The intent the personalities serve is to form an understanding of the origins of the American Revolution according to those who lived through it. Thus Bailyn’s work has been studied by historians as a Consensus or Neo-Whig historiography, and these schools of thought downplay radical change and believe the colonists were embracing a nostalgic point of view. From these colonists, Bailyn focuses on reactions to the Stamp Act of 1765 and describes the mood of, for example, John Adams, who believed “he was witnessing the culmination of a deliberate conspiracy ‘against the public liberty…’” (18)

The public took notice of a call to arms evident in the written word, particularly through correspondence and pamphlets. An author and researcher by the name of Forrest McDonald wrote that figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine were “held together by a common theme:” the direction taken “toward expanding, correcting, elaborating and illustrating the thesis.”[1] The key word is “illustrating” and words can paint a picture, such as the picture of a dream for a new republic.  I believe sometimes the written word is more powerful than spoken words. Thus Bailyn’s approach to invoke an understanding of the conflict through pamphlets and documents conclude to be a wonderful course of action.

            When the written word does not prevail, however, oration will. Oration proved to also be a key to a rising against Great Britain. From the early 1760s until the end of the war, sermons were belted from pulpits in every colony that sought to deliver Americans from oppression and English discourse. One such sermon, The Snare Broken, spoken and later published by Jonathan Mayhew, concentrates on political freedom as a right of the colonies and pays heed to social upheaval as a result. (133)

            “The Stamp Act had been the work not of the highest authorities but rather of ‘some evil-minded individuals in Britain who…spared no wicked arts, no deceitful, no dishonorable, no dishonest means to push on and obtain, as it were by surprise, an act so prejudicial…and in some sort to the ensnaring of His Majesty and the Parliament, as well as the good people of America.’” (133-134)These are the words of Jonathan Mayhew, a Boston minister, who saw the intentions of the British as clear as day and prepared his sermons to warn his flock not to have the wool pulled over their eyes. The colonists needed power and influence; they needed allies and political affiliation to combat Britain’s best shot, which involved standing armies, that was still yet to come. Therefore the social elite were called to defy the Stamp Act and tried to settle those ‘evil-minded individuals’ who were threatening freedoms entitled to the colonists.

            Mayhew’s The Snare Broken condones the necessity of political power to be in the hands of those who could effectively use it, but politics is as dangerous as a sword, and if blood is drawn, war will almost certainly be on the horizon. I believe this sermon to have been extremely influential in its time. Religion played a huge part in the years leading to the American Revolution, and pious people attended church regularly and listened intently to the messages from the ministers. If the ministers were to project meaningful sermons, such as The Snare Broken, the minister can expect feedback from the congregation. People either took action after listening to it, or they went home and waited for the next Sunday’s sermon.

            Bailyn includes a profile of Stephen Johnson, a pastor in Connecticut, who brought to light fear of the power of Parliament. He published six newspaper articles that reflected why the Stamp Act was, in a sense, a political demagogue and the limitless action it could take. “If Parliament were free to impose a stamp tax on America, it could also impose

‘a poll tax, a land tax, a malt tax, a cyder [sic] tax, a window tax, a smoke tax, and why not tax us for the light of the sun, the air we breathe, and the ground we are buried in? If they have right to deny us the privilege of tryals [sic] by juries, they have as good a right to deny us any tryals at all, and to vote away our estates and lives at pleasure.’”(140)

This exaggerated rant was not too far from what colonists believed the British could do. Hence the importance of a powerful government in America, one that would “secure the people in whatever rights they had,” and oppose the fast balls of British Parliament. (141) McDonald believes Johnson illustrates “the pervasiveness of the oppositionist turn of mind.”[2] I agree with McDonald’s statement which endorses the influence of how potent words plant seeds of change in precarious minds.       

            If it was worth becoming an independent country, who was the voice that used “liberty for an occasion to the flesh” to justify a war with Britain?  If oppression of liberties was a direct cause for such a one-sided war, who drove this constitution home into thousands of continentals and militia? The answer is Thomas Paine. Paine was a man of many faces, but it was not his appearance that caused an upheaval, but rather his mind when he published Common Sense. Common Sense was Paine’s most popular and most influential pamphlet written in the 18th Century. It demanded American independence from Great Britain. According to Bailyn, “no one—had made so straight forward and unqualified a case for the virtues of republican government” as Paine. (78) A republic must not have its people’s rights destroyed, and as scores got their hands on Common Sense, the cry for freedom began to multiply. Sylvia R. Frey, a professor who specializes in colonial American history at Tulane University, believes, “The appeal of Thomas Paine’s Common sense [sic] was not in its rigour of argumentation, but for its challenge to traditional constitutional paradigms, and because its barely suppressed tone of rage also burned in American breasts, albeit in subdued form.”[3] I do not think there would have been anybody else who could have lit a fire under the great thinker of John Adams, or under the Virginia philosopher who resided at Monticello, or even under the pretentious Alexander Hamilton whose mouth the Second Continental Congress knew well. Even though Thomas Paine was a radical thinker, maybe the colonists needed to adopt a somewhat radical view of reform to achieve their goal of independence.

