided bomb Pearl Harbor, where American Navy located. Later on, America dropped a nuclear bomb in Japan and killed a big number of Japan’s population. After all Japan learned a lesson from U.S., and it changed history and ended the World War II. Isn’t it an interesting event happened in history for Japanese made a funny mistake. And just like what surprised me most in Bacon’s Rebellion which happened in1676, that Nathaniel Bacon was a rich class gentleman from England. He helped and led those poor American colonists to fight the English government and the American Indians. And also the differences of life between each class during the year of 1676 got me interested.
**********************************************************************************
Bacon’s Rebellion erupted all over Virginia’s Indian policy in 1676. The policy was a treaty that the colonial government signed with American Indians that the colonists or the government will not cross or take over the rest of Indian’s territory. And as the end for the result, we know that Europeans still took over the land just because more and more Europeans immigrated to America and they needed more space to live.
**********************************************************************************
It was a huge different life between each society class. It was either very rich and powerful or very poor and did not own anything at all. As more and more Europeans came to America, what happened to those poor people who could not pay for their trips to America? For those poor people who could not their trips to America, they signed a seven- year contract with rich people like merchants to pay for the trip to America. In order to pay back, they had to serve the merchant for seven years, but if they tried to run away during the serving years the merchant had the right to add more years on the contract. And it very similar to the lowest class which were the African slaves. The African slaves had no right and no voice during this time. The main two reasons why Africans were enslaved was because to the English religion, the color black represented evil, and also was an excuse that they needed somebody to do the works that they did not want to do by themselves. And even though the poor English were owned by somebody, they still got their freedom after serving years, and slaves did not. There were only a few examples that slaves could by themselves out of their owners. Most of African slaves worked for their owner all their lives and their children were treated and worked as slaves too. Slaves were very useful and cheap to the rich people at this time, since more Africans were kidnapped and sent to America and sold as slaves. In the text book, “THE AMERICAN PROMISE” written by historians Roark, Johnson, Cohen, Stage, Lawson and Hartmann, Africans were brought to America by ships. Europeans sent and sold around 1,341,000 Africans in sixteenth century. The master did not care anything about his slaves, all he did was to make them work and work and if they got sick or died, he would just go buy more slaves to work for him. The master just wanted to make profits from the products that slaves made. And the products were mostly tobacco since it was the biggest plantation and European were crazy about it.
*********************************************************************************
The high classes during this time were those governors, rich family, and those plantation owners. The reason why rich people were powerful was because they were friends with governments. And government was friends with rich people because they can support the government with money. For this reason, more and more unfairness events started to disrupted in the society in Virginia. I am strongly disagreed the way that the slaves were mistreated. How could people treated a human begin like an animal and did not care for his death.
********************************************************************************
How did the houses look different in each different class ?There’s a travel report written by Sara McClure, a student of the College of William and Mary. And it’s about when servants and lower class people came to visit a higher class they would have to stay in the main hall. This did create a feeling of intimidation and separated the upper class from the lower classes. And the fact that wealthy people were able to put so much money and effort into their house brings to light an important difference in priorities between the classes. Most of small or poor planters would put all their money back into their tobacco crops while people who were wealthier could afford to use money for their homes.
********************************************************************************
Virginia’s Indian policy might have worked if the Chesapeake population did not grow so fast. But since the number of new colonists and poor and freed servants increased, they were land-hungry. They did not have that much money to buy lands and also there were not enough lands for them to have when there is a treaty between Native Americans and Europeans. These were the two main reasons that Bacon led his men to against Virginia government and Native Americans.
