Monday, March 27, 2017

Andrew Jackson by K. P.

1. In the Andrew Jackson documentary we saw, the main point is that Andrew Jackson was a liked and hated man. He was determined to become president and when it finally happened he soon began to show some warning signs. He had many controversies, was war hungry, very stern and always put his foot down on decisions.
2. From views of the speakers, it seems like they are not in favor of Jackson. I think we were missing the voice of people that did admire Jackson as a past president. But then again, not many people were fond of him because of his actions (taking Indian land, wishing death on people).
3. Our class activity helped me understand some things that I may not have caught on my own. For example, doing the group discussion I found out that Jackson was "military crazy" and that snuck past me while watching the documentary.
4. We discussed Jackson's reasons behind moving Indians out of their land and we discovered that he kind of manipulated them by telling them he was moving them for their own good when really he wanted their land for farming and the possibility of gold.
5. I'm still wondering more about Jackson's love life, I know it's not that important but his love drama reminded me of a t.v. Show and I actually found it quite interesting

The Artificial River Ch 5-6 by D. H.

Progress is often defined as movement in a single direction: forward. However, Carol Sheriff shows in her book The Artificial River that this assumption is not always true. Chapters five and six of the novel focus on the economic, social, and political shifts in early America following the creation of the Erie Canal. Sheriff uses specific examples and descriptive explanations of the new culture created by the Canal to express her point. While the Canal did offer forward movement by expanding business and creating a faster, inexpensive means of travel and shipment, it also forced a negative progress through the creation of a very poor working class and a change for more personal, profit-motivated culture surrounding private business.
Sheriff's purpose was to show the ways in which the Erie Canal had a negative influence on the nation. She writes of business owners and the ways in which they twisted the idea of the “greater good” for their personal gain, but we hear little about what farmers who were negatively impacted by this thought on the matter. The loudest voices within these chapters concerning the working class were the voices of the middle class, even though much of the focus was on the dirt poor canal workers. The middle and upper classes viewed the canal workers as vulgar, rugged, unchristian drunkards. Some people viewed them so poorly that they did not want them to have Sabbath day away from work because the thought of them acting freely was so frightening, while others argued that perhaps a Sunday off would offer a boost in morale and offer a chance for them to reach enlightenment. While accounts of abuse and the struggle of canal workers were noted, we never receive the personal point of view from canal workers themselves.
In class, we elaborated on what Sheriff detailed in her book. We discussed the means in which business owners in villages left untouched by the Canal would approach the Canal Board in hopes of extending it to reach their business. We also discussed how the Canal brought a change in how business was viewed from a perspective of helping the country as a whole to the personal gain of business owners. We talked about how the Canal industrialized the nation and how around this time, there was a transition within the state governments to prioritize business for economic purposes over farmers and the general public.
The class discussed the lesson of these two chapters and debated on what the paradox of progress means. We came to the conclusion that progress will always have both winners and losers. The Erie Canal created a losing class directly associated with its existence and a negative culture entirely dependent on the Canal itself.
Even so, we are left with questions unanswered. How did the canal workers feel about their image? Why did some of the canal workers assimilate into the culture surrounding their work that was so frowned upon? How did the general public feel about business becoming profit-oriented?

Andrew Jackson by D. C.

  1. The main argument throughout the documentary in the time period of Andrew Jackson in American History, was to shine a light on the dilemma of the relationship between the common man and government. Although Andrew Jackson was not necessarily a common man for he had earned a rising sense of fame due to his success as a General in the U.S. Army. Throughout his life, Jackson was criticized for his steadfast opinions and autocratic manner, but he nonetheless proved himself a savvy and thoughtful politician. It was only after he had fully considered his options that he made a decision–once that decision had been made, however, he pursued it relentlessly, gradually grinding away at his opponents until he got what he needed. In doing so, he helped modernize the nation and forever define his term of office as the mini-Enlightenment now known as Jacksonian America.
  2. To identify a purpose of the documentary we would need to envelop all of the Jacksonian Age. I believe it is to give viewers an understanding of what kind of mindset politicians and common men had of the era. More specifically, it highlighted both sides of all conflicts and discussed why/what actions were taken as well as evidence from written accounts by the individuals in the time period. Such individuals voices included; Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Rachel Jackson and John Eaton. The voices that didn’t seem to shine as bright as theirs did would be the ones of the common man, at least through the beginning of the Jacksonian Era. Common men were not heard as well as they ought to have been heard, the Electoral College spoke for them on political matters which (on occasion) was infuriating.
  3. In class we discussed a lot of different topics from Jackson’s time but the one that became more prominent to myself was how abusive he was with his power. More specifically the power of the Presidential Veto. By over exceeding his executive powers he used a veto in the U.S. Bank because he felt that the Bank was an unfair monopoly and that it abused or might abuse its significant power. Jackson went to great lengths to destroy the Bank, a crusade that almost cost him the presidency in 1834 and earned him an official censure by the Senate. Nonetheless, by 1837, he had killed the Bank, as part of his lifelong distrust of credit. This side of Jackson showed a new and different part of himself that I didn’t see in the documentary.
  4. One historical questions or topics more or less we talked about was Jackson’s King like qualities. A classmate brought up the similarities between Jackson and Trump and everything sort of clicked because they are very alike. A big Jacksonian characteristic was that he earned the respect of the Americans who elected him largely by being an outsider and a disruptive force chosen to break up existing Washington power structures. This is something we see in President Trump. Towards the end of class we were handed a political cartoon of the era depicting Andrew Jackson as King. This cartoon from 1832 uses that theme to show Jackson, dressed as a king, trampling on the Constitution and wielding the veto. While the cartoon garnered support for the opposing Whig Party, but it did little to thwart Jackson's desire to increase the power of the presidency.
  5. Any unanswered questions? The only one I really have is if other political parties ever got as dirty as Andrew Jackson’s? We know that President Trump’s did but before the year 2000 is when I mean.

Andrew Jackson by K. A.

Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the united states, had a long and trying political life. Jackson ran for president in 1824 and 1828. Elections back then were more of an elitist operation and was controlled by washington electors. Jackson was viewed as more of a military leader and even Thomas Jefferson added that he is the most unfit man for the job. Jackson won the popular and electoral votes but, Jackson did not win the majority. Henry Clay did not want Jackson to be president and so supported Quincy Adams and in return Adams gave Clay secretary of state.
Jackson and his wife Rachel had a scandal that was revealed by Henry Clays confidant. It was revealed that Rachel was living with jackson while married to another man. Jackson blamed Clay for the attacks on Rachel and claims that he regrets that he didn't shoot Clay. Jacksons campaign in 1828 was viewed as the dirtiest campaign in all of history.
After Jackson was elected president in 1828 Rachel Jackson died right after. Everyone that knew jackson thought rachel dying knew that it was better that way because they knew she wasn't good for Andrew Jackson because of her social status. Jackson didn't agree and actually blames Clay and Adams for the death of rachel.
Clay and allies viewed Jackson as an Imperial president. Jackson fired many of the employees and high-level bureaucrats due to "incompetence" and his opponents saw it as the "work of the devil." A lot of the new employees had a lot of scandals in their backgrounds and looked as ruining government efficiency and turned it into his own personal government.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

The Atificial River Ch 5-6 - by R. B.

  1. The author's main argument about the book is how the Erie Canal benefited Americans who wanted to move out West and stay on the East. The Erie canal benefited many Americans in the west buy making trading to the east much easier and affordable for everyone in the United States. The Erie canal created many jobs for low class working Americans as well. Most Americans from the West and East came to support economic expansions to the West to make more housing and economic structures.
  2. The purpose and point of view that the author is trying to prove through out the book is to tell about the frustrations and prosperities during the construction and making of the Erie canal. The reading gave examples on how settlers brought many trading goods and families through the Erie canal so that many families could create better lives for themselves. The Erie Canal created jobs for low class working Americans, and many Americans could realize their special destiny of universal moral material prosperity. Most Americans from the West and East came to support economic and geographic expansion, even if they held different notions of how growth should take place.
  3. Some of the discussions and reading in class helped us better understand the book when we asked each other our perspective and opinions on each chapter we read and what we thought about in each chapter in the book. Many of us compared the differences of what life used to be like back then compared to the life that we have today as a good example. Identifying the social structure during that time period made us better understand the reading and some of the economic issues that workers, farmers and residents had to go through during the making of the Erie Canal. A lot of the reading helped us understand why many people in New York wanted an Erie Canal and there were many agriculture and economic changes that happened after the construction of the Erie Canal ended.
4.Some of the questions we discussed in class were about agriculture and how would farmers grow and sell crops along the canal? Farmers would choose the kind of season they would have their crops grow and would trade and sell crops to travelers and settlers. Also, What geographical feature caused New Yorkers to want a canal? The New Yorkers wanted a canal to access better trading goods and supplies into the United States. Another question we drew in class was how would the Erie Canal change the lifestyle of those who chose to move West? Many would have better trading routes and better economic structure with more work and more agriculture crops in the West.
  1. Some questions that I have for the book are things like economic repair, how would one go about fixing a canal boat if something broke on the ship? How would one make money if they were unable to grow crops on their land? Also how would families and other residents fall asleep along the Canal if so much noise was being made during the construction? Also what would the residents do for entertainment?

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

The Artificial River Ch 3-4 by C. M.

The reading, The Artificial River The Erie Canal and the Paradox of Progress by Carol Sheriff, discusses in chapter 3 and chapter 4 about the advantages and disadvantages of the Erie Canal. For instance, the advantages in the canal were that it was now possible to emigrate inward west, commerce, and made communication easier. The reason why anyone hardly emigrated west was because the cost of moving essential items such as stoves and furniture were too high. Chapter 3 was titled Reducing distance and time which is exactly what the canal did. The canal significantly reduced the time of travel by one third and that reduced the cost it took to move goods such as lumber or wheat. The canal even made communicating easier. Letters would reach loved ones as well. Another advantage that the canal had was the amount of opportunity it presented. americans in the west had access to luxury items such as tea and the east had access to other goods. The canal also created jobs in the construction of the canal. 
Although the canal was viewed as a " vehicle for communing with nature and as a symbol of American ingenuity" it also had its disadvantages. Nathaniel Hawthorne recounts that " the canals technology as a threat to America's special geography and moral destiny , as encouragement of too much civilization." This meant that the more access to move westward the more overcrowding there would be. whuch exactly what happened on the canal itself. If a boat would sink then other boats would be stuck until the boat was repaired or removed. one of the biggest drawbacks of the canal was that the canal was not operational at least 5 months out of the year during the winter. The frozen water would put a halt in the travel, commerce and communication. 
In the discussion in class after reading chapter 3 and 4, even though the canal had significant drawbacks; it was still better than having to transport by wagon. Another question that was brought up was about the railroad and why no one had thought to use that but the railroad had not made an appearance yet that could cross country he country and also the time it would take to build it. In the meantime the canal was available to meet their goals and learn to evolve from the disadvantages.
The question the I have remaining is if the canal presented hazards and restrictions  traveling by water then would that limit the freedom of Americans; one of our basic rights?

The Artificial River by J. G.

I Believe Mary is really good about giving to us details almost make you feel as if you are there ... but in visioning you almost feel that she was happy with the class of people that were on the boat . It made me wonder why .  Well here you finally have a way for transport  farmers and family together and it was cheap. But for land owners like Mary it wasn't a good thing and here is why. the boat can  cause all kinds of  damage also this artificial was only 4 feet deep and there they would also dump waste into this water that would eventually smell this was not  good for land owners.  Also there were traffic issue that can also can take up to weeks. In order for some kind middle ground they came up with a board for the canal.. Land owners will go to this board will tell them what damage was caused and they would approve and denied. 

The Artificial River Ch 3-4 by A. G.