            Continuing with Bailyn’s theme of extracting meaning from the written word, the emergence of a work by Richard Price, a London writer, entitled: Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America, rounds out the structure of government America needed to follow to elevate the “intrinsic nature of liberty” into a disorganized republic. (155) Price does not see American liberty as one free of British Parliamentary regulations. Parliament must establish home rule in the colonies, and “manage ‘the common concerns of the united states [sic] [of Europe]…’” and “enforce their decisions by means of a common European army.” (155)This takes me to the examination of a standing army in the colonies.

            Bailyn claims the “standing armies were not protecting the people…and were loyal to who would pay them.” (237)They were not gracious with their “protection,” and colonists began to smell a rat. One colonist from Pennsylvania declared “the experience of past ages and the…most celebrated patriots have taught us to dread a standing army above all earthly evils.” (237)The implications of having a standing army occupy the colonies can be measured by revolts and a collection of fear. The fear was that once people tasted power and obtained force over the superior, the power will turn to an evil that will consume them and their actions will be the work of the devil. “And the goodness of men being hopelessly frail reed, evil possibilities must be eliminated at the start. A standing army, once established, will be uncontrollable,” thus aiming towards the threat of war. (238)

            Bernard Bailyn has the credibility to examine all parts of the American Revolution. His scholarship is remarkable and his intelligence prevails over many other historians. He was born in Hartford, Connecticut and graduated from Williams College in 1945, then went on to do his graduate work at Harvard were he eventually taught. He has been a professor for Adams University and published other works on the conflict that include, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution; The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century; and The Ordeal of Thomas Hutchinson. Voyagers to the West won the Pulitzer Prize in 1986. He received the Centennial Medal of the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences as well as the Kennedy Medal of the Massachusetts Historical Society in 2004.[4] Bailyn achieves the objective of his thesis in informative yet elegant language, and explains elements of the origins of the American Revolution in a complex manner. He chooses greatly from the unordinary to compliment basic knowledge of the war with Britain. I would like to have read more about the leading founding fathers, but his concentration on more of a common man satisfies me. His concentration on documents was a brilliant strategy, and I really became interested to find these documents to aid in the development of my own scholarship.              

Bibliography

1  2  Forrest McDonald, “The English Revolution in America,” review of Faces of Revolution: Personalities and Themes in the Struggle for American Independence, by Bernard Bailyn, New York Times, September 09, 1990, The New York Times Book Review, http://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/09/books/the-english-revolution-in-america.html?ref=bookreviews.

3 Sylvia R. Frey, “Republicanism: Sources, Meanings, and Usages in American History,” review of Faces of Revolution: Personalities and Themes in the Struggle for American Independence, by Bernard Bailyn, The Historical Journal, Vol. 35, No. 2, Jun., 1992, 472, Cambridge University Press,  http://ezproxy.una.edu:2059/stable/2639678?&Search=yes&searchText=Bailyn&searchText=Bernard&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3Ffilter%3Djid%253A

4 “About Bernard Bailyn,” last modified February 24, 2011, http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~atlantic/aboutBailyn.html.

 Bernard Bailyn, “Faces of Revolution: Personalities and Themes in the Struggle for American Independence (New York: Random House, 1990).

[1] McDonald, “The English Revolution in America.”

[2] McDonald, “The English Revolution in America.”

[3] Frey, “Republicanism: Sources, Meanings, and Usages in American History.”

[4] “About Bernard Bailyn.” 

Peter Oliver’s Views of the American Clergy

                Like daring whispers from the Devil’s tongue, convincing thrusts of rebellion were allowed to penetrate even the most ardent Loyalist’s ears in hopes of sanctifying American liberty. The fault of these cries cannot be attributed to the mother country of England, who only sought to take care of its child and in no way to implant adolescent views of government into a developing conscience. Peter Oliver, a loyal subject to the crown, claimed, “…there is no such Object as perfect Freedom to be attained, untill (sp) the Constitution of human Nature is changed…” (8) England believed it was ordained for the powerful to rule the weak and this in turn is human nature, but is it not human nature to defile an institution that is believed to be challenging God given rights?

