Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Propaganda Project
For my Propaganda Project I'm planing on doing a few commercials on aternative fuels. I will do one that relates to global warming, one that relates to how it would affect the war, and a final one on which way would be most economical. I will use resorse such as books on different fuels and the wall street journal which has many articles on fuel today.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
John Hancock
The Sons of Liberty
May 6, 2007
“At the risk of our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence as the President of the Continental Congress. According to the Famous Signers of the Declaration by Dorothy Horton McGee, he put the largest fortune in America and his own honor on the line for “his native land.” John Hancock followed in his uncle’s footsteps and took over his uncle’s business when he got older. This one man, with his great fortune, was risked by one tax that was forced on him and other businessmen by the English.
Graduating from Harvard in 1754, John Hancock entered his uncle’s firm as a clerk. In 1760, his uncle was so impressed by his work that Hancock was sent to represent the business house in London. “Having had long Experience of his Uprightness & great Abilities for Business…” Hancock’s uncle’s spoke of him when he hired him on January 1, 1763 as a partner of the firm of importers, merchants and ship owners. Yet, this partnership did not last very long, for Thomas Hancock died and left his great fortune to John Hancock on August 1, 1764. More than a year later, John Hancock was named the selectman of Boston, as his uncle was before
him.
The Stamp Act was founded in 1765; it was made so they would needed a special stamp to make any document a “legal” document, thus when anything was sold, traded, or shipped; the proof of legality would have to be a stamped document. This would cost the businessmen much more money. Also, many did not feel that it was a viable act and didn’t abide by it. For instance, John Hancock sailed the Boston Packet in the middle of December without the legal stamp, and all the cargo was taken and was used to pay the Royal Officers in support of the British East India Company.
“It is a Cruel hardship upon us & unless we are Redressed we must be Ruin’d…” John Hancock was trying to promote the expulsion of the Stamp Act, for its “fatal Effects of these Grievances you will Sensibly feel; our Trade must decay...” A month later Hancock was writing the protest of the Stamp Act and within this document he wrote of how this act weakens “the best Security of our Lives Libertys and Estates…” This “Cruel Act” and submits him and the commerce to what he referred to as “Slavery.”
With the help of “The Sons of Liberty,” John Hancock was able to enforce his boycotts and persuade the people to revolt against England. This in turn, led to the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. On this day, the colonials threw three hundred and forty chests of tea valued at ten thousand British pounds (back in 1773), hitting England where it hurts the most. England had finally received the message that the colonists were not going to follow by their rules for any longer.
Throughout the many battles with the English, New England was successful in their revolt for freedom from England. The “Sons of Liberty” were able to prevent the English from controlling the New England ports and governments. On July 4, 1776, the most historical name in history was signed on the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock signed the document that would save his life, fortune, and sacred honor or would have sentence him and New England to live a future of intolerable taxes and acts by the rule of one.
May 6, 2007
“At the risk of our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” John Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence as the President of the Continental Congress. According to the Famous Signers of the Declaration by Dorothy Horton McGee, he put the largest fortune in America and his own honor on the line for “his native land.” John Hancock followed in his uncle’s footsteps and took over his uncle’s business when he got older. This one man, with his great fortune, was risked by one tax that was forced on him and other businessmen by the English.
Graduating from Harvard in 1754, John Hancock entered his uncle’s firm as a clerk. In 1760, his uncle was so impressed by his work that Hancock was sent to represent the business house in London. “Having had long Experience of his Uprightness & great Abilities for Business…” Hancock’s uncle’s spoke of him when he hired him on January 1, 1763 as a partner of the firm of importers, merchants and ship owners. Yet, this partnership did not last very long, for Thomas Hancock died and left his great fortune to John Hancock on August 1, 1764. More than a year later, John Hancock was named the selectman of Boston, as his uncle was before
him.
The Stamp Act was founded in 1765; it was made so they would needed a special stamp to make any document a “legal” document, thus when anything was sold, traded, or shipped; the proof of legality would have to be a stamped document. This would cost the businessmen much more money. Also, many did not feel that it was a viable act and didn’t abide by it. For instance, John Hancock sailed the Boston Packet in the middle of December without the legal stamp, and all the cargo was taken and was used to pay the Royal Officers in support of the British East India Company.
