American+Revolution

__//**The American Revolution**//__

__** Word Association With the American Revolution **__

__** Word Association from a Briton's Perspective #1 **__

media type="custom" key="7101763"

__** Word Association from a Briton's Perspective #2 **__

__What did you find that you agreed with from the British perspective?__ I found out that the British was rightfully correct to tax the Massachusetts taxpayer one shilling to help gain back their money from Seven Year War. The Massachusetts taxpayer shouldn't be complaining that they had to pay that much, when the Britons had to pay...26 shillings per year? That's far more than what they had to pay. I think that the Massachusetts taxpayers were greedy, and selfish people.

__What did you disagree with?__ As I read that article, so far I don't think there's much to disagree with. Most of the stuff, I pretty much do agree with because it just shows how Massachusetts taxpayers had it easier than the Britons and yet they still complain about the taxes. Those taxpayers even celebrated with the British because they won the Seven Year War, and not even 10 years after...or so the colonists broke out with another war. Its like as if they decided to strike England when it was at its weak spot or something.

__Why?__ As I said before, so far as I read I couldn't disagree with the article because most of the information that I read, I agreed with rather than disagree with. Is this a bad thing?

__**Figures in the American Revolution**__

__Paul Revere__

__Crispus Attucks__ The British may have viewed Crispus Attucks as a "black man," or a "negro," at first. They may also have thought he was one of the "terrorists," or "traitors," since he rebelled along with 40-50 other people. Even though he was one of the men that was in the front line and encouraged others to keep rebelling, the soldiers shot him and kill him first. They may have thought 'This man was stupid for trying to act tough, and now he's dead.'

__**My Thoughts on the Article**__ I think that what the colonists did was unfair to the British. Okay, even if they did help out with the Seven Years' War, the British obviously did way more than the colonists. In return for that, the colonists had to pay a tax, which I thought was completely fine. The fact that they wouldn't pay the taxes, destroy £10,000 worth of tea and start having outbreaks just shows how selfish and/or greedy the colonists were. But I was thinking...if British was the almighty world power country at that time, wouldn't they have been able to crush the colonists? Or was it because since they just pretty much finished the Seven Years' War, they aren't as strong and had a weak point in which they would lost during war?...If that made sense whatsoever.

__**Do Now 10/6**__ __Summarize what is meant by **perspective.**__

Perspective is basically the thoughts someone thinks of someone else based on their point of view. For example, the British had a perspective of the colonists that they were terrorists. On the other hand the colonists' perspective of the British was that they were being unfair. It's all based on the point of view, and from each person, that perspective can change significantly.

I don't believe this at all. If they government raised the tax on all products that included sugar in it, then a lot of people wouldn't want to buy them as much as they would if the govt. didn't tax the sugary foods.

[] [] []

__**Homework 10/6**__ __What are your thoughts on the Sugar Act? Was it reasonable or not? Why?__ (I decided to see how my thoughts would come out if I took both sides...if that's okay)

I actually think that the Sugar Act was a reasonable thing that the British did. Since they did provide the defense to the colonists for the war, it's only fair if the colonists paid some sort of debt. And since pretty much any food that has sugar in it was rather enjoying to have, the British was smart to tax the sugar. But I'm having doubts. The colonists would start to not spend anything that has sugar in it, or boycott rather and probably start protesting.

I don't think the Sugar Acts were reasonable. The colonists paid their parts in the war by sending their men to help fight. These colonists back then worked hard, and most of their money was probably gone if they paid for any products that included sugar in them. The British should've taxed them on other things, and not only sugar. I don't know why the British only taxed the colonists mainly on the sugar. Was it like really expensive and important back then? Well more important than it was now?

__** Homework 10/7 **__

//__Why is it important to acknowledge other perspectives even is we disagree?__// It's important to acknowledge other peoples' perspective because even if we disagree with what they say, the points that they bring up may be key facts in their opinion. And of course, if we don't have all the information, we can't really say anything back without and evidence. Also, when we have a discussion as to why we disagree, we discover more facts that can be used in our opinions, therefore furthering our understanding of what we learn.

__** Do Now 10/19 **__ __//What is a stamp?//__

A stamp is a sticker you put on mail and you have to pay money for it.