                From an American standpoint, colonists suffered from a common disease, a disease of oppression with a desire to save disinterestedness within their society. This view may have influenced the clergy of the colonies who no doubt had eyes and ears open to tribulations they could associate with England, but Peter Oliver explained how these distinguished clergymen brought to its knees his own empire.

                From Oliver’s perspective, those responsible for the American Revolution were “…weak men…” who brought upon “…much Evil.” (42) These men belonged to the Black Regiment, a congregation of disaccorded clergy associated with Mr. James Otis Jr. who sounded the “…Yell of Rebellion in the ears of ignorant & deluded People.” (29) Such was a goal from this Black Regiment to convince those colonists of equal and lesser social status of taking up arms against England while leaving no question as to its moral implications. These Black Regiments, according to Oliver, let their treasonous voices be heard through “…Seditions & Riots…” and did not cease “…untill (sp) those lesser Offenses were absorbed in Rebellion.” (43)  Otis, along with other clergy members, such as Dr. Charles Chauncy, paraded the streets with pamphlets written in Thomas Paine’s standards to not only rouse the skeptics, but to prove the level of power and influence that had grown among the colonists. Peter Oliver never recognized such potency and claimed conduct of this degree opposed holy order and believed these rebel’s steps were bigger than the size of their shoes. “Ye. Clergy had forgot the Errand their divine Master had sent them upon, & had listed into the Service of new Masters; & to them, were most faithful Servants:­­—in this Service they have continued to this Day, with Fidelity irreproachable.” (93) Oliver condemned dishonorable actions, as if the hand of temptation and sin never lay upon his shoulder.

                What were also extracted from the colonies were profiles of such citizens as Samuel Adams and John Hancock. Adams, in the mind of Peter Oliver, was an exceptional deceiver who “…never failed of employing his Abilities to the vilest Purposes.” (39) It was said that Adams catered to human nature and led a Machiavilian life, but Oliver depicted Adams’ character by describing the £1700 Sterling that had been liberated while under Adams’ supervision. Of course the issue was apprized, but the statement remains in print for all to judge. Adams gave the Black Regiment wood for its fire and its ashes “…bore down…” against England “…like [after] a City Shower…” (105) The kindling provided was not solely from Samuel Adams, but also from an esquire, “…the Son of a dissenting Clergyman…,” John Hancock. (40)

                John Hancock became wealthy through questionable means, for he often played the part of a cunning negotiator when it came to trade. Oliver alludes to Hancock’s dealings with contraband in Boston Harbor as well as other covert conspiracies. Much like Samuel Adams, Hancock’s voice soared over Bostonians and convinced them that the demands of England were unacceptable, and required action. The powerful term of vanity was placed upon his head like the five point crown on George III. Was vanity a mode for operating in the colonies? Were colonists too vain to realize the repercussions of disobeying a parent? If colonists were listening to the Black Regiment, perhaps the benefits would outweigh the consequences.

                Oliver despised the direction the clergymen were taking in regards to the Church of England. They were preaching not from the King James Version of the Bible, but from their own sources plus manipulated versions of what God focused upon their minds. These benedictions called to the men of the colonies whose revelations influenced women and children of the colonies. “They preached about it & about it; untill (sp) the Women and Children, both within Doors & without, set their Spinning Wheels a whirling in Defiance of Great Britain.” (63-64) With a collective clarion call from both sexes, the colonists had strength in words and numbers and left England no choice but to recognize this defiance and by attempting to put down the rebellion. A resistant religion was glorious evil to an empire that proudly adhered to the Anglican faith.

                As much as faith was orchestrated within the American Revolution, lack of faith, as believed by Oliver, belonged to the commoners of the era. Added by the Black Regiment, the clergymen heavily influenced the lower classes. They converted impressionable minds toward recalcitrance by addressing common concerns and problems in order to gain acceptance and credibility in the poorer community. Oliver compares the common man by announcing

“…they were like the Mobility of all Countries, perfect Machines, wound up by any Hand who might first take the Winch; they were like the poor Negro boy…” who was insufficient “…to affright their weak Followers.” And as for Men of Sense, who could see through the Delusion, it would have been imprudent for them to be interposed; for the Government was in the Hands of the Mob, both in Form & Substance, & it was in vain to combat a Whirlwind or a Hurricane.” (65)

Those souls who joined ranks against the rebels must have been in their right mind; most listened to their God and moved their hands in accordance to His hand.

                Peter Oliver viewed the American clergy with contempt; an unrighteous group of smugglers and ungrateful children who roamed the towns listening to cries of dissent. The proof is evident, and Mr. Oliver was not the only loyalist with these views. Nevertheless, his thoughts have been published, and if these words do not clarify his position, none will.