********************************************************************************
An article named “ Bacon’s Rebellion” posted in the website of National Center for History in the Schools of University of California, that Nathaniel Bacon was the son of a wealthy English gentleman. Bacon was sent to America to plant a large tobacco field. At first he was welcomed by the Governor of Virginia, but not till Bacon started a rebellion against government and Native Americans. Bacon was really a good leader that stood up for those poor freemen. He knew that it was wrong that government and rich people charged a heavy taxes on lower classes. No wonder those people in lower classes could not get rich and for those poor freemen was almost barely to making a living. When Bacon started the rebellion, more people became his supporters. Nathaniel Bacon became a hero to many of the poor freeman. The Governor at this time was a man named William Berkeley. Bacon had declared war against Berkeley and others that are on government‘s side. And then Berkeley called Bacon as a traitor.
*********************************************************************************
“We have two evils to fight, capitalism and racism. We must destroy both racism and capitalism,”by Huey P. Newton. And “Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants, is the liberty of appearing,” by Thomas Paine. I like the ideas of both quotes. To get a peaceful society with equality of rights, we must fight for it if it needs. The word FREEDOM meant a lot to the most of people in the past and still in the modern world. And I am glad that Nathaniel Bacon stood up and helped poor colonists to spread their voices.
********************************************************************************
During the rebellion, Bacon led the colonists to fight American Indians to get more lands and was because those American Indian had a surprised attack which killed a lot colonists. Also Bacon led his followers against to the Governor Berkley and sacked the grandees’ plantations, and attacked Jamestown. And the loyalists on Berkley’s side retaliated by plundering the homes of Bacon’s followers.
*********************************************************************************
As the end of the rebellion, bacon and his supporters actually won, the governor reduced the taxes by 75 percent between 1660 and 1700 and there were more lands for colonists . And because of the taxes reduced, it minimized the differences between rich planters and poor farmers.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Portfolio: Essay 2
David Cahoon & Vicky Lay
Combined Essay #1
Introduction to Interview
Two decades defined the American Revolution, in the 1760’s and the 1770’s. During this time when colonies were blossoming, many immigrants from England chose to move to the New World. Along with this move, families would be torn apart between two critical choices. If families chose to stay loyal to England and the King, colonists would be known as Loyalists; if they chose to break free of the supreme empire then the colonists would be known as Patriots. This would pit neighbor against neighbor and even within the same family. Many of the early problems for the colonists arose when England abused the colonists by taking away many of their newly gained American rights. England “expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various presences but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, and establishing a board of commissioners with unconstitutional powers.”[1] While England continued to impose laws and taxes on the colonists, without their approval, many voted for splitting off from the supreme empire, resulting in some being labeled Patriots. On the other side a document was discovered of an interview between a Loyalist and a Patriot. This piece is about a New England merchant named Patrick, who is in favor of patriotism and has agreed to embark his thoughts and reason with a royal governor who continues to stay loyal to England. The royal governor, Bob, was appointed to the colony to directly report back to the King, for purposes of keeping tabs on the acts of the Patriots. The interview between the Loyalist and Patriot is a debate to discover the motives and actions behind the Patriots.
********************************************************************************
Governor Bob: Thank you for taking the time to speak with me and to share your opinions. To start off, as a merchant of New England, could you explain to me why you would want to break away from the protection and security of England?
********************************************************************************
Merchant Patrick: Personally, I find the protection and security of England irrelevant to the problem. We applaud England for the help in the defeat of the French but it was not solely because of their efforts. We as Americans did our part of ridding the land of the French. The main issue is the improper imposition of taxes on the colonies. Britain should not be allowed to tax the American colonies to gain back money and power without our consent. Tell me governor, why do you think we should pay tax to the British?
********************************************************************************
Governor Bob: The protection we provided to the colonists in America caused Britain a substantial amount of money. If it were not for our help the French would have crushed the colonists. Since the New England Colonies are still apart of Britain, Britain can tax you for the expenses of your protection. The colonists had a Tea Party that dumped tea from England into the sea in 1773; does this mean you are opposed paying the taxes? Would you tell me the reasons why you disagree and what can we change or do to make it better?