Carol Sheriff’s main argument was that the Erie Canal had positive and negative points. The author mentions that in the first year of the official operation, the tolls collected on freight more than met the interest of the state’s construction debt. The entire loan on the original canal was paid by 1837. New Yorkers celebrated the Erie Canal in 1825, by more than forty thousand passengers traveled on the waterway, knowing that it had not yet gone into full service. The Erie Canal was such a success that other states were inspired to construct their own. New Yorkers were free to refocus their attention once they “undertook Clinton’s grand scheme: to defy nature by compressing distance and time,” (Sheriff pg. 53). The canal did have situations that effected New Yorkers negatively. The canal had little and major kinks such as the aqueduct walls crumbling, the locks malfunctioning, and the canal banks burst open. When this occurred, the failures of the canal impeded tourism, social order and commerce. This would cause traffic jams that would last weeks before the boats could reach their destinations. Even the weather played a role in the canal drama. When it was winter, the water would turn to ice which shut down the canal up to five months every year. Sheriff also mentions that the Erie Canal was a destruction of nature and property. It was made known that the state played favorites when it came to making improvements on the New Yorker’s land; the wealthy.
The author started out by giving the positive side first then ended with the negative point of view. I heard voices from the people that were happy and satisfied with the result and success of the canal. The canal supposedly brought joy and hope to some of the New Yorkers. The voices that were missing were the settlers that were not particularly happy or satisfied at first with the result of the waterway being built. The negative side of the canal was that it was a destruction of nature and property. New Yorkers were upset that the canal ran through their private property and that it messed up their agricultural land. The author also added that the new mills and factories that diverted the natural flow of water upset the New Yorkers. We heard from angry New Yorkers that were not compensated to their satisfaction for the land that was damaged and destroyed. Some even made legal action against the state. The voices missing were the ones that had proper compensation for their land that the state followed up on. Those were the wealthy ones and the ones that owned land.
In class, we discussed the paradox of progress: the winners and the losers of the canal. The winners were the farmers, investors, workers and New York City. At the same time, some of the New Yorkers were the losers as well because some lost their private agricultural land due to the building of the canal. The packet boats were brought up in the discussion; with how they carried New Yorkers and tourists, the problems they had with the bridges, and the problems they had when the canal locks malfunctioned. We brought up the positive and negative effects that the canal brought upon settlers. A piece from Thomas Woodcock’s private journal gave us an insight of his experience with the Erie Canal back in 1836.
The social status of Mary Ann Archbald was questioned because of the way she acted towards the canal workers. She considered herself to be part of the wealthier side because she “owned” land, so she thought she could treat the workers any type of way. Mary was unhappy with the canal crew and looked down on them just because she thought she was better than them. We questioned that in the winter, was the canal really shut down? Yes, because the freezing weather froze the water to ice which caused a problem for the canal boats. The winter weather shut down the canal up to five months and the workers had to cut the ice in order to get the boats moving again. We discovered that even though the canal had many flaws, it was a better option than roads because it was cheaper and preserved the energy of the horses.
We are still left wondering how big of an impact did the Erie Canal really have on the settlers, tourists and New York City. Even with some well-known people giving their opinion on the Erie Canal and how it affected them, there are still others that we do not know about how their lives turned out due to the artificial river. How did the legal actions against the state play out? Did anyone receive improvements on their land from the state that they promised to the New Yorkers?

The Artificial River Ch 1 - by D. T.

I believe that Carol Sheriff’s main argument for chapter one was to address commerce during the early 1800’s. Trade played a large role for settlers wanting to sell their surplus. Judge John Richards stated, “By this highway unborn millions will easily transport their surplus shores of the Atlantic, procure their supplies, and hold a useful and profitable intercourse with all the marine nations of the world” (Sheriff 9). Those in favor of the canal, such as investors, and men in legislature would say that it was farmers’ best interest to support the canal so that they would have the opportunity to sell their surplus agriculture. Smaller waterways supported the need for the Eerie to be built, it would create more job opportunities, create more communities, it would drastically lower the time and price to transport goods up and down the canal from 3 weeks down to 7 days.
Even though this would be beneficial to almost every member of the community who had ties to the trade market, farmers were not largely interested in making profit. Sheriff does a great job of not only voicing the opinions of men in higher positions but also more ‘common’ men. This brings up the idea of a moral economy. These farmers usually did not use cash during their transactions, but in a way they just kept tabs on what was owed/given for future transactions. Their main goal was to become an asset to their community and become independent and comfortable.
In class, we compared and contrast two images created not even a decade apart from on another. These images portrayed the use of a canal. In the earlier image you see large architectural bridges, a single home, and horses pulling the boat upstream. This image also focused on the river rather than their surroundings. In the second image we see less architectural design, but more practical design. There are more people in this photo implying that these Americans were part of a work-oriented community. You also see many homes in contrast to the first image. The building of the canal created communities surrounding ports and markets, thus creating more jobs.
            Some of the questions asked in class were surrounded mostly by how and who was effected in a negative way if the canal were to be built. It is no surprise that not everyone was on board for a canal. We haven’t quite gotten to that part of the book yet but will be discussing it during our next class meeting. I would like to know more about why those appointed to overlook the canal were chosen besides them having an investment towards the building of the canal and their different political backgrounds. How did the community react to being taxed higher on some goods and also having to pay a toll in order to fund the canal?

The Artificial River Ch 1 - by M. M.

 I believe that Carol Sheriff's main argument in chapter one was that the Erie Canal was the product of American values and an example of why America was unique among other countries in the world. Sheriff talks a bit about the Scottish immigrant, Mary Ann Archbald, and uses her to demonstrate the mindset and desires of citizens during the time prior to the canal's building. They  wanted to engage in long-distance because they believed that wealth and morality came from the same source of virtue; but they were unable to due to America's poor transportation system. The Erie Canal was considered the technological wonder of its day because it was thought to be nothing more than a dream. The Erie Canal not only showed the world the potential that America held, but that they could make dreams into a reality.
  Sheriff allows us to view the canal project from the view of its advocates and critics. DeWitt Clinton for supporters and Jeffersonians for critics, though views lean more towards Clinton. One view that has yet to be seen at this point is the rest of the world. The Erie Canal was one of America's greatest accomplishments at a point in history where America was believed to fail. Hearing Europe's thoughts before and after the Canal was built would be very interesting to me.
  During the class, we were given two pictures to observe, one was right after the canal was completed, and the other was five years after the canal was built. In the span of five years, farms and small communities were created along the canal due to the profits that using the canal brought. My class was also shown a short clip with historians talking about the Erie Canal and if memory serves, the amount of money farmers and traders needed to spend for travel went from $100 to $6. What these two events suggest to me is that the Erie Canal was far more profitable than I had originally thought.
  One question that I asked in class was "why were Americans so eager to trade with Britain when it hasn't been long since the American Revolution and the War of 1812?" The answer to my question was, if memory serves, that Americans were more concerned with making profits than holding grudges against a former enemy. America was in debt and they need to pay their debts, whether the money came from an ally or former enemy was the least of their concerns. Well seeing as we're still here, it was a good decision.
  

The Artificial River Ch 1 - by T. D.

