Locke' Ideas in 8 minutes - "Philosophy of Liberty"

If the video does not play go to youtube and type "The Philosophy of Liberty"
HW - as you watch take notes - pause when needed!

Summarize the 5 most important points of the video in at least one paragraph 
                                                                              
Be prepared for a quiz on the video and what we have learned so far in class

Harvard Lecture on John Locke "This Land is my land"

Locke
Click on the L in Locke and become a student at Harvard

HW Due 9/27 Causes of the Revolution - a partial list

HW-Pick and describe what you believe to be the 5 most important causes of the American Revolution!

You will be requaired to use these cause with your group in class!

For over one hundred years the 13 colonies belonged to their mother country.  In 1776 the colonies declared their independence from England.  This action officially started the Revolutionary War.  What were the many causes of this separation and war?  What people, movements and ideas led the colonists to believe they should be free?  What British actions made the colonists angry enough to be rebel?  What American actions and words led to war? In the end it was a complicated combination of causes, ideas and people that started the war and led to the permanent separation from England.  Below are just some causes of the Revolution.  Please check your notes, handouts and textbooks for more specific information about these causes.  Each cause will require internet and book/library research to fully explain.  Please do not copy my words, use them as a guide to get you started.

Long term - Ideas, People, Movements that lead to the desire for more freedom

Magna Carta (1215) – An agreement between king and nobles, first step in guaranteeing rights of people.  It protected certain rights (mainly of the nobles), guaranteed legal procedures, and bound the king to the law.  It was a small step toward spreading freedoms to more people in society.

Glorious Revolution (1689) – The English Parliament throws out the king when he refuses to respect their rights.  It was the start of the modern English parliamentary democracy: never again would the king hold absolute power.  The Bill of Rights that was written during this time became one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain.

English Bill of Rights (1689) – Limited the power of the king, guaranteed more rights to British citizens and authority to the people through the Parliament.  Because Americans saw themselves as British citizens they believed the English Bill of Rights should apply to them in America. 

Salutary Neglect – (lasted until 1763) England allowed the colonies to take care of much of its own business and did little to enforce trade rules.  Local government decisions were usually controlled by the individual colonies.  As long as England continued to profit from the triangle trade it left America alone.  Americans liked this freedom and were angry when King George III became more involved in their lives and did not respect colonial laws and customs as he did with Parliament.  

Great Awakening – (1740) A religious revival that included people from all classes and races in the colonies.  It spread the idea that all people are equal before God.  In a shared experience colonists saw they could control their own religious lives and be united under God, without needing the king.  Independent churches and colleges started at this time were not under the authority of the Church of England.  These ideas directly challenged the power of the king and Parliament.    

Enlightenment/Scientific Revolution – Philosophers and scientists worked to understand the laws of society and nature.  They believed they could make the world a better place and that all people had rights that should be protected.  Some like John Locke believed government could be improved and corrected by thinking people.  It started people thinking about new ways of living.    

John Locke – The colonists read his ideas about government.  Locke believed that government depended on the people for its survival.  If a government (king) did not protect the life, liberty and property of its people the people had the right to replace the government with something new.

British actions that angered the colonists

Mercantilism – trade rules that made the British very rich. The colonies were told to trade with England, use English ships, buy expensive English manufactured products, and pay extra taxes on products not made in England.  These rules helped many colonists but angered some who wanted to trade with other countries and develop factories in America.  Although these rules were in place for 100 years they were not strictly enforced until 1763. 

Proclamation of 1763 – King George stopped settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains.  Colonists were angry because it meant they could not have more land and British soldiers would remain in the colonies.  The English were angry because the colonists did not want to pay the debts for the French and Indian War and for protection of the colonies by English troops.

Sugar Act (1764) – tax on sugar products and many other items people used every day.

Stamp Act (1765) – Tax on paper products and official documents like marriage licenses.

Townshend Acts (1767) – closed down the government in NY until they agreed to house British troops, put taxes on imports of glass, paper, lead and tea.

Declaratory Act (1766) – This Act stated that Parliament had total authority to govern the colonies.  The rules made up by the Parliament must be obeyed without complaint.  Colonists who were used to participating in government and making their own laws became very angry and refused to obey.

Writs of Assistance  (1767)– This made it legal for British soldiers to search colonial homes and businesses for smuggled goods.  Colonists were angry because their right to privacy was being destroyed. 

Boston Massacre  (1770) – tensions between colonists and British soldiers result in violence, 5 Americans killed.  Many Americans blame the British soldiers for the deaths and want them out of the colonies.  