********************************************************************************
Merchant Patrick: The Tea Party was a representation of our feelings towards the taxes; of course we are opposed to paying unreasonable taxes without representation in Britain for our economic needs. Why should Britain be able to setup the Tea Act where Britain does not have to pay taxes, but we get taxed on the imports of goods? I say “No taxation without representation.”[2]Then in turn, Britain's unreasonable tax on importing and exporting goods is pushing more and more merchants like me to become extremely aggravated. These taxes are dampening our profits as a whole and simply, we are not getting anything out of our taxed wages. Our rights are wrongfully being trampled on, and since our ancestors settled in this land we should be given the same rights as they once had. This whole situation between Patriots and the King is not strictly about the imposing of taxes, but also the loss of liberty and justice. As “the parliament have taken upon them, from the representations of our governor and other persons inimical to and deeply prejudiced against the inhabitants, to try, condemn, and by an act to punish them, unheard; which would have been in violation of natural justice even if they had an acknowledged jurisdiction. This attack, though made immediately upon us, is doubtless designed for very other colony who will not surrender their sacred rights and liberties into the hands of an infamous ministry. Now therefore is the time when all should be united in opposition to this violation of liberties of all. Their grand object is to divide the colonies.”[3] So Bob, should we as colonists sit back and watch Britain try and take advantage of us? Tell me why we shouldn't be rebelling against the King and the parliament when our liberties are being broken and taken right from our families?
********************************************************************************
Governor Bob: If I was one of the Patriots, I believe I would not keep quiet and let it happen, but in the other hand, we as immigrants from England to America, I know somewhere in our minds we still have a voice saying that we are still part of the British Empire. “A reverence for our Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense, must convince all those who reflect upon the subject, that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind, and ought to be administered for the attainment of the end.”[4] I can tell that all of you still have the respect for Great Britain. I believe the acts of what the British Empire did were driven by a desire to keep the bonds between colonists in America and the people that remain in England strong. I have to admit that the King and loyal governors are trying too hard to over-protect the colonists. The key issue that turned the colonists and British Empire against each other is the fact that the colonists were not able to consent to the taxation against them. Now that I understand the issues, I will report to the King and the Governors in England. Thank you for spending your time to sharing a piece of your mind. I hope we can fix the issue of the lack of understanding of the colonists’ concerns and have a good relationship with each other again.
[1]The Declaration and resolves of the First Continental Congress of October, 1774 and was written by the congress.
[2] “No taxation without representation" was a slogan period 1763-1775 that summarized a primary grievance of the American colonists in the Thirteen colonies.
[3]Quote taken from Circular letter of the Boston Committee of Correspondence; May 13, 1774.
[4]A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Portfolio: Final Exam
“Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that...a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means... the history of the present.” –Michel Foucault
I believe that if we want to understand more about a country or culture, we will have to study its own history. And the history will show you how it was formed and becoming what it is now in the present. Just like the quote, “Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that...a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means... the history of the present,” written in “Discipline & Punish” by Michel Foucault, a French historian and philosopher.
To translate this quote, I believe the author was asking that why are we studying history? Is it just because we are interesting at it? No, we are studying history because history is what made the world is like today. What we learn in the past can be helpful for us to get to know more cultures and the reasons why of some events are still or stopped happening in the modern world. There are a lot examples will give us an idea for the meaning of this quote. For the first example, why did the population of African decreased so much and quick during 1450 to 1770? Because white people believed that black represents evil and white represents good and kind, so British used to kidnap or buy Africans as slaves and treated them bad as low class animals. During the slave trades, a lot of Africans died on the way to America, just because the British sailors did not give them food and water, and also without fresh air which made them sick and died. And then as more and more Africans worked as slaves in America, they started to rebel to get their freedom and rights. Now, you can see people are treating each other equally no matter where you are from or what skin color you have, the history shows us what fights and wars people had been through to get the society we have now in America.