The Erie Canal and the paradox of progress, 1817-1862. The Artificial River uses the Erie Canal region as a microcosm in which to explore the relationship: widespread geographic mobility; rapid environment change; market expansion; the reorganization of work; and moral reform. Changes in social structural, led Northerners and Midwesterners to perceive themselves as different from the South. Beginning in 1792 Western Inland Lock Navigation Company and the Northern Inland Lock Navigation Company tried to turn a profit by improving some of the waterways themselves. Stronger advocates of the Erie Canal. Western Company built canals, dams and locks along the Mohawk River. The Archibalds sold their cloth and wheat in New York City. While also growing rye, corn, barley, peas, oats and potatoes. Settlers aimed not just to secure independence but rather to earn money and to profit from their connections to a larger commercial world. Founding Fathers divided into two main schools of thought about how to develop the country's economy.

Historians would agree that farmers sought ways to unload agricultural “ surplus” these scholars argue, suggests that the average farmer did not intentionally produce for trade, and not for a market beyond the collar community. When farmers did exchange goods and services with neighbors, these transactions rarely involved cash because they saw no use for assigning monetary values. By cutting off legal trade with European nations, the embargoes had the unintended effect of raising the prices of those American goods that nonetheless reached European ports.

One of the questions that was discussed in class was “Erie canal had a lot of changed when the canal construction started.” Motivated by a combination of economic and ideological imperatives, politicians in both the national and state levels embraced initiatives to expand the young nation’s transportation networks. Batavia was home to offices of the Holland Land Company, business center and transportation hub in the 1810s. Congress passed an internal improvements bill that included funding for the New York  canal, but Madison vetoed that act. War had inflamed political divisions within the state. The state ultimately constructed eight other canals, and scores of smaller tributary waterways. The Fourth of July was finally that day that Americans put aside their differences and got unity once for all.

I want to know more about the Fourth of July, a day of national unity. And how Americans generally accepted that they were part of a political experiment. The debate over the ratification of the federal Constitution had divided them into Federalists and Antifederalists. Antifederalists period is mostly used related to war.

The Artificial River Ch 1 by C. dL.

In the first chapter of “The Artificial River” by Carol Sheriff, Sheriff describes how The Founding Fathers came into a dispute over a canal being built that would run from the Hudson to Lake Erie. Although Sheriff does mention the negative ideas of the canal she turns it around by saying how the canal could help the nation at large. There were multiple ideas brought up about the canal in earlier years because they saw that the creation of Earth had mountains with canyons running through, hills that could be excavated down, and flat land that could benefit from the canal. Sheriff does bring up that the problem with past ideas of creating the canal is that America at the time did not have the technology to build this canal. In 1810 a joint resolution of the New York legislature appointed the first group of seven commissioners to oversee the states canal-building. The seven commissioners were all prominent and wealthy New Yorkers who had an eye toward representing each of the era’s political factions. At this point the two political factions were Federalists, like Alexander Hamilton, who supported a strong central government that would help sponsor commercial expansion, industrial and urban development, and international trade. The other would be considered Democratic-Republicans, like Jefferson and Madison, who favored placing powers in the hands of the states and limiting any role the federal government might play in commercial development. Whichever method of economic growth they preferred the first generation of national leaders recognized internal improvements. In 1817 DeWitt Clinton’s Canal Bill passed which was to fill its treasury from a variety of sources: loans, repaid toll venues, donations, lotteries, and taxes. Taxes were designed to ensure that those who benefited most from the canal would contribute the greatest amount of building and maintaining it. The Canal Bill divided the canal into three sections but only provided construction for the part between the Mohawk and the Seneca River.
            The purpose of writing of writing this chapter was to inform the reader an introduction to the troubles that politicians and normal working class faced due to the idea of constructing the canal. Most people learned that the Erie Canal was suddenly built fast with no troubles or hard ships faced. It described where the money came from to build the canal, which would benefit greatly from the canal, and also starts to describe the environment that the canal would be built through. Sheriff described that the process of building the canal but wouldn’t be done without the support of people in the surrounding areas.
            After our in class discussion I was able to get a better understanding on why the canal was able to start being built. A flour merchant named Jesse Hawley wrote fourteen essays outlining a system for waterways that by using Lake Erie’s Resources would transform New York’s landscape, settlement, and commerce. I learned that the people who benefit most out of this canal would be investors and politicians who invested into making the canal and traders that lived on the banks of the canal. The creation of the canal created an urban working class that worked for low wages and had poor living conditions. This working class would mostly consist of young single Irish or Welsh men. During the excavation of the canal tons of undocumented worker lives were lost.
            The canal supports believed that the social decay associated with rapid market growth could be avoided all together in America’s interior and reformed in its ports because the US was destined for greatness. The canal would also cut the price of trading in the US interior by a great amount.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Myths of the Revolution by J. G.


I believe that Carol Berkin wanted us to know during the revolution times were not perfect people were not sharing there hardship and instead you had some people that were trying to take advantage of the situation.  Mrs. Berkin gives a perfect  example of how Pennsylvania farmers took advantage of the Army by blinding steeling from them. When they would order flour  they would only get 1/3 of flour and the rest would be sand also there shoes would be made by scraps which would led to the shoes to fall part. So what does all this mean ?

At the time they had a joke who ever had the most toys when they died won the game. Well this smuggling comes I think that if you were smart enough smuggle you were making money   they knew that these were things that were hard to get John Hancock made him self a wealth men by doing this it even became a job for others . This was a way to make wealth because they were selling things they knew they need and wanted now this how people would take advantage of the situation.  

I also think that she did a great job pointing  out how this revaluation was a violent and not every one agreed to the this war .they believed action speak louder then words . The people were willing to have the back of the government but the government had to be willing to help the people.

Nathaniel Macon - Anti-Federalist by B. M.

