More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of the industrial revolution on society
The role of representatives in a democracy
Impact of the industrial revolution on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the period of reform of the British Empire, James Otis and Samuel Adams appeared as prominent figures in the reconstruction of society. Adams is described in Gordon S. Wood’s, The American Revolution, as a man with “deep hatred of crown authority,” an authority that had come to be accepted as powerful and right and to denounce it had previously been unheard of (Wood 33). Not only did he have strong opinions, but he organized others to express their thoughts and frustrations with documents such as The Votes and Proceedings which divulged all the abuses of American rights. By doing this, he was able to give a voice to the formerly silenced lower and middle classes, and stood up for their rights, while also allowing the rich to feel the benefits and making their perspectives known as …show more content…
well.
Furthermore, James Otis, questioned the “virtual” representation of the Colonists in the British Parliament. To parry their argument of this poor excuse of representation he called the Colonies “considerable places” and said that they “ought to be” represented (Wood 41). In saying this, Otis pointed out how much America had come to mean to Britain, it was no longer uncharted territory, but a home to many Englishmen. Like Adams, Otis did not disregard the poor. Howard Zinn’s description of Otis notes that he his points required a “genuine recognition of lower-class grievances,” a crucial part of encouraging the Colonists to want freedom from Britain (Zinn 61). While both of these figures gave advantages to the poor who were willing to express their true feelings towards the crown, with this gave tremendous ability of the rich to support their argument and reap the benefits
as well. The Regulator Movement in North Carolina was another critical step for the class-conscious Colonists to be able to gain support for a revolution and freedom from British rule. It quickly was quickly endorsed by the majority of the population in North Carolina and although it “did not represent servants or slaves [it did] speak for small owners, squatters, and tenants,” which was giving a voice, yet again, to a group other than the wealthy elite (Zinn 64). While the movement was run by the majority, and those not necessarily in the highest economic class, those who were richer saw changes as well. It is not clear at first that the elite benefited at all, in fact it seems to be that they struggled during this movement, as the movement was set up to be “against wealthy and corrupt officials,” but the poor also fought for less taxes and the confiscation of property which affected the rich as well as the poor, although more prominently the poor (Zinn 63). The Regulator Movement may not have been the most productive in uniting all classes of North Carolina, in the long run it provoked thought and questioning of the British power, which was the driving power to the revolution. Another organization of the middle class citizens rose, going by the name of the Sons of Liberty, who also opposed British taxation and trade regulations. The goal of the group was to rise up against taxes and the unfair restrictions that had been placed against the Colonists, and to ensure that all the Colonists were in agreement of the unfairness that the British were imposing. They devised “an intercolonial network of correspondence” that was able to communicate the opinions of others, in the hopes that like-minded people could spark a change for the Colonies (Wood 30). This organization was built to benefit the middle and upper classes, usually the more educated, but soon it came to be known that the upper classes were not going to revolt alone and the backing of the lower classes was necessary for success, so perks were revealed to the lower classes as well. The Sons of Liberty eventually advocated for all and certain measures were taken as well to build bridges across classes, specifically a Virginian Sons of Liberty group asked the poor “are not the gentlemen made of the same materials as the lowest and poorest among you?” (Zinn 68). By raising this question, the intention was to evoke a sense of unity and power in numbers among the Colonists, for the realization had occurred that it would be impossible to achieve any sort of freedom if classes separated the rebellion. The British Seemed to see a particular need for Impressment in the colonies, however this was also seen as extremely harmful to the Colonists, just an addition to their complaints against the British. This practice, along with the required quartering of troops, contributed to the lack of jobs for the middle and lower classes and led to further riots against impressment. While there were again no immediate benefits for the poor, it didn’t affect the wealthy as much in the workforce and rioting, except that the quartering acts still applied to them and they could be drafted as well as the poor. Impressment even led to the Boston Massacre, yet another event that brought the Colonists against the British yet again. The main repercussion of this policy seemed to be the “British soldiers taking their [Colonist’s] jobs,” (Zinn 67). In a society in which families worked simply to put bread on the table, these soldiers not only took away their income, but everything they had to buy, and in an ironic way, their sense of security and stability. Once again, the British actions united the Colonists with each other against Britain, not with it, and allowed the Colonists to think seriously about a rebellion.