For another example, the Boston Tea Party which happened in fall of 1773, when American colonists dumped the tea that imported from England into the Boston Harbor. The reason why the colonists decided to dump the tea into the harbor was because the British were adding too much taxation on the colonists. British lost a lot of money to fight in the wars ad they were trying to get in back by taxing the colonists, which caused colonists rebel and wanted to be independent. As we know that the colonists won and earned their freedom from Great Britain and became what we known as the United States of America. And for the last example I would like to give was happened in Europe, a disease that killed almost half of the European population. The history of this disease was called Black Death. People had no education and knowledge of medication at this time; they drank dirty water and food. For an example, when someone was killed by the Black Death, people would dump the dead body into the water, and then use to water for drink and showers which caused the disease to spread wider in the European nation. And as we developed and learned, we know that we should keep our environment clean to prevent the disease to spread around.
I am strongly agreed with author’s idea, so I would answer yes to the question that author is asking. Everyone including my self should use what we learn the best in the past to make good changes to our community. In the writing class, I have learned that the style I used to use will not work here, and I need to develop that will suit my voice and work in this class. As the class went on, I learned what I missed and need to make change and added more useful skills that will help me. So what I learned here was that when things are not working well on the essay, I can always try something new and pick up what is helpful for me. In my history class, after read through so many primary documents and historical events, I have learned that if everyone would just sit down and have conversations, I believe there were some wars and rebels that were no needed to fight about. And also if everyone had a sense of respect for people who have different colors of skin, there would not be so many tragedies happened in the past during the African slave trades. And would my learning have been different with a different answer to Foucault’s question? I would say NO, because no matter how my answers are different, the only importance that matter is what I believe in. If I truly believe that history is what made the world is today, then history is very important and also a valuable source to help our thinking and making decisions.
I believe that if we want to understand more about a country or culture, we will have to study its own history. And the history will show you how it was formed and becoming what it is now in the present. Just like the quote, “Why [consider history]? Simply because I am interested in the past? No, if one means by that...a history of the past in terms of the present. Yes, if one means... the history of the present,” written in “Discipline & Punish” by Michel Foucault, a French historian and philosopher.
To translate this quote, I believe the author was asking that why are we studying history? Is it just because we are interesting at it? No, we are studying history because history is what made the world is like today. What we learn in the past can be helpful for us to get to know more cultures and the reasons why of some events are still or stopped happening in the modern world. There are a lot examples will give us an idea for the meaning of this quote. For the first example, why did the population of African decreased so much and quick during 1450 to 1770? Because white people believed that black represents evil and white represents good and kind, so British used to kidnap or buy Africans as slaves and treated them bad as low class animals. During the slave trades, a lot of Africans died on the way to America, just because the British sailors did not give them food and water, and also without fresh air which made them sick and died. And then as more and more Africans worked as slaves in America, they started to rebel to get their freedom and rights. Now, you can see people are treating each other equally no matter where you are from or what skin color you have, the history shows us what fights and wars people had been through to get the society we have now in America.
For another example, the Boston Tea Party which happened in fall of 1773, when American colonists dumped the tea that imported from England into the Boston Harbor. The reason why the colonists decided to dump the tea into the harbor was because the British were adding too much taxation on the colonists. British lost a lot of money to fight in the wars ad they were trying to get in back by taxing the colonists, which caused colonists rebel and wanted to be independent. As we know that the colonists won and earned their freedom from Great Britain and became what we known as the United States of America. And for the last example I would like to give was happened in Europe, a disease that killed almost half of the European population. The history of this disease was called Black Death. People had no education and knowledge of medication at this time; they drank dirty water and food. For an example, when someone was killed by the Black Death, people would dump the dead body into the water, and then use to water for drink and showers which caused the disease to spread wider in the European nation. And as we developed and learned, we know that we should keep our environment clean to prevent the disease to spread around.