Throughout the reading of Nathaniel Macon, Antifederalist you get the feeling of the times you get to look in and see what political life was like in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. William S. Price Jr. writes about Macon’s views of how the colonies are being run. The peace is very persuasive in making me feel like being an antifederalist. He does this by explaining how a large government loses touch from its constituencies. A large government is easily corrupted by having less personal accountability. Macon’s views are that a small local government will work for the people because those you serve in government are your neighbors.
The purpose of this essay I feel was to educate. It does seem to be slightly bias in favor to the antifederalist. The ideals of the antifederalist seem powerful and noble while when the federalist is written about there are very strong words in opposition. Such as Tyranny, Moral decay and that med in the antifederalist movement were virtuous men hint to the thought that federalist was not of virtuous. I do feel that the essay was very heavy handed in favor of the Antifederalist and would have liked to hear more of the federalist view, but not from the mouth of Macon rather the voice of an actual Federalist.
While in class we could draw closer connection between the starting of our country and political parties and what we have evolved into today. More specifically we discussed the views of Antifederalist and their juxtaposition to Republicans today with smaller government and less government in our personal lives. We discussed the fact that Macon was very constant with his political views and the rarity of that today. We discussed how antifederalist wanted a definite separation of church and state and that until the mid-1900’s the men that ran the country did so without allowing their religious views dictate how they governed.
It would be very interesting to see what Nathaniel Macon’s thought of out political system today. If the future, he saw for America e=was still present or did we completely cannibalize his vision. How would the world have changed if we would have held strong of the beliefs of our founding fathers?

Nathaniel Macon - Anti-Federalist by D. H.

Following the Revolutionary War, America was granted a heavy task upon on her shoulders: prove to the world that man can rule himself. The means of how this feat was to be accomplished became the nation's next great conflict. The Articles of Confederation failed as the sturdy pillar the country needed, and thus was bred a new species of debate; Would the States turn to a stronger central government, or would the States continue to support the reliability of small local governments? Historian William S. Price Jr. revives the passions of the former side's argument in his piece "Nathaniel Macon, Antifederalist." Macon was a key figure in American politics when the Constitution was still new and risky to the nation's stability. As a devout Antifederalist, Macon dreaded the idea of a powerful central government and serves as a strong example of the beliefs of Antifederalists accross the nation. Price takes the trademark opinions and actions of the Antifederalists and reinforces it through a specific example, Nathaniel Macon himself.
Price's purpose was clear. He wished to express the perspective of the Antifederalists in the face of a familiar danger. To those who aligned themselves with this side, the Constitution mirrored the very same institution they had just fought to free themselves from: Parliament. To people such as Macon, tyranny came in different names yet under the same form. A strong and distant central government threatened the liberty and safety of all men who resided in the States. However, this piece contains a bias that is equally as clear, seeing as it expresses only the perspective of Antifederalists and not the perspective of the Federalists, the people who wished to implement the Constitution to the nation's government.
During the discussion of Price's article, the class offered depth to Macon's political opinions and actions. We talked about his passion for freedom of the press (although he was not very fond of the press himself, seeing as he viewed them to be mean, cruel, and callous). To Macon, any government who did not allow unlimited discussion was inherently corrupt. We talked about how Macon believed the government favored the rich over the poor and abhorred the thought of taxes that reinforced this. He preferred local taxes, which he believed was more just and less harsh on the poor and middle class farmers. We talked about how he disagreed with the thought of a standing army in times of peace and favored local militia, which were inexpensive and focused on defense rather than aggression towards foreign powers.
Overall, though, the class discussed how all of these and many more beliefs of Macon summed up the opinion of an Antifederalist, and how Antifederalists were believers of a strict reading of the Constitution. Those who shared political affiliation with Macon believed strict loyalty to the document was the true way to prevent the central government from gaining too much power over the States, and therefore over its citizens. We as a class further discussed how the ideals of the Antifederalists never truly disappeared with time. Even after the name "Antifederalist" had disappeared from American culture, its ideas, beliefs, and passions towards a strict reading of the Constitution, strength in local state governments, and skepticism of the central government survived to this present-day. As a collection, we gathered information on how the States grew and changed after its separation from Great Britain.
Even still, questions remain unanswered. Why did the Federalists hold the beliefs that countered those of the Antifederalists? What did critics of Macon say or think about how the political ideology of himself and other Antifederalists affected America? What rights did Macon believe American citizens should have and thus should be included in the Bill of Rights? What parts of the Constitution did Macon support? While there are countless questions to be asked, nothing will answer them better than the records of American history as they are further analysed, discussed, and discovered.

Nathaniel Macon - Anti-Federalist by A. G.

William Price Jr. was the author and his main argument was to provide with us that of the dilemma of democracy and a republic. It is also known as federalist vs. antifederalist. People from the federalist side including Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay.They believe that power is strong and they want all that power to go to the government. The Antifederalist including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason and Nathaniel Macon they were against the power of government and wanted to limit that.
    The Author purpose was to show us the life how Nathaniel Macon became an Anti federalist.The point of view was 3rd person because of it it always says his full name. We heard from Nathaniel Macon, George washington, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton,  James madison, Samuel adams,  Patrick Henry, and many more. There was no one unaccounted for.
The class had a full understanding during our meeting time. We talk about a lot of things pretraining to the reading of Nathaniel Macon. We discussed about what the were the main points and the objectives of the readings. And why his views mattered.
We discussed questions like why Nathaniel prefers a militia instead of an army, the reason why is because he likes a standing army just in case. There was no more questions that I can think of.

Four Men Who Created a Country by M. R.