Tea Act (1773) – demanded that all tea come from England and that it be taxed

Intolerable Acts (1774) – Closed Boston Harbor, stopped colonies from communicating with each other, forced colonists to allow British soldiers to live their homes.  All of these things angered the colonists because their businesses were being hurt, their right to free speech was being limited, and their homes were being invaded. 

Olive Branch Petition Rejected (1775) – King ignores American Continental Congresses attempts to keep peace and remain loyal during the period before the Declaration of Independence.

American actions and words that led to separation and war

Peter Zenger (1735) – Court rules that freedom of the press allows him to speak against English governor.  Colonists are less afraid to speak out against England.  Free speech is protected.

Albany Plan of Union (1754) – Ben Franklin believed that by working together the colonies would soon be more powerful.  They could more easily defend themselves against the French and Native American tribes and eventually stand up for themselves and get England’s respect.  Although this plan failed it started the colonists thinking about working together.  (“Join or Die” snake cartoon)

Boston Tea Party (1773) – Colonists who are angry over the Tea Act dump over 300 chests of British tea into the harbor (Sons of Liberty).  This bold destruction of British property angered the King.  More troops were sent and Parliament demanded trails for those responsible.   

“No taxation without representation” – colonists demanded the right to be represented in Parliament.  As English citizens they had the right to have a say in the governments laws and taxes.  (Today we vote for representatives in Congress and they speak for us) Because colonial requests were usually ignored they began to refuse to pay taxes or buy goods from England.    

Boycotts – some colonists did refuse to buy British goods, this hurt the British economy.  For example, the Daughters of Liberty made their own clothing so they would not have to buy British dresses.  Others stopped buying from stores that imported British tea, furniture and china. 

Propaganda – stories, pictures, and posters created by the colonists that told only the colonists side of the story.  The British were shown to be destroying colonist’s lives, liberty, and property.

Sons of Liberty - They formed protest marches, smuggled goods, harassed and frightened tax collectors, tarred and feathered British officials, destroyed British property and worked to turn American against the English.  They called themselves patriots attacking those loyal to the king.

Patrick Henry – He was one of many influential people who urged colonists to resist the British.  In his famous speech he said, “give me liberty or give me death”.  Strong words like these left no room for peace negotiations; either get free from England or die trying.

Thomas Paine – Wrote pamphlets like Common Sense that explained the reasons that Americans should rebel against England.  His clear arguments persuaded many colonists to revolt.

Continental Congress – An illegal group of representatives from the colonies that came together to deal with British and eventually stand up to them.  It created a Continental Army and sent the Declaration of Independence to the King.  The Declaration was the official start of the Revolution. 

Colonies and slave trade. Please know your 13 colonies map!

Definition of Salutary Neglect - The time when Americans first felt independent

Salutary neglect was an undocumented, long-standing, British policy of avoiding strict enforcement of parliamentary laws meant to keep the American colonies obedient to Great Britain. Prime Minister Robert Walpole stated that if no restrictions were placed on the colonies, they would flourish^.  This policy, which lasted from about 1607 to 1750, allowed the enforcement of trade relations laws to be lenient. Walpole did not believe in enforcing the Navigation acts, established under Oliver Cromwell and Charles II, which forced the colonists to trade only with England. King George III ended this hands off policy through acts such as the Stamp Act and Sugar Act, causing tensions within the colonies.

There were three time periods concerning salutary neglect. From 1607-1696, England had no coherent Imperial policy. From 1696-1763 England tried to form a coherent policy (i.e. navigation acts), but didn't enforce it. Finally, from 1763-1775 England began to try and enforce a coherent policy.

It is believed that salutary neglect was a large contributing factor that led to the American Revolutionary War. Since the imperial authority didn't assert the power that it had, the colonists were left to govern themselves. These essentially sovereign colonies soon became accustomed to the idea of self-control. The effects of such prolonged isolation eventually resulted in the emergence of a collective identity that considered itself separate from Great Britain.

The turning point from salutary neglect to an attempt to enforce English policies was the Seven Years' War, part of which was The French and Indian War. England was fighting France for imperial control of the known world (including North America, where the war was started [see Jumonville affair]) and was losing very badly until Secretary of State William Pitt the Elder took charge. To help the war effort, Pitt tried to seize supplies from the colonies, force men into service, and take control of military issues. The colonists strongly resented his interference, and soon Pitt eased his policies.