“Clergymen to praeside; whose Part was to declaim on Politicks & Sedition, instead of propagating that Gospel of Peace, which, upon their entring (sp) into holy Orders, they had solemnly sworn to its divine Author to spend their Lives in inculcating. But they, pious Men, had learned of the aforementioned Smuggler, to tuck the false Manifest in their Sleeve, when the Oath was administered to them. Gracious God! Is it possible, that Men, who had so solemnly devoted themselves to thy Service, could act with such Duplicity as to disgrace even human Nature itself? Yes! it is possible, & the New England Clergy will be everlasting Monuments of the Disgrace.” (74)

For Peter Oliver, the traitorous clergy not only dishonored their country, but God Himself.    

Bibliography

Adair, Douglass, Schultz, John, trans. Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory

 View. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961. Print.

The American patriots were fighting for the independence of their colonies from the Crown, and not that of the African – Americans who lived amongst them. Schama describes how the British were desperate for extra manpower to fight the American patriots. Therefore they recruited loyalist subjects, former slaves, and made alliances with Native American tribes in the ultimately vain attempt to defeat the colonists.

After the British failure to defeat the American Revolution the majority of the erstwhile slaves who had fought them ended up in Canada. Schama in this moving book tells how hundreds of African – Americans decided to leave for Canada, or set sail to Africa to make a new life for themselves.

Therefore this is an extraordinary tale of extraordinary people keen to make the most of their hard earned freedom.

     Yet another wanna-be-president candidate, Rich Perry, the governor of Texas, is getting similar coverage for his off-the-wall statements designed to garner votes from religious conservatives. He actually said, in answer to a question from a young boy, “In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution, because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one’s right,” (http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/08/18/rick_perry_on_evolution_gop_hopeful_says_theory_has_some_gaps_in.html). He made this statement, a complete fabricaton, in the belief that it would be accepted at face value. Thanks to the media coverage that gave it credence, few people will come to realize that, according to Texas state law, the statement is patently false, and he gets away with it.

     Unfortunately for us all, this kind of reporting is the standard in today’s society. The American public has been lied to consistently for at least the last 60 years that I’ve been around. Politicians and their unwitting allies, the media, have trained us all to accept the lies. No matter how many expose’s are written, and no matter how often it is brought out that a statement made by one of the talking heads is an outright lie, nothing changes. The general public is completely controlled by what they see on TV, online, and in the print media, and such statements are perceived as being true.

     This country was founded on the principle that every man and woman have equal rights; every member of society theoretically has the freedom to express themselves in whatever manner they wish, and to seek their own path to happiness, as long as doing so doesn’t abridge the rights of others. This is no longer true. Our rights have been abridged significantly since 9/11/01, taken away in the name of ‘homeland security’, and accepted by the general populace without complaint or even discussion. An atmosphere of fear, created in the minds of the American people in the wake of the events of 9/11, has gripped this country by the throat, and the politicians and pundits have continued to tighten their grip time and time again in their rush to gain more and more power over the rest of us, and we have no one to blame but ourselves, for we have allowed it.

      The American revolution was fought because the people who lived here wanted to create a government that would hold the rights of the indivdual sacred; a government who supported the populace, rather than exploiting it. It is my contention that the government of this country has been usurped by power-hungry, sociopathic individuals, whose interests have nothing to do with supporting the public; it all has to do with how much money and power over others can be accumulated in the shortest amount of time. To put it simply, they are not acting with my best interests at heart; in fact they are doing the exact opposite. It is not in our best interests to be involved in wars all over the world, nor is it in our interests to ignore the global warming, air and water pollution, and a significant number of other issues that need to be addressed if we as a species wish to avoid extinction. As long as we allow the powers-that-be continue to dictate the direction which we are now headed, then we can only blame ourselves for allowing it to happen.

      I say it’s time for the Second American Revolution; what do you think?