Joseph Ellis  is an American historian and professor whose work focuses on the lives and times of the founders of the United States of America . He is a winner of the Pulitzer. He’s written nine books. One of them is The Second Founding: Four Men Who created a Country. He taught at the University of Massachusetts, in Mount Holyoke and West Point.
Joseph explains that America was heading in the wrong direction after the war. George Washington had fifty-five thousand soldiers fighting in the war. After winning the war we went into forty million dollars in debt. Not only were we in debt but we were made fun of by the British empire and Jonathan Adams is mortified because he represents a government that doesn’t exists. This is told to John Jay in a letter written by Abigail Adams.
He explains that the average American doesn’t care what goes around in their surrounding
Four men made the transition from confederation to a nation, they are George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison. There were two men that also supported and help but are not as recognized as Washington, Hamilton, Jay and Madison. Theirs names are Robert Morris and Gouverner Morris and Thomas Jefferson. One of the things that this political group diagnosed was the systematic dysfunctions under the articles, manipulated the political process to force the calling of the constitutional convention, they also set the agenda in Philadelphia, they also attempted to successfully orchestrate the debates and ratified conventions and drafted the Bill of Rights. This is a great political leadership in American history.  Jay is one of the Founding Fathers that is not the acknowledge. He becomes the equivalent of Secretary of State during the government under the articles. He negotiates the Jay Treaty which is the most important diplomatic negotiation in the early republic.  He also becomes the first Chief Justice. When Washington becomes president and he decides on his cabinet he thinks of Jay first, he wants to give him any position of his liking. The reason why John Jay was not acknowledged was because his papers were not published like the other founders.
Congress notices problems when states establish tariff against each other. The Annapolis convention fails because only five states show. At the end of the meeting Hamilton writes to Congress and says, that everyone should meet again to fix all the problems. He wants to have a new Convention meet. Hamilton challenges the covenant. Now Jay, Hamilton and Madison are in fear and write to Washington and they tell him that they are headed towards Anarchy. Everyone want to recruit Washington; however, Washington is in retirement and wants nothing to do with it. Now Washington, he is closer to the ending than the beginning. Back then males lived to be fifty and that’s how old Washington was at the time. He was basically planning his death he wanted to die at Mount Vernon underneath his vine and fig tree.
Madison writes to him in a way that it becomes persuasive. Madison and Washington are radicals they like change. Madison convinces Washington to join the Virginia Delegation and the only condition Washington gives him is that they’ll go for total change. Washington is a Nationalist.
The Virginia Plan is Madison argument for replacing the current articles with a fundamental government. When this is agreed, this is of great advantage for them. At the meeting, there is two ghost that is never talked about, one is Monarchy and Slavery. The words slavery is never mentioned in the Constitution. The phrase used for slaves was that species of property. This situation is in bedded in the South.  Anyone that wanted to remove or mention slavery was removed. Washington and Virginia were out of it because they wanted slavery to end. However, they sold the slaves because they felt it would make them more money. They thought slavery would die by itself. Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution; he is the one that makes most of the changes.
Gourvernor Morris is another Founding Father that does not get recognized as well. He is best known as womanizer; Ellis compares him to Trump. He is the man with the peg leg. Houdon makes Washington’s statue using Gouvernor Morris torso as a model, since they are similar in body frame and they are both tall. Gouvernor Morris is the one that talks more in the convention, he speaks more than Madison. Morris is the first to be against slavery he refers to it as medieval. In 1787 they form a committee called Style and Morris is in charge, he puts together many notes and that is how the he writes the Constitution. All the other states would like to put their input in and Madison agrees, he has every state vote on the amendments and that is how their input is incorporated in the Bill of Rights.
We heard the voice of Ellis explaining the important role that each Founding Father had. He also explained how the Constitution was written and how slavery and monarchy were two ghost that were never discussed.   He also explained how the Bill of Rights came about.
In class, we discussed the role that every Founding Father played to build America. Some are famously known and the other two that were not acknowledged.  Some of my classmates were disgusted in how slavery was to referred to.

Questions still remain:   If the founding Fathers worked together to make a difference, why didn’t they end slavery sooner? 

Four Men Who Created a Country by R. B.


  1. Joseph Ellis's main argument in this lecture is that the American Revolution did not establish the nation, the constitution and it's making did so. He argued that the Founding fathers brought a new prosperity of liberty to a founding nation that allowed it to govern and make its own laws in independent states. Joseph Ellis also provides Lincoln's speech as a true American speech that reflects the constitution. Joseph Ellis also provides facts the France helped us win the American revolution, and how we won the war when the British could not afford to continue the war. The war was won when Britain could not afford to continue the war.
  2. The main purpose and main point of view that the author is conveying is that the war itself did not prosper and secure American rights and prosperity but the making and writing of the constitution was. Another purpose that the author is trying to convey was that the Americans did not fully win the war by themselves, they were offered much help from the French. Some things that the author is trying to prove is that they were other founding fathers that were not mentioned and helped with a good cause while helping write the constitution. The significant contributions from John Jay is what helped shaped our constitution.
  3. Some of our work in class enhanced our understanding to this topic when we asked ourselves what examples does the author give to his conclusion. we learned that James Madison wrote the Bill of rights and was ratified 2 years after signing. We understood what John Jay wrote and explained to Washington about the constitution and what should be on it. We also explained how the Articles of confederation was made and what it stands for, the articles of confederation were written to give colonies some sense of a unified government. A new governing document was needed in order for these new states to act together, under one nation.
  4. Some of the historical questions we asked in class was how and why the jay treaty was created and made. Some other questions were how England and America became neutral after the war and the agreement was reached after The Bill of rights. What expectations did America face after the war with its rising economy and how they gained money. The economic problems faced with congress deeply touched the lives of most Americans in the 1780's. The war disrupted the American economy greatly. The British navy destroyed most American ships which crippled the flow of trade to Europe. Both armies regularly stole from farmers even after the war and farmers suffered tremendously.
  5. I would like to know why John Jay was not part of the Founding Father? Some other things I would like to know is how Madison and Washington delt with radicals who were against them? How did the government gain money after the war?

Myths of the American Revolution by D. A.

This reading was about the American Revolution and the types of people that were highly affected by the policies and laws forced upon them by the British government. The colonies consisted of many important figures such as Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, many who's rights and liberties were challenged because of Great Britain. The argument was based off of the explanation that Berkin had given about taxes being forced upon by the British government. Owning the colonies was very expensive and so instead of using Britain's treasury, they decided to tax the American colonies and use the money to pay for that land. Many other's like smugglers, tide-water planters, urban workers have been pressured and challenged and therefore pushed onward to join the cause of the American Revolution.

Berkin, while explaining the American Revolution, comes to show that she explains a lot about the wrongs and problems that the British government had caused upon the colonies. She also began to talk about the connection of the people during the American Revolution and how great example it was of the people joining together for a large cause. The British, as the war progressed, marched through the colonies, taking goods, raping women, causing a lot of problems and because of this act, many neutral colonies decided to fight against the British and help the revolution. Britain was far from good and they had challenged the rights of many people in the colonies, forcing them to take up arms against them. Voices that had changed the history of the Revolution was John Hancock, a rich smuggler who was very admired by the people, and Samuel Adams who created the Sons of Liberty, a group of urban workers and smugglers to rise up against the British.

Discussions in class helped us to understand more about the types of people the British were and how far they were willing to go as to treat the colonies very poorly. British believed in a rich, sophisticated economy but they were also very cheap. When it came to the colonies, they saw it as an advantage not only to own more land, but to use the people in it, the resources, metals, and unfair taxation. As the tyranny grew, many men rose for example, John Hancock and Samuel Adams who decided to do something about it. Without the leaders of the sons of liberty and those who wanted to fight against this tyranny, the British would have had their way.

