When we examine the past, we must place ourselves in the right frame of mind. ItWhen we examine the past, we must place ourselves in the right frame of mind. It is impossible to adequately understand an historical event using a 21st century mind-set. As an example, when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, they discovered a vacated village. The land hath been planted with corn three or four years ago, and there is a very sweet brook runs under the hillside.[1] Bolstered by their religious conviction, these early settlers firmly believed that God had set them here, and cleared the land for their taking. We know today, that Native-Americans did not have the necessary immunities to fight-off European diseases, and died in great numbers. In Europe, these same diseases had existed for centuries, and had become endemic. Fishermen, and traders, had long plied the waters of the New England coast, and passed these diseases to the local inhabitants.
Now take a moment, and place yourself in the mind of the local people. If you were a Native American, you saw your people dying in great numbers, yet Europeans remained healthy. There are a number of scenarios that could have developed here, but in most cases, what do you think Native-Americans must have thought of this situation? If you placed yourself in their situation, does it not stand to reason that you would begin to think that your spirits had failed you, and perhaps the God of the settlers protected them? Based on our assumptions, we would think that as a result, Native Americans, then, converted in large numbers. What is necessary is a clear understanding of early-contact Native American culture. For indigenous Americans, it centered on spiritual power. Power could be increased through addition, not subtraction. Instead of giving up their ancient spiritual practices, they instead, simply added the Christian God.
What we gain, by examining the past through a lens focused on that point in history, is a deeper understanding of the dynamics at play, and empathy for all participants. Today, some things are just unacceptable. We cringe at the thought of slavery, child labor, no rights for women, and segregation, to name a few, but they all existed at one point in time. More remarkably, a strong justification existed for each of these that prevailed to the point where they proved to be generally accepted. Of the fifty-five delegates to the US Constitutional Convention, 49 percent owned slaves.
This is not to say that the Revolutionary Generation were hypocrites, but they were conflicted over the chief moral dilemma of their era, slavery. The whole commerce betw
een master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.[2] Despite writing these words, Thomas Jefferson held slaves at Monticello, and unlike George Washington, did not free them in his will.
For this discussion, you will argue against the American Revolution against as Loyalist or Tory citizens.
Loyalist James Chalmers, under the pseudonym of Candidus, wrote Plain Truth in response to Thomas Paine’s famous pamphlet Common Sense (londonessays.com You can select the enclosed link to read Thomas Paine at Gutenberg Project. Then read the excerpted text (below) from Chalmers, shaping your statement in support or in opposition to Chalmers’ argument.
Try not to make assumptions. Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the colonies in the period up to, and including, the American Revolution. You could be a Colonial politician, a merchant, a farmer, a shop owner, or even a Southern plantation owner. Be creative.
Excerpted text:
“I have just heard the news of a small group of ruffians who have dumped a large amount of tea into the Boston Harbor. The initial report was that this group was a roving band of Indians. I refuse to be influenced by the underground rebellious press that continues to feed us with false reports and slanted view points that support a rebellion against the Crown. I and many loyal Colonists have found the truth to this report. The ruffians were actually a group of men , most of them are associated with the secret society of Masons. The event demonstrates a useless destruction of property against the East India Company. I am writing to inform you that the tea which was destroyed was sent to the Colonies to be sold at a very competitive price as the East India Tea Company has a surplus of tea. King George has authorized the sale of this tea to benefit the Colonies. This tea would have also helped the financial state of the East India Tea Company of which we certainly hope would stay solvent. We have also found information alluding to the tea smuggling operations of John Hancock and other of the rebellion supporters. Could it be that the tea in Boston Harbor was destroyed to prevent competitive pricing of tea? (are we merely changing tax collectors?) Why do we continue to anger King George by useless acts of property damage?
I urge you all to consider the price we would pay for rebellion against the Crown. Some of our Colonists call this revolution but you must realize that this is a huge mistake, any actions against the Crown represent a mere rebellion.[1]”