One of the most intriguing, and often untold, parts of the Revolutionary War is the role spying played in giving the Continental Army an advantage over the more powerful British Army. The Culper Ring in New York played a monumental role in passing important information back and forth without being detected.
For this week's blog, visit these four websites and then write about what you learned. How exactly did this Culper Ring work? Why do you think the Americans heavily relied on spies in some cases and the British really did not?
Site One
Site Two
Site Three
Site Four
Monday, November 17, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
The Declaration of Independence: Does It Really Matter?
Many people point to the Declaration of Independence as the most important document in American history. While that is debatable, the DOI was certainly a turning point in the development of our nation.
The question is...does the DOI really matter? What if we didn't write that document but fought the war anyway? Would we not have been free because we did not declare it in writing?
What if we had lost the war? Would this document have set us free anyway?
Check out this funny parody video, read this "kid's version" and look at this website to gain some background on the document and its writers.
For the comment section, explain how important you think the DOI is. Could/would we be the nation we are today without it?
The question is...does the DOI really matter? What if we didn't write that document but fought the war anyway? Would we not have been free because we did not declare it in writing?
What if we had lost the war? Would this document have set us free anyway?
Check out this funny parody video, read this "kid's version" and look at this website to gain some background on the document and its writers.
For the comment section, explain how important you think the DOI is. Could/would we be the nation we are today without it?
Monday, November 3, 2014
Boston Massacre: A Lesson in Propaganda
Let me catch you up to speed. People from Europe came to America for LOTS of different reasons. Some came for political asylum, some for religious freedom, some tried to escape their mounting debts back home and some came for the fun of it. Either way, as time passed and the colonies grew a certain "American Culture" began to develop. All these different cultures, living thousands of miles from home and across an entire ocean, began to develop a new identity. It's not that they considered themselves as "Americans". They did, however, begin to identify with their home colony (i.e. "I'm a Virginian" etc.) The confusing part is that while this new identity was being developed, the colonists were still fully recognized as British citizens. That meant the King and Parliament (England's version of Congress) were still in control. Some colonies had more self-government than others, but all answered ultimately to the Mother Country.
When the French/Indian War started, the colonists needed British troops help to defend their land. This arrangement worked because England A) hated France and B) wanted to see their colonies survive so they could continue to make a profit off them. So the war was fought and England won, and then the trouble started. William Pitt, the British Prime Minister (their version of a president) began taxing the colonies more heavily than they were used to in order to pay off the debt racked up by the French and Indian War. And who could blame him? England sent her troops across the ocean and paid for much of the war cost up front. You cannot blame them for wanting a return on their investment. Plus, the colonies belonged to England in the first place, so what's the big deal?
The problem was the colonists had basically been left alone for many decades leading up to the war with France. They had enjoyed the freedom this "salutary neglect" (fancy phrase :-) ) had brought. Now they resented England playing a more active role in colonial affairs. As the reins tightened, many colonists began to advocate more freedom. It is important to note that the original requests from the colonists were not for independence. That is a common misconception. What the colonists wanted, at least in the early years after the F/I War, was their rights as British citizens to be recognized. To be treated like they would be if they lived in England. The cries for independence rang out only after their requests for equal rights were ignored.
All of that background leads us to this week's topic: The Boston Massacre. In March of 1770 an unruly crowd of Bostonians were harassing a group of British soldiers who were guarding a local customs (tax) house. Heated words were exchanged, the colonists threw sticks, stones and snow balls at the soldiers and shots were fired. Five colonists were killed and the soldiers were put on trial. Ironically, John Adams (the cousin of Samuel Adams who was probably the most radical leader of the Sons of Liberty) was hired to defend the British soldiers against their charges of murder. Amazingly, Adams convinced the jury of the innocence of the soldiers and they were free to go.
First, read this story of the Boston Massacre from the perspective of the Captain of the British soldiers involved in this scuffle. Then, look at this portrayal of the events by Bostonian silversmith Paul Revere. Be sure to read the explanation as well as look at the image. There should be an option at the bottom of the page to view Revere's image in an enlarged view.
Is there any difference in the way the same incident was portrayed by the two sides? If so, why do you think that is? How could the same story be told two different ways?
When the French/Indian War started, the colonists needed British troops help to defend their land. This arrangement worked because England A) hated France and B) wanted to see their colonies survive so they could continue to make a profit off them. So the war was fought and England won, and then the trouble started. William Pitt, the British Prime Minister (their version of a president) began taxing the colonies more heavily than they were used to in order to pay off the debt racked up by the French and Indian War. And who could blame him? England sent her troops across the ocean and paid for much of the war cost up front. You cannot blame them for wanting a return on their investment. Plus, the colonies belonged to England in the first place, so what's the big deal?
The problem was the colonists had basically been left alone for many decades leading up to the war with France. They had enjoyed the freedom this "salutary neglect" (fancy phrase :-) ) had brought. Now they resented England playing a more active role in colonial affairs. As the reins tightened, many colonists began to advocate more freedom. It is important to note that the original requests from the colonists were not for independence. That is a common misconception. What the colonists wanted, at least in the early years after the F/I War, was their rights as British citizens to be recognized. To be treated like they would be if they lived in England. The cries for independence rang out only after their requests for equal rights were ignored.
All of that background leads us to this week's topic: The Boston Massacre. In March of 1770 an unruly crowd of Bostonians were harassing a group of British soldiers who were guarding a local customs (tax) house. Heated words were exchanged, the colonists threw sticks, stones and snow balls at the soldiers and shots were fired. Five colonists were killed and the soldiers were put on trial. Ironically, John Adams (the cousin of Samuel Adams who was probably the most radical leader of the Sons of Liberty) was hired to defend the British soldiers against their charges of murder. Amazingly, Adams convinced the jury of the innocence of the soldiers and they were free to go.
First, read this story of the Boston Massacre from the perspective of the Captain of the British soldiers involved in this scuffle. Then, look at this portrayal of the events by Bostonian silversmith Paul Revere. Be sure to read the explanation as well as look at the image. There should be an option at the bottom of the page to view Revere's image in an enlarged view.
Is there any difference in the way the same incident was portrayed by the two sides? If so, why do you think that is? How could the same story be told two different ways?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)