I am strongly agreed with author’s idea, so I would answer yes to the question that author is asking. Everyone including my self should use what we learn the best in the past to make good changes to our community. In the writing class, I have learned that the style I used to use will not work here, and I need to develop that will suit my voice and work in this class. As the class went on, I learned what I missed and need to make change and added more useful skills that will help me. So what I learned here was that when things are not working well on the essay, I can always try something new and pick up what is helpful for me. In my history class, after read through so many primary documents and historical events, I have learned that if everyone would just sit down and have conversations, I believe there were some wars and rebels that were no needed to fight about. And also if everyone had a sense of respect for people who have different colors of skin, there would not be so many tragedies happened in the past during the African slave trades. And would my learning have been different with a different answer to Foucault’s question? I would say NO, because no matter how my answers are different, the only importance that matter is what I believe in. If I truly believe that history is what made the world is today, then history is very important and also a valuable source to help our thinking and making decisions.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Reflection Letter (Draft)
As at beginning of the class (Writing 101), my style of writing did not work well. Since I am an ESL (English as Second Language) student, an immigrate and not an English native speaker, the language is my weakness, but as the class go on I learned what should I have to write an good essay by reading my classmates’ essays. The two essays that I have prepared for this portfolio will show my changes of writing style in a good way from my writing experiences in this class.
I did not do well on my first essay since I had never write a college essay before and always practiced in ESL level in the ESL class. To tell my strength on my first essay which is the “Bacon’s Rebellion”, the only two things I was good at were to describe what was happening during that time and compared it with the modern world. As a new student to the college with a little weak English skills, I did not get what am I suppose to do with the essay, so I did it the way that I used to write for my ESL essays, and it did not work. The weaknesses of my first essay were not having enough historical evidences, quotes, clear arguments, good hook and some grammar mistakes. The most important part I made mistake was not giving a good theme, which did not show a clear argument.
TO BE CONTIUNE…
I did not do well on my first essay since I had never write a college essay before and always practiced in ESL level in the ESL class. To tell my strength on my first essay which is the “Bacon’s Rebellion”, the only two things I was good at were to describe what was happening during that time and compared it with the modern world. As a new student to the college with a little weak English skills, I did not get what am I suppose to do with the essay, so I did it the way that I used to write for my ESL essays, and it did not work. The weaknesses of my first essay were not having enough historical evidences, quotes, clear arguments, good hook and some grammar mistakes. The most important part I made mistake was not giving a good theme, which did not show a clear argument.
TO BE CONTIUNE…
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Reflection for Essay # 3
1) Group Interaction:
My group actually worked out well. My group members knew that I have problems with reading or writing in English, so they were willing to help and answered all my questions I had. We treated each other very nicely. I am so glad to be in this group.
2) Use of Contract:
I don't think we use the contract a lot in this group. Everyone did what they support to do and helped each other. Sometimes some of our group might be obsent cause of sickness or something, but they still finish their work on time. So I do think that we can still do the works without a contract since everyone is taking the responsibility in my group.
3) Use of WIKI:
It was kind of useful for me. I can always go back to check the sources I found and checked what my group memebers found too. It was more likely sharing those good sources with each other to understand more on a event and was easier for me to know what websites were useful to use on my essay.
4) Individual Progress:
I believe it was great to work with my group because they gave good ideas on the essay, which taught me a lesson of how to write a good hook. In my first essay, I didn't have a good hook because I didn't really have any experiences so I didn't get how to write a good one at that time.
And now, I think I got a sense of it since my group showed me a super good hook in this essay. I believe that I can write a good hook on next essay.
My group actually worked out well. My group members knew that I have problems with reading or writing in English, so they were willing to help and answered all my questions I had. We treated each other very nicely. I am so glad to be in this group.
2) Use of Contract:
I don't think we use the contract a lot in this group. Everyone did what they support to do and helped each other. Sometimes some of our group might be obsent cause of sickness or something, but they still finish their work on time. So I do think that we can still do the works without a contract since everyone is taking the responsibility in my group.
3) Use of WIKI:
It was kind of useful for me. I can always go back to check the sources I found and checked what my group memebers found too. It was more likely sharing those good sources with each other to understand more on a event and was easier for me to know what websites were useful to use on my essay.
4) Individual Progress:
I believe it was great to work with my group because they gave good ideas on the essay, which taught me a lesson of how to write a good hook. In my first essay, I didn't have a good hook because I didn't really have any experiences so I didn't get how to write a good one at that time.