” How fortunate for leaders that men do not think.” Adolf Hitler  

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Is this the sign of what is happening today within the United States? Perplexing as it may be that this nation, once the panicle of educational standards through-out the world has now succumbed to the rule of a corrupt political process that continues to strip away the hopes, dreams, and liberties of man. In no other period has the United States been faced with such a arduous task of correcting or reversing a most implosive direction that has been orchestrated by so few.  In all of history seeds of revolution has always been planted by man. The American Revolution gave birth to a nation conceived in liberty in which the free will of man would prevail. As our new nation developed another seed of revolution was being planted far across the Atlantic where in France in 1789 conditions deteriorated so badly enabled certain individuals to capitalized and implant the seeds of rebellion and Revolution. Out of those seeds rose the rebellion against a government ruled by Louis the XVI whose callous, unsympathetic, and often tyrannical rule ignited the flames of revolution. In both the American and French Revolution where similar set of circumstances erupted in open rebellion it was the French that instrumented a Reign of Terror as it is called by historians today, to weed out individuals who wouldn’t, didn’t, or couldn’t comply with the new doctrine of mandates now being imposed upon a society who have become so impoverished.  Robespierre, the infamous man behind the Reign of Terror managed to wield more power an authority at a time when France needed stability and balance following the overthrow of the monarchy. This only created more distention and chaos in an already chaotic unstable time. An astute politician and lawyer he began his rise by being in the right places at the most opportune time. But as he ascended in his rise to control and influence as with many who achieve power and control in very little time succumbed to the many temptations that further alienate themselves from the realities of the times. As with another infamous leader [Adolf Hitler} whose own rise to power over 130 years later both capitalized on the misfortunes of the masses with a most diabolical plan for control and domination over a nation that has become so destitute. These two most cunning of men both rising to power in times of great distress, anxiety and turbulence only to self destruct and leave a legacy of terror, murder, and mayhem leaves one question how could such terrible acts and atrocities actually been allowed to happen. As striking the similarities of these two individuals were in each period in history each one with most depressing and deteriorating economic conditions unfolded created similar set of circumstances that enabled Robespierre and Hitler to ascend to power under the guise that only through their policies, mandates, and laws would generate the revival of stability and balance within. In actuality both managed to beguile the masses and unleash different Reigns of Terror {France from 1790-1794 mostly internal} and one {from 1939-1945 a global reign of terror}  If history is any indication 2008 provided the means that forced so many millions to fall into the economic Abyss, yet again. In the United States today the political will of our society is dictated by only the few select individuals. No longer are we ruled and governed by the majority but by the fewest, the wealthiest whose only interest is to garnish more power, wealth, and control at the expense of the majority who are now so impoverished. Sounding familiar! It should be, because history is taking aim at repeating, yet again. Even though there is no one like a Robespierre or a Hitler around that’s not to say someone could possibly invoke a rationale` very similar and sinister over a population who are so eager to believe that a savior has come to pull them out of that Abyss.  The true test today as to whether history will repeat lies with the leadership we have entrusted the preservation of this nation. Words, Words, Words: No, not Hamlet but that is all that is coming out of the present Administration now. Leadership is what made Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and JFK the Presidents they were. The United States and the world needs that kind of leadership now. The President has an oath to fulfill, an obligation of the publics trust to handle, and a solemn duty to perform the duties of his office. By invoking a few executive orders the kind of leadership that this country so desperately needs will rise out of the ashes of appeasement toward the few who are so bent on maintaining the status-quo while, like Rome, burns.  An Executive order for implementation of National Economic Reform. This calls for a total reorganization of Cabinets, mandates, laws, and policies that have continued to undermine our whole society. A comprehensive agenda similar to FDR’s New Deal only updated for the 21st century. Yes, there will be a complete reform of our current tax structure, and yes, this nation needs Universal health Care. No apologies to the Tea Party and the Republicans who are so bent on having the insurance lobby hand over massive campaign contributions just to maintain the status-quo. An executive order for massive infrastructure investment. This is already within National Economic Reform but conditions have deteriorated so gravely within the United States pertaining to the safety and health of the population it is imperative that investment now is critical, is vital, is necessary, and most warranted because the cost of doing little or nothing now only increases the likelihood of a major disaster that will occur costing so much more in funding and in lives lost. This nation is in very grave danger now of loosing so much if we continue to deny like so many “Republicans” who are in a perpetual state of denial about Global Warming.  With leadership that puts words into actions for the greater good of this nation and the world by evoking these executive orders this nation will stave off the Grim Reaper of the likes of a Robespeirre and a Hitler who did take full advantage of a countries severe economic devastation. National Economic Reform and Infrastructure Investment now and for the future will enable this nation to regain it’s prominence in the Global community, ensure our national security, and bring forth the economic revival that this country so desperately needs now.    

 John Hancock (January 23, 1737 – October 8, 1793) was a merchant, statesman, and prominent Patriot of the American Revolution. He served as president of the Second Continental Congress and was the first and third Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He is remembered for his large and stylish signature on the United States Declaration of Independence, so much so that the term “John Hancock” has become, in the United States, a synonym for signature.

Before the American Revolution, Hancock was one of the wealthiest men in the Thirteen Colonies, having inherited a profitable shipping business from his uncle. Hancock began his political career in Boston as a protégé of Samuel Adams, an influential local politician, though the two men would later become estranged. As tensions between colonists and Great Britain increased in the 1760s, Hancock used his wealth to support the colonial cause. He became very popular in Massachusetts, especially after British officials seized his sloop Liberty in 1768 and charged him with smuggling. Although the charges against Hancock were eventually dropped, he has often been described as a smuggler in historical accounts, but the accuracy of this characterization has been questioned.