Questions that were asked in class were very informative and descriptive. During the revolution, there were many slaves that did play a crucial part. A question that popped up was what part did the slaves play and how much. During the revolution, as the British marched through the colonies, they soon decided to create a policy that allowed freedom to any slave that took up arms against their own masters. Now considering that there were many slaves, African and Indian, a lot of them went through with the policy and sided with the British to gain their freedom. This caused alot of complications and struggles between the slaves and their masters and it soon became an advantage with the British for as long as it lasted.

Many questions did stay in mind for example, as John Hancock became known, as he became the man he was, he was arrested many times but never found guilty, it leaves you to question what made him innocent every time even though he was a great smuggler. Another question was towards the myth about why the colonies really change how they felt towards the British. It was said to be that the ways of the Imperial system grew old for the colonies but what more caused the separation of the colonies and the British, regardless of the unfair taxes and treatment. There were more reasons as to why the colonies took it personal and how it all became a revolution.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Founding Mothers by C. M.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and so on. All founding fathers that have had an influence during the Revolution. But what you will most likely never see in a history book is how women played a role into the revolution as well.  Rosemarie Zagarri, a history teacher at the George Mason University, discusses how the war had an affect on both women and slaves and why they should be recognized as important figures in the Revolution. She went on to provide three significant women had their own contributions; Esther Derberdt Reed, Phyllis Wheatley, and Elizabeth Alexanader Stevens.
Zagarri explains how Esther Derberdt Reed and other women contributed by not purchasing English goods in hopes that Britain would repeal the taxes. Secondly, these women also went door to door and raised money for the Continental Army and made socks for them as a personal donation. Phyllis Wheatley was born in Africa and captured as a child and sold into slavery. Despite it being forbidden, her owners taught her to read and write and even taught her Latin which was considered to be something that gentlemen knew. She was encouraged to do poetry and her writings brought her fame in England and in the colonies. Figures such as George Washington even enjoyed her work. The last woman Zagarri mentioned was Elizabeth Alexander Stevens. Stevens was a widow living in New Jersey. Once her husband had passed, she now owned the land and the rules were that only landowners could vote and she became one of the first females to vote in New Jersey.
In class we discussed further in depth as to why these people and events were important. For instance, women were the source of economic influence because they were the primary consumers. the economic boycott was to apply pressure to have Britain repeal. There were also discussions about how the men would leave for war and the women had to take over care of the slaves and the land and even businesses. The new roles were sometimes successful because women would learn new things that they couldn't have before and the down side was that not all were successful. Other downsides included food shortages, dislocation, and even the threat of violence. Even with all the down sides, the result was the same. The Continental Army beat the British in the Revolution and a lot of that had to do with the support of women.
Even with all the examples and praise from men at in the era the questions that still remains are why were women not recognized as citizens? Why were these rights exclusively only for certain men even after womens influence during the Revolution?

Being British American by M. M.

The lecture of Dr. Joanne Freeman is about the differences between the British and British Americans during the colonial period. Dr. Freeman uses examples from Sir John Hamilton's diary, as well as other documents from the Virginia Historical Society, to describe not just the characteristics of British Americans, but Americans with various backgrounds. Through these documents, she describes how Americans talked, behaved, and thought, before comparing them to the British. She concludes that due to the environment that colonists were put in and the flexibility that the lack of rules provided them, they gradually changed their view of themselves from lower class British citizens, to equals of the British in England.
If I were asked to identify the purpose of this lecture, I would say that it would be to give the listener an understanding of what kind of mindset the colonists had prior to the American Revolution.One theme that was shared among the sources and documents that Dr. Freeman read from, was that the events described were from a man's point of view. A woman's point of view of these events is absent from the lecture despite Dr. Freeman being a woman herself. This leads me to believe that Dr. Freeman wished to have an outsider's point of view of the events that she described in third person.
During my class's discussion of Dr. Freeman's lecture, there was at least one question about everything that she brought up, but one subject that came up repeatedly was the absence a woman's point of view from the colonial period. When you think about it, how women were affected by the environment, how ideas of independence affected them, and what they thought themselves and the British, is still a mystery. We still don't know if their opinions were the same or different from the men's, if we knew, then we could have a clearer picture of what kind of lives the colonists lived.
Some of these questions were answered thanks to my classmates, who were able to look at the lecture from angles that I didn't. We concluded that the lack of activity from women in the stories we were told were linked to their lack of land. Land was one of the most important things to have if you were in America and it's also what allowed people to vote. Due to how much land was already taken by men, and how much their actions were restricted by not having land, there was little point in women doing anything other than finding land or marrying into a family with a lot of land. 