And now, I think I got a sense of it since my group showed me a super good hook in this essay. I believe that I can write a good hook on next essay.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Final Draft for Essay #3
North Carolina: The Anti-Federalist State
One day a guy who had a deck of cards decided to make a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful; his whole project would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.
The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The government rights would then be on the rise while state and citizen rights would slowly be deprived.
The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. States feared losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade; therefore they shunned themselves away form accepting the constitution.
There was a great chance of limitation to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. This revolved around distrust between classes. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant (1)] stated Stanford history professor David M. Kennedy. The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, was comprised of people from wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One key concern that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and self purposes). To them, this would eventually lead to government tyranny. Many feared that this amount of power would allow the government to tax them heavier (whenever they wanted to): first, to pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Evidently, if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. Loss of land would be the conclusion to scenarios such as this (they would have to sell or it would be taken away by force). “… this new document had no guarantees of personal and property rights—for example, a jury trial in federal courts was not guaranteed…” [North Carolina: Through Four Centuries (2)] explained the renowned William S. Powell; leading authority in North Carolina history. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).
Despite obvious cons in the ratification that applied to the North Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The Federalists declared that a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for the growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would generate fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the North Carolinians. However, having no form government can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly causing economic crippling to the farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina can’t survive in a loose anarchy. It had dependence on internal governmental security as well as dependence on other states (trade). Without a strong centralized government, such security cannot not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolina’s ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.
This was not a compelling enough argument for the Anti-Federalists in North Carolina, and to them, individual freedoms took presidency over a new government. Perhaps it was too early for the Anti-Federalists, who had just put forth all effort to disown the British government. Of course not all paranoia on the matter could be blamed on fear of a repeated monarchy. What can be said for the North Carolinians is a centralized government could hurt them easier than it could help them, which would deem it an unnecessary risk. The Federalism versus Anti-federalism debate concerned each class of people in a different light. For the majority of North Carolinians, anti-federalism was the most beneficial choice.
[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that makes me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t base my decision on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, their reasoning for not wanting to ratify didn’t have relations with not wanting to be a new country; but rather a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would choose Anti-Federalism, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is based on what I know now, I would lean more to the Federalist side, because I think the Constitution is swell and serves well as our country’s infrastructure.
[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to Federalism or Anti-Federalism. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." [The U.S. Constitution (3)] Also Anti-Federalists were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ [The U.S. Constitution (3)] At this time, the people that won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have an answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in one side or the other. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.
[Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I wholly agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not have happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.
[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.
Quote Sources:
1. Kennedy, David M. The American Pageant. Comp. Lizabeth Cohen. Ed. Thomas A. Bailey. AP ed. Vol. 13. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. (accessed: November 19, 2006)
2. Powell, William S. North Carolina: Through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina P, 1989. 225-227 (accessed: November 15, 2006)
3. The U.S. Constitution: URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm (accessed November 2007)
One day a guy who had a deck of cards decided to make a card tower. He began rushing while building the card tower, then realized that if he wasn’t careful; his whole project would come crashing down and he’d end up with a big mess to clean [and then he would have to start all over!]. Knowing this, he slowed down and took his time, and the card tower turned out fine. Taking things slow and steady was the mentality of the North Carolinians. They felt it was risky to rush in the ratification of the Constitution before it was PERFECT [meaning its terms worked for EVERYONE, not just SOME states]. The deck of cards was like the Constitution because they both served as bases that needed to be put together carefully. Any hastiness would not fulfill all necessary supporting features and would build a weak base, therefore risking the whole entire structure. They needed careful planning, thus making a strong base to be a foundation for their new nation. The hasty ratification of the Constitution threatened the longevity of the United States, and thereof North Carolina (and her people). It would have affects on three different levels: national government rights, state rights, and individual rights.