Hancock was one of Boston’s leaders during the crisis that led to the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War in 1775. He served more than two years in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and as president of Congress, was the first to sign the Declaration of Independence. Hancock returned to Massachusetts and was elected governor of the Commonwealth, serving in that role for most of his remaining years. He used his influence to ensure that Massachusetts ratified the United States Constitution in 1788.

The American Revolution was about the independence of a country. The people who planned it were the wealthy people among the Americans. They were the middle-class (patriots). The high-class were the British and the lower classes the slaves and workers. The middle-class wanted a different government. They wanted a democracy. The middle class are the founders of the United States. They believed in working hard to make money and do what they wanted with it. On the other hand the French revolution was about human rights. In the French Revolution the bourgeoisie had almost the same circumstances. They would work really hard and save money. Along the years they had almost more money than the nobility. The more money they had the more taxes would be raised. The bourgeoisie realized that they had no rights, they made up about 98% of the population, they had more money than the higher classes and they just helped the Americans get their freedom from another country when they didn’t had freedom in their own country. Then they started planning their revolution. The bourgeoisie were not the founders of the country, but were the ones who carried out the revolution.

Both countries fought a war in their own land. The Americans had the British established in their country as well as the troops that were coming from across the ocean. The fact that British had to cross an ocean gave the Americans some advantage in war, giving them time and warning. This is an advantage that the French didn’t have because they were fighting their own government. Their war was local. Also, America didn’t have any near neighbors, therefore they didn’t have the threat of being attacked by other countries trying invade them (taking advantage of their weakness after war). France had this problem when many countries attacked them while they were in war.

Another advantage that America had was that they were fighting against the archenemy of the world at the time. Many countries were against Britain, especially the French. America received a lot of help from other countries. The French not only sent troops to fight, but paid for almost the whole revolution. France had no money when the revolution started and the Americans didn’t pay them back because they were building their own economy. The bourgeoisie started the revolution without help from the Americans or other countries. Instead of countries trying to help them they attempted to attack them like mentioned before.

Religion always has a part in politics. This might be the most noticeable contrast between the two revolutions. The American Revolution was not based, guided or caused by religion. America was protestant. Protestantism wasn’t in the way of the American Revolution. On the other hand, France was catholic and Catholicism favored the monarchy and had very high position in the hierarchy. The bourgeoisie was fighting the king as well as the clergy (church) in the revolution. So the Catholic Church compared to the Protestant was very involved in the revolution.

Americans had plans to build a democratic government. They got the idea of democracy from Protestantism and the writings of John Locke. Since the people in the states were divided into loyalist and patriots, after the revolution the loyalist went back to Britain or got used to the new system while the patriots were putting to practice the democratic system. Those who followed the patriots were being trained to vote or knew what voting was. That is the reason why democracy worked in America. The French wanted the same but the bourgeoisie did not have much education and had no knowledge of democracy. They didn’t know what voting was because a King all their lives had governed them. Since the French couldn’t established a democracy they tried something else called constitutional monarchy where the king has to obey the laws made by a parliament instead of the absolute monarchy. The king was eventually executed. They then created the Constitutional Republic.

The Americans achieved their independence from Britain, because of their revolution. The French left France open for another ruler, Napoleon. These different outcomes were caused by the advantages and disadvantages that each country had. The Americans had more advantages in their revolution than the French had in theirs. The Americans did not have to deal with other countries invading them (not including Britain). France had multiple countries invading. The Americans were fighting the enemy of the majority of countries in Europe and recieved help. Religion played a major part in the French Revolution. The French built a weak government, while the Americans built a government that would last for years.

The French revolution was the bloodiest revolutionary war in Europe. There were many events that led up to the birth of the new French republic. They all had a huge impact on the way France is today. Between the increasing national debt and the obscene spending of the government revolt was destined to happen.

            The French society was divided into three social classes. These classes were called estates. The first estate was made up of strictly the clergy, or the church officials. This estate had about 130,000 people out of the 27 million people in France. The members of this estate ranged from the poor parish priests to the bishops and cardinals of the church. The second estate was purely the nobles. The nobles were landowners, government officials, lawyers, and other people with high social and political influences. There were 350,000 people in this estate, and all were wealthy. The third estate was every other person. There were people from peasants to the middle and working class. The peasants made up 80 percent of the estate, and most of them were very poor. The third estate was the people who had to pay the taxes to the government even though they were the poorest. This made many people angry because it increased a gap between the rich and the poor. King Louis XVI and his wife Marie Antoinette both spent large amounts of money on themselves. This increased the national debt, therefore increasing the taxes on the poor. King Louis XVI decided to fund the American Revolution making the country go into even more debt. This sparked the call for a meeting called the Estates-General.