In Woody Holton's Forced Founders, that most revered segment of the revolutionary generation, the elitist gentry class of Virginia, comes across very much as a group of self-serving reactionaries, rather then the idealized revolutionaries of the great patriotic myth of popular history. He sets about disassembling a central portion of the myth created by earlier generations of Consensus historians, by asserting that rather then gallantly leading the charge for independence, Virginia's elitist gentry resorted to independence as their last and only means of saving their elite ruling status, their economic futures, and even their very lives many feared. While this is very much an example of revisionist history, Holton has not so much rewritten history, as he has provided the back story of the complexity and diversity of the Virginia colony on the eve of the American Revolution. For while the book's title may insinuate otherwise, lowly groups like slaves and Indians discussed here are afforded only the status of “founders” by pressing those traditionally thought of in this role to take the plunge for independence. Still the papers and correspondence of the iconic figureheads of the revolutionary generation like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison make up the bulk of primary sources.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
Nash’s argument regarding to how the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” throughout the American Revolution has been supported from the previous pieces of evidence. Moreover, the pieces of evidence listed to support Gary B. Nash’s argument are supported in embodying the true manner on how the American colonists fought to let go of their submission with the British and try to throw down Parliaments Policies. The evidence presented illustrate how the radical-lower class politics erupted to other citizens that favored British policies and caused riots that led to the account for the Revolution itself. The issues regarding to how these radical-lower class demanded British favorites demonstrated how far reaching the people would go to demolish but historically demonstrate their pride and purpose in freeing themselves from Parliament rule. These evidential claims help proclaim what argument Nash is making suggesting that radicalism was performed indeed to a very extreme point but rather to an effective point in which led to the creation of the American
The benefit of hindsight allows modern historians to assume that colonists in British America united easily and naturally to throw off the bonds of tyranny in 1775-1776. The fact that "thirteen clocks were made to strike together" (p.4) surprised even the revolutionary leader John Adams. Prior to the mid-1700s many residents of British North America saw themselves in regional roles rather than as "Americans", they were Virginians or Bostonians, regional loyalties trumped any other including those as British colonial citizens. In T. H. Breen's work, The Marketplace of Revolution, he offers an explanation for the sudden creation of a unique American identity. In his words, "What gave the American Revolution distinctive shape was an earlier transformation of the Anglo-American consumer marketplace" (p. xv). Breen contends that before Americans could unite to resist the British Empire, they needed to first develop a unity and trust with one another in spite of their regional differences. "The Marketplace of Revolution argues, therefore, that the colonists shared experience as consumers provided them with the cultural resources needed to develop a bold new form of political protest" (p. xv). The transformation of the consumer marketplace allowed the colonists of British North America to create a unique British and the American identity that would later result in revolution and the formation of a new nation. This trust based on consumption, Breen concludes, was absolutely necessary for the boycott movement to be an effective tool against the British government. "Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people protest remains a local affair easily silence by traditional authority" (p.1).
Thomas Paine, known for bringing the pain using a quill and a bottle of ink, paved the way for the Declaration of Independence. In fact, Samuel Adams one of the founding fathers of the United States, would later be one of the first men to put his “John Hancock” on that famous document. Similar to Paine, Adams believed the people needed to gain independence from Great Britain. Therefore, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams and the idea of virtual representation affected Americans’ perceptions of Britain during the years of 1763 to 1775.
invincible. For though there are many of them likely, yet they were not certain. It might be sundry of the things feared might never befall; others by provident care
The British system of power shared among the monarchy, aristocracy, and commons for which Adams actively advocated. Paine’s hatred for the crown and all it stands for and his loyalties with the common folk immediately set them off on the wrong foot.
Foner, Philip S., ed. The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass: Pre-Civil War Decade 1850-1860. Vol. 2. New York: International Publishers, 1950.
As the tensions between Britain and the colonies grew stronger, Samuel stayed loyal to the crown. He viewed the American government as very primitive and dependent on the British government. When talk of the First Continental Congress arose, he began to voice his opinion. He tried to stop the election of the delegates by writing various pamphlets. His attempt proved futile and the delegates were elected and met together on that fateful day in Philadelphia when a new nation was envisioned. Now Samuel began to take more courageous steps in preventing the breaking away of the colonies. He wrote “Westchester Farmer” ,a compilation of five essays reasoning why the colonies should stay with the English. The five essays were Free Thoughts on the Proceedings of the Congress, The Congress Canvassed, Free Thoughts in the Full Vindication of the Congress, A View of Controversy, The Republican Dissected. Some of the writings were directed towards New Yorkers and local farmers. He begged the New York legislature to reject the laws of the “enthusiastic republicans” and was quoted as saying, ”The Congress is in the power of a faction using a mob to carry out its purposes”. The other writings were a rebuttal or defense to Alexander Hamilton’s attack. Hamilton was a student at the time when the pamphlets came out and he wrote The Farmer Refuted, a pamphlet opposing Seabury’s loyalist views. The news spread like wild fire and four of the pamphlets were printed in newspapers across the colonies. Samuel was branded a loyalist right away and this unintentionally made him some enemies.