The anti-federalists feared that in ratifying the Constitution, the centralized government would eventually lose their sense of Democracy and turn into a monarchy. This would contradict the initial reason why they succeeded from the British during the Revolution. According to the Constitution, Congress had the power to lay and collect taxes, regulate commerce with other countries, provide punishments and coin money. The anti-federalists were apprehensive of the government and were scared that they could cut off trade with any country at any time and mess up the economy (without any voice of the Americans in that decision). The government rights would then be on the rise while state and citizen rights would slowly be deprived.
The Constitution without a bill of rights would put the states at risk of submission under the new national government. Individualism was a key attribute to have within the states. They didn’t like the idea of having one centralized form of government. They wanted to make sure they would be heard and would have some sort of rights for themselves such as individual states’ rights and laws. Furthermore, they also wanted to make sure their personal and property rights would be protected and guaranteed. Mutually they wanted a bill of rights to protect them, but at the time there wasn’t one. The Americans feared that without a bill of rights to protect them and their rights, they would be at the mercy of the national government and possibly more powerful states. States feared losing their voice in taxation and decisions regarding trade; therefore they shunned themselves away form accepting the constitution.
There was a great chance of limitation to the rights of citizens if the Constitution was ratified. This revolved around distrust between classes. “The Constitution was seen as a plot by the upper class to steal power back from common folk…” [The American Pageant (1)] stated Stanford history professor David M. Kennedy. The majority of people saw the Constitution this way because it gave so much power to the government; which of course, was comprised of people from wealthier classes. Because North Carolina’s population was made up of primarily farmers and people of a more humble class, they were more inclined to fight back. One key concern that these people had was the loss of their rights. Taxation was a subject that was uneasily discussed—according to the Constitution, government would have the right to tax all the states whatever amount they wanted (depending on need and self purposes). To them, this would eventually lead to government tyranny. Many feared that this amount of power would allow the government to tax them heavier (whenever they wanted to): first, to pay off any personal debts, and second, to pay off the war debt. Evidently, if the government were run by wealthier people, they could agree on higher taxation (because they could pay it) but that would mean endless suffering for the farmers and other lower classes. Loss of land would be the conclusion to scenarios such as this (they would have to sell or it would be taken away by force). “… this new document had no guarantees of personal and property rights—for example, a jury trial in federal courts was not guaranteed…” [North Carolina: Through Four Centuries (2)] explained the renowned William S. Powell; leading authority in North Carolina history. The farmers of N.C. saw this as prime time for the Federalists to take away power and rights from others in lower classes (therefore limitation of rights would be a possible rising issue).
Despite obvious cons in the ratification that applied to the North Carolinians, there were certainly pros. The Federalists declared that a strong centralized government was necessary for ascendance to power for the growing nation. It is true that a strong centralized government would generate fear, especially to lower class citizens like many of the North Carolinians. However, having no form government can be as dangerous as a tyrannical one; and possibly causing economic crippling to the farming population of North Carolina. A state such as North Carolina can’t survive in a loose anarchy. It had dependence on internal governmental security as well as dependence on other states (trade). Without a strong centralized government, such security cannot not be assured, which would instantly jeopardize North Carolina’s ability to sell their cash crops, and produce.
This was not a compelling enough argument for the Anti-Federalists in North Carolina, and to them, individual freedoms took presidency over a new government. Perhaps it was too early for the Anti-Federalists, who had just put forth all effort to disown the British government. Of course not all paranoia on the matter could be blamed on fear of a repeated monarchy. What can be said for the North Carolinians is a centralized government could hurt them easier than it could help them, which would deem it an unnecessary risk. The Federalism versus Anti-federalism debate concerned each class of people in a different light. For the majority of North Carolinians, anti-federalism was the most beneficial choice.