            The Estates-General was Louis’ attempt at getting the peoples opinion on what to do with France’s failing economy. King Louis wanted to raise taxes on the third estate. The third estate brought out an idea of setting up a new constitutional government making all estates pay taxes. The voting system had the third estate out voted, and the people asked to change the system so they were the majority. The King decided against this, and on June 17th, 1789 the third estate declared themselves the National Assembly and drafted their own constitution. They made an oath called the Tennis Court Oath, swearing to separate until a new constitutional regime was instated. King Louis was prepared to attack the national assembly, but before he could 900 Parisians marched on Bastille. Bastille was an old prison and weapons store, and it represented everything bad about the old France. Fights broke out, and the mob eventually took over Bastille. They began tearing it apart brick by brick. This day, July 14th, 1789, marked the beginning of the French Revolution. On August 26th, 1789 the National Assembly adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. This was a document inspired by the Declaration of Independence. It stated that each individual man had rights to liberty, security, property, and resistance to oppression. It also gave women some rights. During all of this the King stayed in Versailles, which was miles away from Paris, and would not accept any of the National Assembly’s decrees. This angered many people.

            On October 5th, 1789 thousands of Parisian women marched on Versailles. They were extremely angered by their starving children and the King not accepting the National Assembly’s orders. They attacked the palace and held the royal family hostage, forcing them to move to Paris and sign the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and accept the new Limited Monarchial system. During all of this Marie Antoinette was urging her husband to escape the situation. On June 20th, 1791 they disguised themselves and fled the city headed for the nearest border. They were stopped along the way by someone checking their passports. This person recognized the royal family and they were arrested and returned to Paris. This showed the country that the King was a traitor to the Revolution. Now the people of the revolution had to decide the fate of King Louis XVI. There were many arguments and debates on it, but on January 21st, 1793 King Louis XVI was beheaded by the guillotine. This marked the abolishment of the monarchy. A new era was started in France called the Reign of Terror. The Reign of Terror took place in the years 1793-1794. During this time 40,000 people died. 16,000 people were killed by the guillotine alone. The guillotine was a new machine believed to be quick, efficient, and painless. It claimed the lives of many officials, including Marie Antoinette. During the Reign of Terror the people of France started De-Christianization. This was where they tried to remove all forms of Christianity from daily life. They even changed the calendar to start year one on 1793. This was a way of disconnecting all of the past France to the new, current France. In 1795 the National Convention began to move to a conservative direction by restoring churches, constructing a new constitution, and restricting the power of the Committee of Public Safety. Until now the Committee of Public Safety had been responsible for the deaths of all the people who were believed to be against the revolution. They set up an executive branch for the new government called The Directory. The Directory was made up of 5 people who made decisions reflecting the welfare of the citizens. They became very corrupt over time, and in 1799 General Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the Directory and seized power for himself.

            The French revolution was an extremely bloody revolution filled with corruption and desire for power. It taught other countries how to revolt and laid the foundation for many other European and Latin American revolutions soon to come. 

              There were many reasons why the American Revolutionary war began. It was all the problems that were happening and because of the taxes King George put on the colonies. There were a lot of taxes placed on the colonies, such as the Stamp Act, Tea Act, and the Townshend act but there were other events such as The Boston Massacre and The Boston Tea Party. All of these events happened and the conclusion of these events met war. The war that took place after all these events is called, The American Revolutionary War.
             
           
              The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five people at the hands of British redcoats on March 5, 1770. The Boston Massacre helped spark the protest in some of the British American colonies, which led to the American Revolutionary War. A British military in Boston led to a problem between soldiers and people and led to troops shooting their muskets, the troops fired because somebody shot and everyone else decided to shoot. Three civilians were killed at the scene, and two died after the ‘’Massacre’’. The Massacre had a big effect on the starting on the Revolutionary War. Not only had the Boston Massacre affected this but with the help of Paul Revere.  Paul Revere Drew a picture on the Massacre and he exaggerated a lot because the captain looked like he was actually saying fire but in reality he wasn’t. This event made the Americans angry.

        
              The Boston Tea Party was an action by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government and the East India Company that controlled all the tea coming into the colonies. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists went on the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The Boston Tea Party was a event in the growth of the American Revolution. Parliament responded in 1774 with the Intolerable Acts, closed Boston’s ships and ports until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Colonists in turn responded to the Act with acts of protest, and by convening the First Continental Congress, which petitioned the British king for repeal of the acts and they didn’t follow the rules. The probblem grew, and the American Revolutionary War began near Boston in 1775. This event made the British and the king angry.