Founding Mothers by M. M.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams are just a few of the names of America’s Founding Fathers. Everyone knows who they were and how they contributed to the becoming of this nation. These men as many others are known as America’s Founding Fathers. The phrase “Founding Fathers” carries a lot of weight behind it, perhaps because we now know what those men endured, what they did to make this nation what it is now, and how they earned that title. However, they were not the only ones who endured hardships and were also not the only ones who did something towards the contribution of the making of this nation. There were other people who also deserve the right to be called Founding Fathers, or better yet, Founding Mothers. In order to be able to better understand the idea of America having Founding Mothers let us analyze a very interesting lecture from a well renowned historian Dr. Rosemarie Zagarri, Dr. Zagarri was a history professor at George Mason University, the Thomas Jefferson Chair of American Studies at the University of Amsterdam, and the president of the Society for Historians of the Early American Republic. Dr. Zagarri argues in her video lecture that women had as much to do in the founding era as men did, therefore they too deserve the right to be considered founders as well. The video/lecture starts us off by providing a brief summary of the events subsequent to the Stamp Act, the Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress, and the New York Merchants non-importation Agreement. Dr. Zagarri then, as evidence of her argument, proceeds to relate the stories of four different women and how they all played a special different role in the social and political advancements of that era.
The purpose of Dr. Zagarri’s lecture was to inform everyone of a lesser known part of American history. Through her lecture the audience was able to not only hear the voices of these women as the video went on but also understand their motives, ideas, and ambitions for a not so distant future. Despite the well told stories of these “Founding Mothers” one could argue that there could have been more examples of similar women who gave their blood, sweat, and tears; women like Martha Washington who was America’s first First Lady, Mercy Otis Warren who fought with her pen rather than with sable or musket, and Deborah Sampson whose fervor for the fight drove her to the front lines with her brothers in arms. Nevertheless, despite all the voices that could have been presented on this video that were not, no one can argue that Dr. Zagarri’s Founding Mothers choices were enough to cultivate a desire to learn more about this obscure topic.
While attempting to dissect and analyze Dr. Zagarri’s video/lecture the history 111 class touched some very interesting facts worth mentioning. First we discussed the Stamp Act and how it affected the colonies. What we were able to learn from this discussion was that the Stamp Act consisted of nothing more than Great Britain’s attempt to raise money rather than to balance commerce. The way they intended to raise this money was by requiring that every piece of printed paper be stamped, this was to include anything from playing cards to marriage certificates, wills, and any political document.  The main reason why parliament imposed the stamp act was to help pay for the cost of having troops in the New World.
Second, we talked about the colonies’ fight against taxation without representation through the resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress and the New York Merchants Non-importation Agreement. The colonials did not like the way Great Britain went about imposing this act because they were not included in its negotiation nor implementation. Therefore, they gathered in October 19, 1765 to address the King of England through writing, it was there that they wrote what is known as the Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress. In this resolution the colonists intended to express their discontent with the way they, as subjects of His Majesty whom have always shown allegiance to the Crown, were being treated. Throughout the entire content of the resolution the colonists remained tactful, humble, and respectful and at no point did they show any signs of anger. However, this was not the only way the colonials expressed their discontent since just 12 days later they passed the New York Merchants Non-importation Agreement. What this agreement consisted of was the boycott of the importation of all British goods and stop the exportation of some American goods; it started as only New York but soon Boston and Philadelphia joined in. Furthermore, there is one more key fact which must be explicitly highlighted. Throughout the entire content of the Resolution of the Stamp Act Congress and the New York Merchants Non-importation Agreement the colonists showed nothing but humbleness, respect, and tact. This was crucial since it showed the English Parliament that the colonists were not unjustifiably angry and out of control, that they were calmed, and all their moves were meticulously and collectively produced.
The third point we pondered upon was the ingenuity from the colonial political leaders as they outsourced by bringing in the women into the fight. This was something which had never been done before, it was so revolutionary and unheard of that Dr. Zagarri calls it: “a secret weapon”. The colonial political powers knew that in order to fully affect Great Britain in any way they would have to get all the colonial citizens involved, specially the primary consumers. That's what they did, they recruited the colonial women to take part in the economic boycott against British goods. One would think that the American women would have an issue with being told not to buy “their favorite cloth, their favorite ribbons, or hats, or buttons, or china, or tea from Britain” but no, despite the popular belief the American women were as supportive as expected. This is tremendously significant because these women were sacrificing what little independence and power they had; one must remember that these women did not share the same rights as men did, they were treated as second class citizens. Women of that era did not have the right to own property nor vote let alone run for office; it was a common belief that women of the time did not have the intellectual capacity to hold a political position.  
The fourth and final point we touched was the multiple examples of colonial women exercising different patriotic acts. The first woman we talked about was Esther de Berdt Reed. Esther de Berdt was an English woman married American born Joseph Reed who eventually became the secretary to Commander-in-chief George Washington. Esther de Berdt help the colonial leaders and citizens by recruiting more women with the power of the pen. De Berdt published an essay on multiple papers titled Sentiments of An American Woman, in this essay she called to other women to help the troops. Once she had gathered enough support from many different women she then traveled door-to-door asking people for donations. De Berdt and her counterparts raised over $7,000  which helped provide the troops with new shirts and socks which were personalized by each woman by putting their names on it. According to Dr. Zagarri, de Berdt’s actions inspired an uprise in female support for the troops from multiple states to include Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and New Jersey.
Another great example of female patriotism that we learned of thanks to Dr. Zagarri’s video/lecture was that of Phyllis Wheatley. Wheatley was an African born who was sold into slavery to an American family, the Wheatleys. Wheatley did not have the life of a typical slave, she was not brought to work the fields, she was bought to be a domestic slave. The Wheatleys noticed that she was a fast learner and was very intelligent therefore, they decided to exploit their intellectual capacities by teaching her not only how to read and write but also “the mathematics, they taught her geography, history, and even the classics”. If that wasn’t admirable enough they also taught her how to read the classical language of Latin. During her teenage years she decided to write poetry, her talent was so good that one of her poems was actually published therefore, the Wheatleys decided to look for an American publisher to help her publish her poetry book; sadly no one in this side of the Atlantic was interested. The Wheatleys were not ready to give up so easily so in May of 1773 they decided to send her to England along with their son, it was there that she met the Countess of Huntington who sponsored the publication of her book in England, later on in that same year the book was also published in America. It should be noted that a lot of her poetry discussed patriotism and morality, in fact in 1775 she wrote a poem to George Washington in which she celebrated his excellency as the Commander-in-Chief and the American struggle against Britain. Washington received this poem with allegory and actually met with Wheatley, this comes to show that even a black slave woman during the colonial era can achieve greatness with a little support.
The next woman we talked about was Elizabeth Alexander Stephens who was a wealthy widow who lived and owned land in Essex County. Before we talk about why Stephens was so notable we must first understand that in colonial American women were not allowed to vote except for in New Jersey, that's at least during the period from 1776 to 1807. In an era where the entire colonial America was trying to win the fight against taxation without representation this was a touchy subject. Many unmarried and single women who owned land did not like the fact that they had to pay taxes even though they couldn’t vote and did not have a voice to represent them. The reason why this woman was a notable woman was because she was particularly attentive to the way the law was written. New Jersey’s law stated that all citizens were allowed to vote, this meant freed slaves and women who owned land as well. However, since this idea “violated the notions about men’s and women’s proper roles” this law did not last very long.
In short, these women that we have spoken of and many others deserve the right to be called Founding Mothers. Everyone knows of the direct actions from the Founding Fathers which led to the Revolution; however, not everyone knows the direct, indirect, and influential actions that these women made towards the contribution and the advancement towards independence. There are two points to take away from Dr. Zagarri’s lecture: The main point is that these women despite the second class citizen treatment and the inequality, still found it within them to remain loyal to their men, themselves, and most important to their nation. The second point is that her video/lecture was so captivating that it cultivated a hunger to not just understand but also master this obscure topic unbeknownst to most of the American population. I can attest to this since I was present during the discussion on February 28 where a plethora of questions were asked by my counterparts. No questions were left unanswered, however there was a desire for more knowledge shared amongst us. For example, the desire to have heard more examples from other Founding Mothers and the desire to have dug deeper into the political and social influence the Founding Mothers had on colonial America.