Nevertheless, the Seven Years' War fostered resentment in the American colonists toward the British and contempt in Britain toward the Americans. These tensions caused England to abandon their policy of salutary neglect, and led directly to the American Revolution.

The term 'Salutary Neglect' arises from Edmund Burke's Speech for Conciliation with the Colonies given in Commons March 22, 1775. 

"When I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neglect, a generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection; when I reflect upon these effects, when I see how profitable they have been to us, I feel all the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivances melt, and die away within me." (Burke p. 186)

Mercantilism

British Colonial Policy A

1) What is mercantilism? (Use your dictionary reading)

2) What is a favorable balance of trade?

3) How did England become rich from its colonies?

4) Besides becoming rich, what other advantages did mercantilism have for England?

5) According to the Mercantile Theory, why did the colonies exist?

6) What benefits did the colonies receive from being part of England’s mercantile system?

7) What are 2 reasons many Americans not like England’s colonial policy?

8) What was the name of the laws passed by British Parliament to control trade with the colonies? 

9) How did the trade laws restrict trade? Name at least 3 

10) What  2 things did colonists get around trade laws and the Currency Act of 1764?

11) What did the colonists think about the laws that occurred under the British policy of mercantilism? Was it possible for the colonies to become economically independent?

12) What do you think about mercantilism?  Was it a good or bad policy?  Explain why?

13) What would you have done if you were the King of England at this time?  Would you have changed anything about British policy? 

British Colonial Policy B 

1) What is mercantilism? (Use your dictionary and your textbook)

2) According to the pictures who was helped and made wealthy by the British Policy?

3) How did England become rich from its colonies? (Use the reading -paragraph 2 & 3- and pictures)

4) What products and raw materials did England get from America? (use pictures and paragraph 4 & 6)

5) What benefits did the colonies receive from being part of England’s mercantile system?  (paragraph 5) 

6) What are 2 reasons many Americans not like England’s colonial policy? (paragraph 5)

7) How did England control American trade?   (Paragraph 6) 

8) What does manufacturing mean?  Explain the following sentences “When the colonies began to go into manufacturing, Parliament passed laws which prohibited them from exporting finished products.”  (Dictionary, paragraph 6 and the bottom row of pictures)

9) The colonists used a system of “barter” when England would not let American colonies print their own money.  What does barter mean and how does it end the need for money? (paragraph 7 and dictionary)

10) What do you think about mercantilism?  Was it a good or bad policy?  Explain why?

11) What would you have done if you were an American colonist at that time?  

Slide Show that describes the causes of the American Revolution

causes of the Revolution Link
Please click on the above link and watch the slide show.  Wait for it to load and adjust to your own speed.  You can pause the slide show at any time or move from slide to slide.

Quick Guide/Check List for US Regents - Print and use

Please print the list from this link!  This is your first study sheet for the US regents exam.  If you know these terms you will pass!  
   
 Click       US Terms Checklist

Equiano - More readings from Friday for HW questions

In a well organized (typed) paragraph answer/explain the following:
What does Equiano's memior reveal about the roles of Europeans and African's in the slave trade?
How were Europeans percieved?
How democratic was this behavior?

Olaudah Equiano Recalls the Middle Passage 1789

Olaudah Equiano (1745–1797), also known as Gustavus Vassa, was born in Benin (in west Africa). When he was about ten years old, he was kidnapped by Africans known as Aros and sold into slavery. After being sold multiple times, he was purchased by Europeans who shipped him to Barbados and then to Virginia. Ultimately, Equiano gained his freedom, moved to England, became a Christian missionary and abolitionist, and wrote his life story. In the excerpt below, he recounted his experience of the brutal “middle passage” across the Atlantic to the Caribbean.

Until recently, most historians trusted Equiano’s autobiography. However, in Equiano, the African: Biography of a Self-Made Man (University of Georgia Press, 2005) Vincent Carretta presents evidence that suggests that Equiano was probably born in South Carolina. Although this possibility certainly undermines one’s confidence in the truthfulness of Equiano’s narrative, it seems likely that he drew on stories that he had heard of the middle passage—if indeed he did not experience it first-hand. –D. Voelker

[1] The first object which saluted my eyes when I arrived on the coast was the sea, and a slave ship, which was then riding at anchor, and waiting for its cargo. These filled me with astonishment, which was soon converted into terror when I was carried on board. I was immediately handled and tossed up to see if I were sound by some of the crew; and I was now persuaded that I had gotten into a world of bad spirits, and that they were going to kill me. Their complexions too differing so much from ours, their long hair, and the language they spoke, (which was very different from any I had ever heard) united to confirm me in this belief. Indeed such were the horrors of my views and fears at the moment, that, if ten thousand worlds had been my own, I would have freely parted with them all to have exchanged my condition with that of the meanest slave in my own country.