       
            In summary, The American Revolutionary War took many sparks of light to begin a fire. The British were not at all fair and we all know it and I think that the colonist were right. The Revolutionary War was a very important part of our country without it there would be no United States, so in a way all these battles and taxations were good. Maybe without the colonist protests we would have never been here. The colonist served a very big part in our country. Maybe even if they never said ‘’No Taxation Without Representation’’ we would not be here.

3 a. Writing Systems

At an unprecedented level, humanity deeply relies on writing as linguistics would be inconceivable without its systematic ways of representing units of language through visible or tangible signs. Writing is a unique way of imprinting information to the less impulsive human brain and its structural characteristics are systematically used all over the world. Writing also allowed societies to generate and consolidate a sense of self. Alphabets and writing was a practical ancient invention for agricultural record keeping, religious purposes, and also to reinforce the power of the cream of the crop in a socio-political system.  Papyrus is one of the writing mediums which were most common material in ancient Egypt as it could be recycled and used again quite frequently. Although expensive, primordial papyrus was conveniently durable and was widely used for public documentation, private letter, and for other literary purposes. However, both ancient and modern writing systems have differed geographical, structural, familial, and stylistical precincts to be categorized by types, families, regions, and alphabetical listing. Therefore, a writing system does not basically an indicator of historical civilization.

Origins of Writing

The elucidation on the origin of writing is widely venerated upon myths and divinity since it holds an important role in most ancient societies. Egypt and China are examples of such ancient societies that respectively drawn upon divinity and perspicacity to explicate the origin of writing. Ancient Egyptians credited the discovery of writing to the god Thoth, who they believed could convert speech into material objects while in China, an ancient sagacious named Ts’ang Chieh is believed to have invented writing. Ts’ang Chieh was believed to be the communication tool between the kingdom of gods and ancestors and the realm of humans as verified by the inscriptions on oracle bones which were historically used for divine purposes. From a contemporary view, writing is said to have been invented from China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Mesoamerica due to the evidence from recent discoveries that further refutes the monogenesis theory. The language represented by various writings makes no system superior or inferior to the other as they will be categorized by the language used in a particular society. 

Types of Scripts

A writing script is usually classified extensively in various types dependent to the underlying language being represented. Logographic is an example of such writing scripts and it basically uses a vast number of signs sharing the same value to represent each morpheme. They are usually numbered starting with the most frequent sign and their general standard of transliteration is specified under the respective sign types. A Logogram which is a sign, represent a word or impression with one sign and can occasionally be tacit by their pictorial character. Therefore due to this fact, the number of signs could grow to astounding numbers like the Chinese logographic system which contains more than 10,000 signs despite most of them being unexploited in everyday use.

SUMERIAN CLAY TABLETS

The oldest book which I found on the time line is the Sumerian Clay Tablets which is -3500 B.C.E. It was used by the Sumerians who were the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia. The Sumerians scratched their words in tablets of clay by using the cuneiform alphabet and since they entirely discarded pictures, they formed a system of V-shaped figures which showed slight connection with the pictures from which they had been developed. By using small strokes, the marks could gradually become ideograms. They used pointed styluses to draw pictograms on the clay tablets in order to generate envelopes and records of business transactions that could last permanently. The hard kilns from which they baked the clay tablets are still available today for scholars to study and interpret. This timeline really shocked me because it was a period when a primitive number system which involved a decimal and sexagesimal base was being used, and it is quite exceptional and beyond imagination to realize that the Sumerians could contemplate an array of artistic ideologies and their typographic implications.

3 b. Republican Motherhood

This is a notion that calls for women education in the principles of democracy, independence, and liberty in order to indoctrinate future generations with these republican values.  This was a significant sign that showed the relevance of women from an intellectual perspective especially since the American Revolution which had a deep effect on the philosophical foundations of the American society. This revolution drastically changed roles of women that later on shaped the inspiration of the republican motherhood in this period. Since it was assumed that a republic can only be defined by the virtue of its citizens, women were essential towards inculcating their children with values favorable to a healthy republic. This period also encouraged the husband-wife relationship which was now more liberal instead of the earlier subservience relationship. Women were also quite effective to the war exertion by fundraising and managing family businesses if their husbands were absent. Women were therefore even more prominent both publicly and politically as a consensus was reached on the view that women devoted to the service of their family and state would as well have a political purpose. The Republican Motherhood notion impacted the society at large to pave the way for a superior function for women in public domain.