[Nash] What am I? Neither a federalist nor an anti-federalist. In this age I think the question is irrelevant. I’m sure that America would be almost exactly the same as it is now had the anti-federalist cause won over that of the federalists, thus I see no reason to favor one or the other. Instead, I ask myself what I would have been if I lived back when I feel it was relevant. The obstacle facing this mindset is a lifetime of inculcation that makes me automatically think “of course federalism was the right way to go.” Surely I can’t base my decision on what I’ve been told, so I have to reconsider anti-federalism. From what I gather about anti-federalism, their reasoning for not wanting to ratify didn’t have relations with not wanting to be a new country; but rather a cautionary step against making a weak infrastructure for their new nation. Because of this reason, I probably would choose Anti-Federalism, had I lived back then. Although, If my decision is based on what I know now, I would lean more to the Federalist side, because I think the Constitution is swell and serves well as our country’s infrastructure.
[Vicky] For my position, I am not belonging to Federalism or Anti-Federalism. I can understand the government was trying to make the constitution perfect for the country but it just didn't work out for everyone. In the Constitution of United States, there were so many sections in the articles that gave a lot of rights to the government, and this was what Anti-Federalists were afraid of. For example, the Article 1 Section8 in Constitution of United States, " The Congress shall have power: To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United State. To declare war, grant letters of marquee and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." [The U.S. Constitution (3)] Also Anti-Federalists were afraid that once the government gains a lot of rights and power, they might try to take control and make decisions without asking the citizens. In the Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution, “Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-third, expel a member.¨ [The U.S. Constitution (3)] At this time, the people that won the election were those powerful and rich people. I don't have an answer to say which side is right or wrong and I won't try to convince people to believe in one side or the other. But what I believe in is that if the government was not going to make decision by itself or the citizens trusted the government, then I guess the constitution would just work out fine.
[Kyle] Federalist or Anti-federalist does not mean much to me. I find strong points to both sides, but cannot subjectively say I am for one side or the other. I am clearly able to see the anti-federalist’s points; they mutually did not want to have a recap of the revolution they had just finished. They believed that the centralized government would have too much power over the other states and that the smaller states would not be heard. I wholly agree with this statement and if I was living back then it would be prominent to me that my voice be heard and if I was living in a small state that might not have happened. On the other hand I can see where the federalists are coming from. After going through the whole revolution they wanted to make sure it was worth while by ratifying the constitution. They were ready to form their own government, a democracy, and start what is now America. I see eye to eye with this because I would want to finalize the revolution and start to unite America, the thirteen colonies, as soon as possible. From my understanding I am unable to side with either the federalists or anti-federalists. The two sides have valid reasons for what they were trying to do. Furthermore, not living back in that time makes it difficult to fully understand just exactly what the people back then were going through. That leaves me at a neutral state, not sure and not leaning towards one side or the other.
[Tiffany] After a bit of surface researching, I put almost no effort in deciding that “I would be a federalist of course, the Constitution was a step in building our nation, why not?” At the time, I regarded the Anti-Federalists as a group that was just stubborn and didn’t want to change. After digging deeper into North Carolina’s history and looking at the Anti-Federalist causes more thoroughly, my vision of my position was altered. Realizing that the reasons of the Anti-Federalists were just as legitimate as the Federalists’, my position is in a foggy area. The Federalists wanted to start tackling the messy project of building a new nation. In a way, a centralized government would act like the binding behind the states to create a sense of unity between states. This would make things more efficient and organized. The Anti-Federalists were worried that the centralized government might obsess over their power and soon turn into a monarchy—what they had been fighting to separate from in the first place. Looking back, I honestly can’t point my finger and choose what side to take… Both sides were reasonable, and there would be no point in arguing who was entirely right and who was entirely wrong.
Quote Sources:
1. Kennedy, David M. The American Pageant. Comp. Lizabeth Cohen. Ed. Thomas A. Bailey. AP ed. Vol. 13. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006. (accessed: November 19, 2006)
2. Powell, William S. North Carolina: Through Four Centuries. Chapel Hill, London: The University of North Carolina P, 1989. 225-227 (accessed: November 15, 2006)
3. The U.S. Constitution: URL: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/usconst.htm (accessed November 2007)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)