[2] When I looked round the ship too and saw a large furnace or copper boiling, and a multitude of black people of every description chained together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow, I no longer doubted of my fate; and, quite overpowered with horror and anguish, I fell motionless on the deck and fainted. When I recovered a little I found some black people about me, who I believed were some of those who brought me on board, and had been receiving their pay; they talked to me in order to cheer me, but all in vain. I asked them if we were not to be eaten by those white men with horrible looks, red faces, and loose hair. They told me I was not . . . .

[3] Soon after this the blacks who brought me onboard went off, and left me abandoned to despair. I now saw myself deprived of all chance of returning to my native country, or even the least glimpse of hope of gaining the shore, which I now considered as friendly; and I even wished for my former slavery in preference to my present situation, which was filled with horrors of every kind, still heightened by my ignorance of what I was to undergo. I was not long suffered to indulge my grief; I was soon put down under the decks, and there I received such a salutation in my nostrils as I had never experienced in my life: so that, with the loathsomeness of the stench,and crying together, I became so sick and low that I was not able to eat, nor had I the least desire to taste any thing. I now wished for the last friend, death, to relieve me; but soon, to my grief, two of the white men offered me eatables; and, on my refusing to eat, one of them held me fast by the hands, and laid me across I think the windlass, and tied my feet, while the other flogged me severely. I had never experienced any thing of this kind before; and although, not being used to the water, I naturally feared that element the first time I saw it, yet nevertheless, could I have got over the nettings, I would have jumped over the side, but I could not; and, besides, the crew used to watch us very closely who were not chained down to the decks, lest we should leap into the water: and I have seen some of these poor African prisoners most severely cut for attempting to do so, and hourly whipped for not eating. This indeed was often the case with myself.

[4] In a little time after, amongst the poor chained men, I found some of my own nation, which in a small degree gave ease to my mind. I inquired of these what was to be done with us; they gave me to understand we were to be carried to these white people’s country to work for them. I then was a little revived, and thought, if it were no worse than working, my situation was not so desperate: but still I feared I should be put to death, the white people looked and acted, as I thought, in so savage a manner; for I had never seen among any people such instances of brutal cruelty; and this not only shown towards us blacks, but also to some of the whites themselves. . . .

[5] I could not help expressing my fears and apprehensions to some of my countrymen: I asked them if these people had no country, but lived in this hollow place (the ship): they told me they did not, but came from a distant one. ‘Then,’ said I, ‘how comes it in all our country we never heard of them?’ They told me because they lived so very far off. I then asked where were their women? had they any like themselves? I was told they had: ‘and why,’ said I, ‘do we not see them?’ they answered, because they were left behind. I asked how the vessel could go? they told me they could not tell; but that there were cloths put upon the masts by the help of the ropes I saw, and then the vessel went on; and the white men had some spell or magic they put in the water when they liked in order to stop the vessel. I was exceedingly amazed at this account, and really thought they were spirits. I therefore wished much to be from amongst them, for I expected they would sacrifice me: but my wishes were vain; for we were so quartered that it was impossible for any of us to make our escape. . . .

[6] The stench of the hold while we were on the coast was so intolerably loathsome, that it was dangerous to remain there for any time, and some of us had been permitted to stay on the deck for the fresh air; but now that the whole ship’s cargo were confined together, it became absolutely pestilential. The closeness of the place, and the heat of the climate, added to the number in the ship, which was so crowded that each had scarcely room to turn himself, almost suffocated us. This produced copious perspirations, so that the air soon became unfit for respiration, from a variety of loathsome smells, and brought on a sickness among the slaves, of which many died, thus falling victims to the improvident avarice, as I may call it, of their purchasers. This wretched situation was again aggravated by the galling of the chains, now become insupportable; and the filth of the necessary tubs, into which the children often fell, and were almost suffocated. The shrieks of the women, and the groans of the dying, rendered the whole a scene of horror almost inconceivable. Happily perhaps for myself I was soon reduced so low here that it was thought necessary to keep me almost always on deck; and from my extreme youth I was not put in fetters. ...

