give me liberty!: an American history (fourth edition), 10 history journals help

User Generated

fgbar8311

Humanities

Description

Using the book "give me liberty!: an American history (fourth edition)" written by Eric foner complete the following. 


You will make two separate journal submissions during this course. Each submission will be worth 100 points.

  • Each submission will consist of 10 separate journal entries.
  • Save the file containing your first set of 10 entries in .rtf (rich text format), and name the file Journal #1.
  • For clarity and ease, please title your entries as Entry 1, Entry 2, Entry 3, etc.
  • Each separate journal entry should be a minimum of 150 words in length.
  • Each entry should pertain to United States History prior to 1877.
  • Each entry should be written in your own words.
  • Submission of only half the required length/number of journals will earn half of the available points.

To gain a better understanding of journal entry expectations, please review the sample entry below:

Entry 1

What was the Declaration of Independence all about? It was written by Thomas Jefferson but was probably not signed on July 4th, 1776. It was written after hostilities had broken out. Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill had taken place a year earlier. Why so late? The reason might be that the colonies were not yet united in their response to Britain. Many did not want to leave the empire only a few years earlier they had boasted about. Also, taking on the powerful British empire with trained troops seemed almost impossible. Several of the condemnations in the declaration were not true, and they were addressed to King George III rather than Parliament, which had the real power. It is quite possible that the colonial leadership did not want to attack a representative institution even though it was hardly representative of the people of Britain. Still, the declaration won widespread approval and helped to unite the colonists.

Note: You will notice that this entry is greater than 150 words in length.

  • Keep in mind that 150 words is the minimum length.
  • There are no "right or wrong" answers, and it is not required that your instructor "agree" with your entry.
  • You will be graded on how your entry demonstrates that you have read and thought about the material.
  • You are encouraged to use the journal entries as study aids for the exams.

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

HERE WE GO with the Final Work Product:

Running head: JOURNAL 1

Journal 1: Resonant Personal Reflections of the Student on American History, Pre-1877
By Mike Cullum
Name of Institution

JOURNAL 1
Entry 1
My immediate personal reflection upon the undercurrents which sparked The Revolution in
Colonial America is how similar their genesis was to the (much more) contemporary
machinations of modern social media. At first glance, such a comparison may seem specious or,
at the least, difficult to discern in latent logic. However, the direct linkage which I see (and
surmise) is the innovative, highly-effective grassroots function of the Committees of
Correspondence. They were far more than a motley crew of random, wannabe patriots “hanging
out” in rural road houses and city pubs scattered across the heartland, from north to south.
Instead, in stark contrast, they were the tautly specific storm troops of revolution (via their red
right hand of cogent, cohesive communication) and, I say, the forerunners of today’s pervasive
social media permeating every corner of everyday communication, frequently annoyingly so. The
only one annoyed by the tactical tenets of the Committees of Correspondence was perhaps King
George himself, if he had known of their alleged treachery and fomenting talk of “treason.”
These Committees – spearheaded by bold men like Sam Adams – did so much more than talk,
though, and I often think of them every time I log onto Facebook and other popular
culture/social media platforms. I imagine, in my heart of hearts and my own patriotic soul, what
these proud Founding Fathers could have accomplished – in singular mighty strokes, like
lightning bolts of insurgence – if they had had access to the internet and all its associated
infrastructure. The evil, for example, that ISIS is doing today (over the worldwide web) could
have been countered in revolutionary resonance and ultimate redemption by these pure patriots
and Founding Fathers.

Entry 2
I am struck by the lack of common attention directed toward the Loyalists, those early Americans
who remained in eternal allegiance to the Crown even though many of their outspoken neighbors
throughout the countryside talked of (and dreamed of) nothing more and nothing less than total,
complete Revolution. I doubt very seriously if cursory students of history (who do not wield
somewhat a strategic magnifying glass toward the hidden, between-the-lines developments and
delineations of the subtler hues and threads of American horizons) are even remotely aware that
a sizable segment of Americans not only opposed the Revolution but simply packed their bags
and moved to Canada.
Directly in line with these musings, I had a baffling (yet fascinating) encounter with just such a
spokesperson and informal student of history not too many Spring Breaks ago, on the beach. A
rather hulking stranger approached me in the blinding sun and summarily began poking me in
the chest with his index finger: “Be a part of the TWO PERCENT!! Be a part of the TWO
PERCENT!!” was his endless mantra. When he finally calmed down (a bit) and ceased literally
frothing at the mouth, he explained semi-patiently that he was referencing the “fact” (his, that
is) that only two percent of the greater American civilian population took up arms in Colonial

times and actually fought the British. His further thematic point was that even today, there is
only, generally speaking, a righteous two percent segment that will “take up arms” and fight the
formidable evil forces of the day. Still screaming, “Be a part of the two percent!” he soon faded
into the afternoon sun and surf (I found out later in the vacation that this “gentleman” had been
listening – perhaps too much – to erstwhile [discredited] radio and internet commentator Alex
Jones). By the way, for the record, our prescient course-text notes that approximately 20 percent
(at most) of the general Colonial citizenry were Loyalists and, by definition, loyal to the Crown,
to a fault – not quite the 98 percent alleged in the drunken stupor of Spring Break historical
deliverance.

Entry 3

As a longtime aficionado of sports trivia and insider knowledge, I too adopt (and adapt) that
same mindset toward American history. In other words, I like to see between the seams and
between the lines. Along that continuum of off-the-main-roads, blue-highway-style thinking, I
greatly admire one Crispus Attucks, arguably the first casualty (and martyr) of The American
Revolution. Attacks, of course, was the African-American (then branded, in archaic style, as a
“mulatto”) street patriot who perished in the Boston Massacre, 1770. Beyond his own (yes,
heroic) personal sacrifice, I am moved intellectually by observations regarding exactly how the
events and details of the “Massacre” were promulgated (and molded) throughout the Colonies.
[On a side note, it seems even then, there existed – regrettably so – questionable “law
enforcement” shootings of civilians, and a violent, vexing response to same from the populace. It
is “nice” (in some sense of the word) to realize this phenomenon is surely not a “new” societal
problem.] Beyond that perimeter and those parameters, though, I am largely affected by
specifically how the violent event was somewhat “used” by those (albeit-sincere) soldiers of
social change who desired to foment Revolution and implement widespread news of the
Massacre as a tactical tool in that direction. My point: From all historical record, the actual
“Boston Massacre” (such as it was) consisted of much confusing, obfuscated scuffling, standard
street-level disagreement(s) and a little rock-throwing thrown in for good measure, in an
obvious, overt confrontation between uniformed British regulars and a motley crew of assorted
civilians who cared little for them or their red coats and bayonets. However, when the seminal
event was committed to history (via a “mass” media-spread lithograph of the day), it appeared
as a wholly intentional, provocative act by the British interlopers, who were depicted standing in
tight formation and deliberately firing into an approaching crowd. One cannot help be struck not
by the year, 1770, but the mythical year 1984, some 214 years down the hall of history; that is,
perpetually tied to author/prophet George Orwell and his k...

Related Tags