-----In May of 1773, the Patriots of Boston Massachusetts threw 45 tons of tea into the Boston Harbor. In retaliation, our founding British Parliament saw fit to punish the people of Boston by blocking up their harbor. As our mother country, this was supposed to show the rest of the colonies and the people of Boston that this kind of insolence would not be tolerated. In no way were the actions of Parliament or the King unconstitutional or otherwise favorable to the British residents. British rule has afforded economic stability and has maintained a fair leadership in the colonies, but especially in Massachusetts.
-----Other than Maryland, Massachusetts has had the greatest economic stability of all the thirteen colonies. Over the past 100 years, the value of Massachusetts' colonists' material goods has not changed much. "We cannot as yet measure farm income in early New England, but we can measure the value of farmers' material goods, and from the evidence so far collected, that value did not decline" (Gloria L. Main, 101-102). This dislodges the argument that the British have squandered the wealth of the Americas. In order to keep the economic balance and to keep the peace, sometimes the mother must punish the child. America has acted out in such a way that could plunge itself into economic decay, and in order to halt this decay, Boston has been used as an example to the other colonies to not become insolent or self-righteous.
-----In order to stop the tyranny the colonists say Britain began to assume, the Patriots took it upon themselves to assume their own tyranny, but only over those that did not share the same ideals as them. "the wayfaring American [,]though a fool[,] could not err in reading, in very crimson letters painted on the air in front of him, the tidings of the arrival of a race-crisis altogether transcending those ordinary political altercations which had from time to time disturbed, and likewise quickened and clarified, the minds of his British ancestors" (Moses Coit Tyler, 25). Tarring and feathering of their fellow colonists or taking advantage of the chaos to kill a disliked neighbor, this was almost a state of total anarchy.
-----In this anarchy there are piles and piles of Patriotic documents, reveling in the total destruction of everything that has been built by and for the British, but where are the letters of contradiction? where are the letters saying that what the Patriots are doing is wrong and unjust? They are nowhere, and if they are somewhere it is in a cupboard of a building burnt down by the patriots. The loyalist writers were afraid to express their views, not expecting open minds from their fellow colonists. " so many of the ablest conservative writers refrained, in that stage of affairs, from engaging very actively in the discussion." The discussion had no controversy because it was the perfect argument, but because all the people who could stand against it were silenced.
-----
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
-Casey Where is your thesis, this should be clearly defined. ie you could bold it or italicize it.
- Two things one how are these two sentence's connected? "This dislodges the argument that the British have squandered the wealth of the Americas. In order to keep the economic balance and to keep the peace, sometimes the mother must punish the child." The second where did you get this metaphor, it seems familiar, is is a quote?
- How? "Boston has been used as an example to the other colonies to not become insolent or self-righteous."
-Define Tyranny. "In order to stop the tyranny the colonists say Britain began to assume, the Patriots took it upon themselves to assume their own tyranny, but only over those that did not share the same ideals as them."
-Capitalize. "where are the letters saying that what the Patriots are doing is wrong and unjust? "
-Work on the paragraph transition from 2 to 3. Self righteous is very different than tyranny.
Yo Casey, I don't see a thesis here man. Since you didn't seem to have one you didn't really have an argument either. The length is OK but a little more follow-up detail supporting YOUR argument wouldn't hurt. At the end you said that the loyalists were afraid to express their views, but this essay is supposed to be about You as a loyalist. You should include a reason why YOU didn't take action , not the other loyalists.Don't forget that if you do this you have to come up with a reason that is relevant at this time period)
Is the first paragraph your introduction or are you still working on it? If it's your intro, then you should make that more clear and add a thesis. I think I remember you saying you weren't sure about your thesis yet. If that's the case then you best be hurrying up on that man.
You do a good job of presenting facts and information with a source. You also mention the opposing viewpoints in a way that it fits with your paper.
Obviously you need to add a conclusion and stuff, perhaps expand some ideas more. You already knew that though.
Post a Comment