2

[7] One day, when we had a smooth sea and moderate wind, two of my wearied countrymen who were chained together (I was near them at the time), preferring death to such a life of misery, somehow made through the nettings and jumped into the sea: immediately another quite dejected fellow, who, on account of his illness, was suffered to be out of irons, also followed their example; and I believe many more would very soon have done the same if they had not been prevented by the ship’s crew, who were instantly alarmed. Those of us that were the most active were in a moment put down under the deck, and there was such a noise and confusion amongst the people of the ship as I never heard before, to stop her, and get the boat out to go after the slaves. However two of the wretches were drowned, but they got the other, and afterwards flogged him unmercifully for thus attempting to prefer death to slavery.

[8] In this manner we continued to undergo more hardships than I can now relate, hardships which are inseparable from this accursed trade. Many a time we were near suffocation from the want of fresh air, which we were often without for whole days together. This, and the stench of the necessary tubs, carried off many. . . .

[9] At last we came in sight of the island of Barbados, at which the whites on board gave a great shout, and made many signs of joy to us. We did not know what to think of this; but as the vessel drew nearer we plainly saw the harbor, and other ships of different kinds and sizes; and we soon anchored amongst them off Bridge Town. Many merchants and planters now came on board, though it was in the evening. They put us in separate parcels, and examined us attentively. They also made us jump, and pointed to the land, signifying we were to go there. We thought by this we should be eaten by these ugly men, as they appeared to us; and, when soon after we were all put down under the deck again, there was much dread and trembling among us, and nothing but bitter cries to be heard all the night from these apprehensions, insomuch that at last the white people got some old slaves from the land to pacify us. They told us we were not to be eaten, but to work, and were soon to go on land, where we should see many of our country people. This report eased us much; and sure enough, soon after we were landed, there came to us Africans of all languages. We were conducted immediately to the merchant’s yard, where we were all pent up together like so many sheep in a fold, without regard to sex or age. . . .

[10] We were not many days in the merchant’s custody before we were sold after their usual manner, which is this: On a signal given, (as the beat of a drum) the buyers rush at once into the yard where the slaves are confined, and make choice of that parcel they like best. The noise and clamor with which this is attended, and the eagerness visible in the countenances of the buyers, serve not a little to increase the apprehensions of the terrified Africans, who may well be supposed to consider them as the ministers of that destruction to which they think themselves devoted. In this manner, without scruple, are relations and friends separated, most of them never to see each other again.

Work Due!

Have you turned in the following? 
(See Blog)

Essay on Tocqueville and article summary
HW on first/early contact between Europeans and Native Americans

Are you prepared for Fridays quiz?
Are you ready to complete the world map quiz? 

Quiz on Friday - Question "Based on the evidence were the 13 colonies democratic?"

Thursdays class - Were the colonies democratic?

Document 1 Maryland’s Act of Toleration (1649)

... be it therefore with the advice and consent of this assembly ordered and enacted... that no person or persons within Maryland professing to believe in any form of Christianity shall from now on be in any way troubled, interfered with or embarrassed in respect to his or her religion, nor in the free exercise thereof..

1. Why did the assembly of Maryland create this law? (1) 

2. What freedom is protected by this law? (1) 

3. Name at least 2 groups that would not be protected by this law? (2) 

Document 2 Voting Qualifications (Requirements) (1763)  

1. Name at least two of the main qualifications (requirements) for voting in the thirteen colonies. (2)

2. Name at least two groups of people that could not vote in colonial America because of these qualifications (requirements). (2)

Document 3 The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639)

“....It is ordered that there be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts...and a governor shall be chosen for the year and shall have power to administer justice according to the laws here established. The choice for governor shall be made by all those who are eligible to vote...

“...It is ordered that no person be chosen governor more than once, in two years... “It is ordered that every General Court shall include the governor, to moderate the

court... and if the governor neglects or refuses to call the General Court into session, the voters may do so.... In the General Court shall rest supreme power of the colony, and they only shall have power to make laws or repeal them, to levy taxes, dispose of unclaimed land; they shall have the power to call public officials or any other person into question for any misdemeanor and may with good reason remove or deal otherwise accordingly with the offender...”

1. Name at least one power given to the General Court in this document. (1) 

 2. Describe at least two democratic features of Connecticut’s government. (2) 

 3. What happens if a governor neglects his duties? (1) 

Document 4 Title Page from The Lady’s Law

1. What happened to property that a woman owned when she became married? (1) 

 2. According to this document, how were women unequal to men in colonial times? (1) 

3. According to the document, what happened to women in cases of divorce? (1) 

Document 5 The Plan of a Slave Ship  

1. Describe two ways a slave trader was able to fit slaves on a ship. (2) 

 2. What is undemocratic about this slave ship and the Middle Passage? (1) 

Document 6 Virginia House of Burgesses

This engraving is from the first meeting of the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1619. This legislature (law maker) was made up of representatives chosen by the people. Eventually, each colony in America would have a legislature.