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were two important men who affected our nations independence and the beginning years of our country. They helped form this nation into a free and sovereign country. Yet, they were different in many aspects they shared a few common features. Both Washington and Jefferson grew up in the southern state of Virginia and like most owned land to grow and harvest crops. In growing up they came from two different class levels of living. The Jefferson family was more famous and richer than Washington’s giving him a greater advantage and opportunity to succeed, especially in higher education. After Jefferson finished regular schooling he was able to attend the College of William and Mary were he studied law. He did so under the teaching of George Wthe who was considered perhaps the greatest teachers of law in Virginia at the time. Washington however was taught by his mom mainly in mathematics and received no higher education. Washington was still knowledgeable and began to put it to use in the army to become as a young British soldier. He interred the army at the young age of nineteen were he began to learn leadership and military strategy which would prove useful in the Revolutionary War to come. Jefferson on the other hand was involved in the laws, courts, and small politics. At the young age of twenty-five Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses in Virginia were he served for five years. Washington was known for his great motivational speeches that would rally troops together to prepare for war and lead on to victory. Jefferson was more of a writer not a speaker and by using his skill he wrote and brought forth fresh ideas of independence and freedom.
There were many men involved in the establishment of the government, the laws regulating states and people, and individual rights in the construction of the United States of America. Two men stand out as instrumental to our founding principles: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.
The American Revolution has too often been dominated by the narrative of the founding fathers and has since been remembered as a “glorified cause.” However, the American Revolution was not a unified war but a civil war with many internal disputes that wreaked havoc and chaos throughout America. In his book, The Unknown American Resvolution, Gary B. Nash attempts to unveil the chaos that the American Revolution really was through the eyes of the people not in power, including women, African American slaves, and Native Americans. In his book, Gary B. Nash emphasizes their significance in history to recount the tale of the American Revolution not through the eyes of the privileged elite but through the eyes of the people who sacrificed and struggled the most, but were left forgotten, in their endeavors to reinvent America.
American success history recognizes the contributions made by two of its renowned leaders. The two are regarded as heroes despite the obvious differences between them abound. The two figures are regarded with comparable amounts of reverence even though they lived their lives in different ways. Nevertheless, both Benjamin Franklin and Fredrick Douglas gained their status through treading pathway of hard work. This paper, therefore, seeks to discuss the experiences that shaped the lives of both Franklin and Douglas. It also seeks to analyze the life of Fredrick Douglas as presented by John Stauffer. In comparing the two personalities, I will lay much emphasis on the role education played in making better the lives of Franklin and Douglas. In this regard, it is worth noting that although their education was not that formal, it shaped their lives immensely. Franklin education, for instance, came while working under his brother James as an apprentice printer during his teen years. On the other hand, Douglas’s tale is much bleaker, but it depicts the use of wits coupled with natural talent to pull oneself to a respectable stature (Zafar 43). It is clear that Franklin persuasive rhetorical skills, which came in handy, in writing and oratory skills were natured by induction to printing apprenticeship as well as a great access to a variety of books. Critiques in later years would argue his love for books and learning made Franklin become an accomplished speaker, thinker, author, and a statement. In a nutshell, access to books and love for learning shaped Franklin’s Character to a great extent.
The Civil War was not a little thing it was a huge thing that a lot of families suffered from. Lincoln has the view of I want everyone to get along and look at the bright side of this and Lee has the pessimistic view of this whole war. Lincoln wrote this speech on the back of the envelope hurriedly right before he had to give the speech. He was writing this speech because of all of the fallen soldiers that had fought in the war and they were having a memorial for all of the families that were affected by this war. Lee had intended this letter to be for his son, but he also wanted to be for a wider audience that would read and get his message. There are quite a few comparisons and contrasting views in Lincolns The Gettysburg Address and Lee’s Letter to His Son like Lincoln was for the war and Lee was not, they both want the country to be peaceful, and Lincoln said that war was equal on both sides and Lee said the north was being mean to the south.
He believed that freedom and equality were on complete opposite sides of the spectrum. A person can either be free but unequal, or unequal but free. This shows how everyones outlook on freedom differs. Adams, agrees with the idea that abolishing property qualifications allows for everyone to be brought down to the same level (TXT215)However, despite his opinion, the idea does not exist and the poor are oppressed. It is unfair to ask a majority of the population to stand by these new regulations when they are unable to vote for the lawmakers they see fit. Each person should be entitled to their own personal liberty and control over the small amount of land they own, yet that is given up the moment the government declares itself dominant. Overall, the Revolution led to a larger portion of the population being able to vote especially the white male community in the 1780’s. The only states excluding these requirements was Virginia, Maryland and New