Anna Olson Group 2

Throughout the readings in Skemp, we continue to see William and Benjamin develop not only their personal, but business relationship. They were both so optimistic in everything they did, especially after the repeal of the Stamp Act in 1775. There is no way they were going to allow minor setbacks to put a damper on their dream of creating a British colony in the Illinois country. My question here is, would Benjamin have accomplished the things he did and be as famous as he is today were is not for his illegitimate son, William? In the last reading, I was under the impression that Ben was the one doing Will all the favors but now I feel it’s the other way around. In November 1768 when Hillsborough personally attacked Ben, William was right there to back his father up and convince the assembly to conform to the Mutiny Act. This is just one of the examples that show what a strong political bond Ben and Will had. Will tended to his father’s business and political affairs and also cared for his extended family in times of need, which allowed for Ben to remain in London. Ben and Will were each other’s “invaluable allies”.

Ari Pearson Group 2

In chapter 5 of America, a Concise History, the British Victory in The War for Empire gives rise to changes in the British government and its policies both at home and abroad. These changes will create an environment from which the colonists will eventually strike out for independence. During the war it becomes apparent to both colonists and British officials that their philosophies no longer match up as conflicts arise in the decision making processes. After the discovery during the war, that local governments have become powerful and influential in the colonies, the British Government feels the need to strengthen its position of power over the colonies by a more strict enforcement of the Navigation Acts and by deploying troops in the colonies. A national debt caused by the war also causes Britain to tax the colonies, further straining relations between the two.
It is interesting that after fighting so hard for "Empire", every action of the British government seems only to undermine the British supremacy in the colonies. After the proposal of the stamp act, Benjamin Franklin responds with a request for American representation in Parliament. Clearly the American people feel that they are British subjects as they are talking about representation at this point. It seems that they would have been willing to pay the taxes if they had a voice in the creation of legislation. It is the defiance of these wishes intended to hold supremacy over the colonies by the British that actually caused them to break away and rebel. Had Britain given them representation in the Parliament when it was proposed by Ben Franklin, would colonists have decided to start the battle for independence? Do you think the revolution was inevitable and that giving them representation would have only prolonged the process? Perhaps even with representation in the government, the unreasonable taxation, trade regulation and military presence would have caused the rebellion. Was there a specific turning point in the rebellion such as the stamp act or was this an inevitable out come of the growing maturity of a young society?

Caitlin Thornbrugh Group 2

In reading Skemp’s work I think it is important to remember the idea we were talking about in discussion that we are studying history from someone’s perspective. What would the history of colonial America be described at if we were under the direction of a British historian. What descriptions of the people and events would be different? In describing Benjamin Franklin the majority of Americans would choose to look at all he contributed to the founding of our society. I wonder what the English would have to say about him. On page 77 Skemp discusses his “contradictory” messages as he tried to be the middle man. The American government is not quick to admit its wrongdoings. The description of Lord Hillborough plays on the emotions of the readers to build up an aversion to him—he is described as “unbending” and issuing “firmer control over the colonies.” Then set against the hero Ben Franklin in a “showdown” it makes it hard for the American reader to see maybe he was just trying to do what he felt was the right thing for his job and for his country. There is a quote from Franklin saying he should be known for his “Conceit, Wrong headedness, Obstinacy and Passion.” Could some of these adjectives also describe Franklin himself? An example of this would be when he sends the letters between Hutchinson and Oliver to Thomas Cushing. I think Henretta’s description of Hillborough’s activities on page 149 leaves more room for the reader to draw their own conclusions, because it simply states what he did, and uses only direct quotes from him.