1. What democratic activities are shown in the picture? (1) 

 2. How did the Virginia House of Burgesses allow citizens to have a voice in government? (1)

_________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________

Native American/European Encounter Readings and HW

Encounter Documents to review   use this link to see the documents again!

•HW - Type a 2 paragraph description of America and it’s people (due Thursday)

1)Describe America and its people from the European point of view

2) Question the documents validity and perspective

Read between the lines and explain what is motivating and creating the descriptions of this “alien” land.  Make an educated guess - What is really being said about these interactions, the land and people and what will happen in the future?

Validity - believability, truth

Perspective – point of view, attitude, understanding

Review Videos on 13 colonies - Watch!

Review Video New England



Review Video on Southern



Review video on Middle Colonies

Why the Europeans came documents

Name: __________________________________________                                                Class: _____________

Why did people come to Jamestown?

1 - What area of America are these documents describing?

2 - How does the popular London play describe America in the early 1600’s?

3 – What encouragement does the poster use to get people to migrate?

4 – What are the pull factors described in the London Companies’ pamphlet?

5 – What are the push factors? 

6 – According to the pamphlet who should go to America?  Explain

1-   Who is writing, what group does he lead, and where have they settled?

2-   What is the writer asking people to do in the first paragraph?  Explain

3-   According to paragraph 2, what will prove the colony is successful? 

4-   According to paragraph 3, why must the colony succeed?  Explain

5-   According to the entire document why have these Englishmen migrated to America?  Reference specific lines in the text!

Mayflower Compact

At Sea off Cape Cod, Massachusetts  

          "In the name of God, Amen.  We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

          Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

          In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

1 - Where and when was this compact created?

2 – What two authorities are the authors careful to appeal to?  Why?

3 – According to paragraph 2, what 3-4 reasons do the settlers give for establishing a colony in America?  Explain

4 – What are they promising to do when they arrive? 

5 – How will the colony be different from England?

Vocabulary

Sovereign – supreme ruler

Mutually – agree together

Covenant – contract or promise

Civil – social or public

Body Politick – organizing a group of people under a single government

Enact – put into use

Frame - outline

Constitute – put together

Ordinance – law or regulation

Offices – government jobs

Meet – something that can be used and works for our advantage

Reminder - Essays due on Wed 19th Sept. Typed!

Please go back through the last several posts if you need (9/3-9/12)

- Rubric and instructions for essay
- Articles for Reference
- Tocqueville Readings
- Video Lecture 

USE THESE RESCOURCES!

Tocqueville related articles you can use for your essay!

Ignorant Voters

Krissy Clark  OCTOBER 18, 2008  for American Public Media – Radio Program

You might be busy this weekend getting ready for election day. Pouring over voter guides, fact-checking candidate claims, reading op-eds for a variety of view points, getting informed. If you're doing any of those things, however, you are different than most Americans. Here are some scary statistics: Only two out of five Americans can name the three branches of the federal government. Only one in seven can find Iraq on a map. A majority don't know the name of their Congressional representative. Weekend America's Krissy Clark is a big fan of democracy, but after hearing facts like these, she started to get nervous about election day.

The conventional wisdom is that our democracy can handle all the ignorance.  Their votes are random, but evenly divided. Which means they cancel each other out.  So even if 90 percent of voters have no idea what they're talking about, it doesn't matter. The 10 percent who are thoughtful, reasonable and informed, will cast the votes that count. Candidates can focus on them, and democracy is in good hands.

Shenkman, who is the author of the book "Just How Stupid Are We?," argues that uninformed voters are not divided 50-50 on one side or the other. They're up for grabs, practically begging to be taken advantage of.

"In the absence of facts, myths end up driving our politics," he says. "I have yet to meet a politician who, when tempted, won't wind up using some myth to try to provoke a response from the audience."

Economist Bryan Caplan has a slightly more extreme strategy when it comes to the question of voter ignorance. "A much better ethos," he says, "would be to stop encouraging people to vote if they don't know what's going on." Caplan is the author of the book "The Myth of the Rational Voter." "Right now if you want to become a U.S. citizen and vote, you have to pass a test of civic knowledge," he says. "I don't see why Americans shouldn't have to pass the same test that they give to naturalized citizens."

