ben farmer group 4

my first thought is about the present abilities thomas paine speaks of in his writings. one of his calls for independence is that while the colonies are in their youth, this is the perfect time since strong indiviual colonies have not yet developed to diminish the possibility of a union later. my question is, had great britian bowed to the demands of the colonies, would this have postponed the revolution long enough that it would have never happened? my own thought is that it would have eventually happened but under completely different circumstances. i think the union of some might of still have happened but that you would have had numerous small coutries much like europe. in reality his prediction was true seeing as around 80 years later we had the civil war which showed the fragility of the union.


while reading the declaration of independce one part in particular jumped out at me. a few lines spoke of how a people, when under a government that no longer serves them, should and have the right to throw off their current governing body and start a new one. my question is, if everyone becomes frustrated and fed up with our current government today, what would be the new one be?

Jake Sherman Group 3 (Very Late)

Division. The one theme that links the three readings together. In Skemp we see the division between William and Benjamin. In the "Concise History" reading we see the division between the colonies and the British Empire. In Henretta we get a lot of questions asking about this division, forcing us to wonder "why" and "how" it could have played out differently. It is important to note that history does indeed repeat itself in more than one form. If we look at the religious ideas that fueled the division of the colonies from each other, the British Empire, and the Native Americans and then subsequently look at the religious ideas that are fueling the division in our world today, we can see many similarities.

After finishing the Skemp reading I thought back to a book I had to read for my fourth grade or third grade class. My Brother Sam is Dead. Although this story was extremely dramatized and doesn't follow the EXACT scale of division that Benjamin and William had, it does give us a parallel to work off of. Families all over the colonies were being torn apart over this clash in political, economic, social, religious, and philosophical ideas. And we can see the same happening in the same continent, in the same country over two centuries later.

When looking at the "Concise History" reading, we draw a few other conclusions on how division based on the above ideas has formed our country, and learn how to use this information to understand how it is STILL forming our country. When the first two colonies declared independence a chain reaction throughout all the colonies took place. Those who had not been politically active in this dispute before, found themselves being presented with an ultimatum. I am of course also referring to the rest of the world after the French signed a treaty with the patriots after the battle of Saratoga. They must become politically active as a loyalist or a patriot. This is easily paralleled with a State of the Union address in 2001 by president George W. Bush in which an ultimatum was given to the world much in the same way it had happened in 1776 and 1777.


In what other ways can we parallel political divides in the American Revolution to our political divides today?

Emma Ewert Group 3

In chapter 6 of America a Concise History, I think one of the most important parts is The French Alliance. At the time, France was the most powerful European nation, so they had a lot to offer the Americans. As it says on page 178, "The alliance brought the Americans money, troops, and supplies and changed the conflict from a colonial rebellion to an international war." In my opinion, forming an alliance with France was a necessary move for the Americans to win the war. Would we have won the war if it had not been for the French?
Something else that I noticed in the Henretta reading was on page 183. This page is full of questions about events that happened. It is interesting to think about all of these "what if" questions and their answers. There are always going to be questions about what if someone had done this or that. But what if one the answers to these questions were different, such as, "Why had Howe not ruthlessly pursued Washington's army in 1776?" Would one of these minor things have changed the outcome of the war at all?
In the Skemp reading for this week, one sentence can sum up what is happening. On page 126 it says, "King and country, father and son, were about to go their separate ways." In the reading this week that is exactly what happened. Ben and Will started to drift more and more apart. Both were stubborn men who stuck to their beliefs, unwilling to back down. The same is true for the King and country; ultimately they had to part. What would have happened though, if either Will or Ben had given in and done what the other had wanted?

Ryan Sipple Group 3

In this weeks Skemp readings you can start to see how Benjamin and William start to go their serparate ways. Benjamin starts to share his harsh feelings for the empire with William, though these thoughts concern William, he could not see him and Benjamin going their serparate ways. Benjamin became greatly angered after he was removed from his post office position, two days later he wrote a letter to William revealing his pain, and asking William to resign his position as governor. Benjamin reminded William that he had no chance of promotion, and that the position was poorly funded. My question is, is Benjamin simply overreacting, or is this a desperate attempt to convince William to side with the patriots?

In chapter 6 of America a concise history, we read about how the colonies declared independence which lead to the Revolutionary war. In the first two years of the war the British army dominated the Continental army, George Washington and his men retreated time after time. In 1777 the battle of Saratoga proved to be the turing point for the war, following this victory the French signed a treaty with America, and unlitimately helped defeat the British in Yorktown in 1781. My question is, do you believe the Continental army would have eventually defeated the British without help from the French?

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.