__** Opening Activity 10/19 **__

__//Describe what you think is the difference between a **direct** and **indirect** tax in 1-2 sentences.//__ I think a direct tax is a tax that's shown on products. And an indirect tax is a tax that isn't shown but implied on the products.

__//Pair/Share your answers with a partner. Reach a consensus on what you think is the correct definition.//__ A direct tax is directed towards specific products and is shown. Indirect tax is a tax not directed towards specific products.

__//Using a trustworthy search engine, look up both key terms and fix your answers based upon what you learn. Cite the websites from where you found your information.//__ A direct tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to another entity. [] A tax that increases the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products. []

__//Give a modern day example of a direct tax and a modern example of an indirect tax.//__ Direct Tax - Income and property taxes Indirect Tax- Fuel, liquor, cigarettes.

__** Homework 10/19 **__ media type="custom" key="7245933"

__** Do Now 10/22 **__ media type="custom" key="7276779"

__** Activity 2 **__

__** Activity 3 **__ //How does it seem the colonists felt about the Stamp Act?// //How do you think they might react to the imposition of this law?// The colonists didn't like the Stamp Act at all. They pretty much hated it. This was the tax that affected them the most. The colonists actually needed paper and packages for communication and whatnot. They would have to pay a tax pretty much, every single day since many people read the newspaper. They weren't so mad about the Sugar Act because they could have lived without sugar, and got their sugar illegally. They might have started riots, outbreaks even torch houses. The colonists were very...violent back then.

media type="custom" key="7294519"

I guess my prediction was right? I mean the colonists did hate the Stamp Act a lot more than they did with the Sugar Act. But I didn't think that they would go so far as to pull a "prank" and hang a British Official in effigy. I thought that they kind of took it too far-ish. And well, I thought of my prediction as that because based on all of the articles I read, and discussions, I thought they were going to be close to what I thought in my prediction.

__** The Boston Riot of 26 August 1765 **__ media type="custom" key="7297757"

__** Proclamation, 1765, Published by Authority by his Excellency Francis Bernard, Esquire **__

Broken Link

__** Summarizing **__ The situation in Boston in late August in 1765 was that the colonists were really mad about the Stamp Act. According to the article, the best way to gather a crowd of people is to hang a dummy of a hated authority official. These people were so mad that they had to pay taxes for pretty much everything they used that makes their life easier. A mob made their way to a house that was owned by Thomas Hutchinson. They literally teared down his house and looted everything that he had. I think maybe, having more security could've made this a more peaceful situation. Also, maybe they should've let the colonists have a representative to speak of how the colonists felt about the Stamp Act, rather than assuming like they usually do.

__** Do Now 11/3 **__ //Summarize the Townshend Acts & how the colonists responded.//

The Townshend Acts were a series of laws passed by Parliament in 1767. The colonists first reacted to these laws by boycotting, which began to fail in 1770 and officially ended in 1771.

__**Differences Between the 2 Boston Massacre Pictures**__ The first picture shows the British soldiers shooting into the crowd. The second pictures shows the colonists fighting back at the British.

Yes, I think that the jury found the British guilty. I say this because the whole jury and courtroom was full of Bostonians, and of course they hated the British. With that hate, no one would dare care to defend the British people. People would agree to the Bostononians for everything they said, just to see the British get taken away.
 * __Do you think the jury found the British guilty?__**

I do agree that what the courtroom did was right. They weren't bias and favor the Bostonians because they were also Bostonians. They listened to each side, and witnesses and ended up with a justified judgement. The Bostonians thought they'd get away with what they did, but with fairness, the British ended up being not guilty.
 * __Do you agree about the justification in the Boston court?__**

I think that the British reacted to the Boston Massacre, as violent, and "disturbing the peace," or something weird like that. They might've sent over more troops, or been more tight on security and have like a British soldier in every corner of each street. But they may have wondered why, after all of these disputes and conflicts, that a colonist would help defend against the British soldiers. While other British may have thought "what a good job, defending the soldiers." __** ﻿ **__
 * __Make a prediction about how the British reacted to the Boston Massacre and the trial.__**



November 15.

https://crocodoc.com/yXBVHn (Wouldn't download the file)

The two similarities that these two documents share is that they both stated the dates and places where the colonists met. But that was pretty much it. However the differences vary. In the wikipedia document, it stated that the colonists boycotted and they created a Second Continental Congress too. It also included Galloway's Plan of Union. In the USF document, it gave background information about the First Continental Congress by talking about the Intolerable Acts first. Then it shifted to the First Continental Congress and talked about the four leaders of the FCC. It also talked about like groups that the colonists made during this time and how hostilities began.