Caplan is quick to point out he would not want voting rights to hinge on race or gender or income. Just being well-informed. "And of course if you take a look at the test," Caplan adds, "you realize probably most Americans could not pass it."

I head to the corner of 16th and Potrero in San Francisco, to a bus stop, where I ask people how much they know about the basics of the U.S. government. Almost everyone I talk to here says they're planning to vote in this election. I start the questions. First, what's the main philosophical difference between the Republican and Democratic parties? I'm met with a lot of awkward silences, a few guesses, and only one person who gets close.

I move on to geography. One guy can show me where Iraq is on the blank world map I pull out. Most can't find the U.S.A. They keep pointing to Africa, or Greenland.

At this point, I think to myself, a voting test doesn't sound like such a bad idea. And then something interesting happens. I break down and tell the man on the bike what Roe versus Wade is. And as soon as I do, people at the bus stop who'd been wary of me, bored with my questions, snap to attention.

"Well, if you asked me about legalizing abortion, I don't think it would be a good deal," says the bike man. A man leaning on the bus shelter, nibbling on some chicken McNuggets, overhears. "But what about an eight-year-old-- raped--and she gets pregnant from someone. She didn't have a choice, but she has to carry a child when she is a child herself and she's had her childhood taken from her."

"She still has no right to take that child's life," says another man, a retired carpenter. A polite but passionate debate erupts at the bus stop. For the most part, the people involved scored low on my civic knowledge test. But they definitely have opinions. Who knows if they're based on facts, or myths?

And that's the tricky question. How do you gauge someone's political I.Q.? Rick Shenkman, the historian who calls ignorant voters sitting ducks, says it would be impossible. "It would be too divisive to have a civic literacy test. I don't want to exclude people, or shrink democracy," especially given the bloody fights many Americans have had to wage over the years to get the right to vote.

But Shenkman says people should know enough about history and civics "so that we can at least have a conversation. And that's what democracy is all about, is having a conversation." It can make waiting for your bus a lot more interesting. And it's not so bad for the future of the country, either.

The Olympian Newspaper

Letter 1 Uneducated voters are a threat to democracy

ANTONIO SOLA | Yelm • Published July 16, 2012

Our democracy is threatened not by budget deficits or the dirty money in our electoral system, but by the ignorance and apathy of our citizens. Days after one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in our time, a poll conducted by the Pew Research showed 41 percent of the people polled were not aware that the Supreme Court had ruled on the case. In a recent canvassing event many were not aware who Jay Inslee was or that he was running for governor.  People claim they are too busy with their lives, but ask them who was the last guy leaving the “Bachelorette” and they know.

In this election millions will vote against their own interest, without knowledge of the radical proposals on the Paul Ryan budget or promises made to the billionaires supporting the Republican Party. They count on that. Why else would states like Mississippi and Alabama, the poorest and the least educated in the U.S., vote Republican?

The commercials distorting President Barack Obama’s record and Jay Inslee’s character bought with money from the Koch brothers will be ugly, unfair and vicious, but people will believe them because they simply won’t know and they won’t care to find out the truth.

Letter 2  The real uneducated cast votes for Obama

DAVID PULASKI | Olympia • Published August 04, 2012

In a recent letter, it’s amazing that the only “uneducated voters that are a threat to democracy” appear to be Republicans, because they don’t support Democrat policies or candidates.  The “ignorance and apathy” mentioned were definitely on display in 2008 when so many bought into Barack Obama’s phoney “hope and change.” Had they and the media properly vetted him, they would have realized he really had no vision for this country, other than promoting his Marxist socialist policies, which have made his presidency a disaster for all of us.  No, unfortunately, the real ignorant people are the ones who, lacking the knowledge, voted for Obama, simply because they didn’t do their homework on him, and hopefully they won’t make the same mistake again.

Inequality Undermines Democracy

By EDUARDO PORTER

Published: March 20, 2012 NY Times

Americans have never been too worried about the income gap. The gap between the rich and the rest has been much wider in the United States than in other developed nations for decades. Still, polls show we are much less concerned about it than people in those other nations are.  Policy makers haven’t cared much either. The United States does less than other rich countries to transfer income from the affluent to the less fortunate. Even as the income gap has grown enormously over the last 30 years, government has done little to curb the trend.

Our tolerance for a widening income gap may be ebbing, however. Since Occupy Wall Street and kindred movements highlighted the issue, the chasm between the rich and ordinary workers has become a crucial talking point in the Democratic Party’s arsenal. In a speech in Osawatomie, Kan., last December, President Obama underscored how “the rungs of the ladder of opportunity had grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk.”