 * Indirect Tax || A tax that wasn't shown on products ||
 * Direct Tax || A tax that was shown on products ||
 * Stamp Act || A tax on paper, mailing, envelopes and packages ||
 * Sugar Act || A tax on sugar and molasses ||
 * Townshend Acts || Increased taxes on imported goods ||
 * Effigy || A representation of a person ||
 * Intolerable Acts || Several laws passed by Parliament due to the Boston Tea Party. ||

__ Vocab 11/16 __ Arms and Ammunition - Weapons and bullets (Muskets - creates smoke) Paul Revere - most famous alarm rider Joseph Warren - a doctor, only leader in Boston NOT WANTED by the British. Militia - Everyday people trained as soldiers Minutemen - a group of men from the colonial military during the American Revolution, got ready in a minute British Regular - Foot soldiers of the British ARMY."Redcoats" to be seen in the smoke. Alarm Riders - warned minutemen of "attacks"

Battle of Lexington and Concord



The colonists shot at the British army, not because they wanted to but they were in a lose-lose situation. And most people that have pride for themselves would die with a fight than die without one.



Under the circumstances of it being a lose-lose situation like the colonists, then would I consider about taking arms against my own government soldiers. But I would never do so because the soldiers protect the country. If I was put under the circumstances of a lose-lose situation, I would rather die without a fight from them, because they're doing the right thing. The people who would shoot them and then die, I wouldn't get, because there isn't a real reason of why they would shoot them even if they were going to die both ways. Why not just let more of the government soldiers live to protect other people that wouldn't shoot them for the hell of it?

Summary - Legacy of Conflict The document revealed the interpretations from the British's perspective, and also from the colonist's perspective too. It showed where the battle was fought at. The document also gave us pictures of maps and letters that were written during that time.

Summarize 3/5 Compromise
 * Do Now 1/10/11**

The 3/5 Compromise was a compromise between the North & South colonies that said 3/5 of the slaves would be counted in a census to decide how many people would be in the House of Representatives and dsitribution of taxes.

__CCQ__ How come only three-fifths of the slaves were counted in the census, rather than all of the slaves? Was it because one state would have more representatives than others because their state holds more slaves?

Slaves were worth 3/5 of a person.

Made slavery part of Constitution. Established that slaves were objects that could be sold, bought and owned.

Slaves become property.

If the US government elimanted slaves, it would have gone against the Constitution. __Definition__ The three-fifths compromise was an agreement between the northern and southern states, in which three-fifths of the slave population would be counted in a census that would decide how many people would be in the HoR and the distribution of taxes.

Read and summarize the first ammendment the Const on the class wiki. Then look up and define what is meant by "amendments."
 * Do Now 1/11/11**

-Congress won't make any laws that would restrain someone from expressing themselves through speech, religion, press, or peacefully petitioning to the government.

Define Amendments

-A change made that is made by correction, addition, or deletion to the document.

__Principal Arguments__ -Writing about the parent's divorce would violate the parent's ammendment, because unless they accepted that the article be published, it would make the parents feel uncomfortable.

__Students__ -Other articles were published on the page that didn't violate their ammendments

__Poll__ I chose to side with the school district, because the student's wrote about the divorce of their parents, in which would violate the parent's first ammendments. Also, it would disrupt the school environment if it was to be published. Although, the prinicpal


 * Do Now 1/14/11**
 * 1) I am the President, I can declare war on Lower Slobovia; I can make any decision I want.
 * 2) I am a Senator; I can help write and pass any law I want.
 * 3) I am the President of the United States; I can veto any law passed by Congress.
 * 4) I am the President of the United States; I can do anything I want.
 * 5) I am the President of the United States; I can make a treaty with Upper Slobovia.
 * 6) We're the Supreme Court; we'll be ruling on every law for years.