Inequality isn’t quite the top priority of voters: only 17 percent of Americans think it is extremely important for the government to try to reduce income and wealth inequality, according to a Gallup survey last November.  But a slightly different question indicates views have changed: 29 percent said it was extremely important for the government to increase equality of opportunity. More significant, 41 percent said that there was not much opportunity in America, up from 17 percent in 1998.

Americans have been less willing to take from the rich and give to the poor in part because of a belief that each of us has a decent shot at prosperity. In 1952, 87 percent of Americans thought there was plenty of opportunity for progress; only 8 percent disagreed. As income inequality has grown, though, many have changed their minds.

From 1993 to 2010, the incomes of the richest 1 percent of Americans grew 58 percent while the rest had a 6.4 percent bump. Under these conditions, perhaps it is unsurprising that a growing share of Americans have lost faith in their ability to get ahead.

We have accepted income inequality in the past partly because of the belief that capitalism can’t work without it. If entrepreneurs invest and workers improve their skills to improve their lot in life, a government that heavily taxed the rich to give to the poor could destroy that incentive and stymie economic growth that benefits everybody.

The nation’s relatively fast growth over the last three decades appeared to support this view. The United States grew faster than advanced economies with a more egalitarian distribution of income, like the European Union and Japan, so keeping redistribution to a minimum while allowing markets to function unimpeded was considered the best fuel.

“What matters is how the poor and middle class are doing and how much opportunity they have,” said Scott Winship, an economist at the Brookings Institution. “Until there is stronger evidence that inequality has a negative effect on the life of the average person, I’m inclined to accept it.”

Evidence is mounting, however, that inequality itself is obstructing Americans’ shot at a better life.

Progress still happens, but there is less of it. Two-thirds of American families — including four of five in the poorest fifth of the population — earn more than their parents did 30 years earlier. But they don’t advance much. Four out of 10 children whose family is in the bottom fifth will end up there as adults. Only 6 percent of them will rise to the top fifth.

The sharp rise in the cost of college is making it harder for lower-income and middle-class families to progress, feeding education inequality.

Inequality is also fueling geographical segregation — pushing the homes of the rich and poor further apart. Brides and grooms increasingly seek out mates with similar levels of income and education. Marriages among less-educated people have become much more likely to fail.

If the very rich can use the political system to slow or stop the ascent of the rest, the United States could become a hereditary plutocracy under the trappings of liberal democracy.

One doesn’t have to believe in equality to be concerned about these trends. Once inequality becomes very acute, it breeds resentment and political instability, eroding the legitimacy of democratic institutions. It can produce political polarization and gridlock, splitting the political system between haves and have-nots, making it more difficult for governments to address imbalances and respond to brewing crises. That too can undermine economic growth, let alone democracy.

National Review  June 2, 2011  by Clifford May

The founding of the United States ushered in the modern democratic experiment, along with new concepts of freedom and human rights. In the 20th century, the Greatest Generation fought for the survival of that experiment against its totalitarian enemies, Nazi, Fascist, and Communist alike. Today, the challenges posed by Islamic totalitarianism test a new generation.

America has been a uniquely productive nation: a font of invention, creativity, and economic dynamism. In America, tens of millions of people have risen from poverty. The United States has been a singularly generous, if not always effective, provider of assistance to other countries, including those where Americans are not popular.

But, most of all, exceptionalism implies that the responsibility for global leadership rests on America’s shoulders, not because Americans hunger for power but because there is no good alternative.  If that torch has now become too heavy for Americans, or if it is seen as unfair for America to continue to lead, who is prepared to take America’s place? Those who rule Iran, China, and Russia are no doubt eager.  In other words: At present, there is no substitute for American leadership. America is the indispensable nation. That is what makes it exceptional.

Americans value freedom not least because we don’t think anyone has a monopoly on truth or the private e-mail address of the Almighty.  Americans will never perfect themselves or “form a more perfect union” by letting transnational bureaucrats, politicians, and professors run our lives.

Exceptionalists do not deny that America has many faults and that Americans have made many mistakes in the past and are likely to do so in the future. But that doesn’t make the United States the equivalent of Norway, Uruguay, Burkina Faso, or New Guinea. That doesn’t lead us to the Lake Wobegon all-children-are-above-average view of the world expressed by President Obama two years ago in Europe: “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

We exceptionalists look instead to President Reagan, for whom exceptionalism meant that America remained “the last best hope for a mankind plagued by tyranny and deprivation.”