“It is a Cruel hardship upon us & unless we are Redressed we must be Ruin’d…” John Hancock was trying to promote the expulsion of the Stamp Act, for its “fatal Effects of these Grievances you will Sensibly feel; our Trade must decay...” A month later Hancock was writing the protest of the Stamp Act and within this document he wrote of how this act weakens “the best Security of our Lives Libertys and Estates…” This “Cruel Act” and submits him and the commerce to what he referred to as “Slavery.”
With the help of “The Sons of Liberty,” John Hancock was able to enforce his boycotts and persuade the people to revolt against England. This in turn, led to the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773. On this day, the colonials threw three hundred and forty chests of tea valued at ten thousand British pounds (back in 1773), hitting England where it hurts the most. England had finally received the message that the colonists were not going to follow by their rules for any longer.
Throughout the many battles with the English, New England was successful in their revolt for freedom from England. The “Sons of Liberty” were able to prevent the English from controlling the New England ports and governments. On July 4, 1776, the most historical name in history was signed on the Declaration of Independence. John Hancock signed the document that would save his life, fortune, and sacred honor or would have sentence him and New England to live a future of intolerable taxes and acts by the rule of one.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
John Hancock Essay
The question that I would like to focus on within my essay is how John Hancock was effected by the taxes and how he conspired to revolt against the King. The focus will be on what did he do, when did he do it, where did he do it, how did he accomblish it, and with whom did he conspired with.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
The Theme Throughout All of History
The past will always tell what will happen in the future. There will be wars, death, crime, and even hatred between the people. If it happens once, it will happen again. I speak even before humans could even speak. Before, there was only one species of humans. Hundreds of thousands of years in the past there were the Homo sapiens and the Homo erectus. These two species were different in many ways. For instance, the Homo sapiens are the modern man who can adapt more easily and were much smarter than the Homo erectus (the upright man). They lived in the same period and when they came into contact, they fought over the land. The modern man won because he was superior to the Homo erectus in speed and agility.
On the contrary, they were not much different. Homo erectus had developed ways to use tools and were as much advanced as the Homo sapiens, but lacked the social aspect to modern life. What I am trying to say is that, before humans had developed a written language, there were conflicts between them of who was more superior to the other. Thus, when you look back to the American Indian Wars, there seems to be a direct relationship to the fighting and turmoil.
The Europeans had to think of them as not human, to make them seem characterless, that way they would have no regrets to conquer them. There was many-recorded writing about the Native Americans on whether they were minor farmers or if they were great farmers who brought great surplus. In addition, there was some on how the Native Americans were so hostile that they would kill and scalp n enemy just to become a man, when some writing spoke of how they were perfect and did not kill. Both of them are very wrong, but together post a real aspect to the Natives world, i.e., if the Natives had killed their enemies, there would be no more culture because there would be no people to support it. Also, if they did not kill how would they have protected their lands from others (like the Europeans) and feed their people? In addition, if the Natives were such bad farmers how could they have fed and taught the Pilgrims how to farm on a day we celebrate? Also, if they were such great farmers and took up so much land with the farming, why did the Native Americans still have to scavenge for food? The reality portrayed on the Native Americans is skewed in both ways. The truth is not one of the other, but lies between the two.
On the contrary, they were not much different. Homo erectus had developed ways to use tools and were as much advanced as the Homo sapiens, but lacked the social aspect to modern life. What I am trying to say is that, before humans had developed a written language, there were conflicts between them of who was more superior to the other. Thus, when you look back to the American Indian Wars, there seems to be a direct relationship to the fighting and turmoil.
The Europeans had to think of them as not human, to make them seem characterless, that way they would have no regrets to conquer them. There was many-recorded writing about the Native Americans on whether they were minor farmers or if they were great farmers who brought great surplus. In addition, there was some on how the Native Americans were so hostile that they would kill and scalp n enemy just to become a man, when some writing spoke of how they were perfect and did not kill. Both of them are very wrong, but together post a real aspect to the Natives world, i.e., if the Natives had killed their enemies, there would be no more culture because there would be no people to support it. Also, if they did not kill how would they have protected their lands from others (like the Europeans) and feed their people? In addition, if the Natives were such bad farmers how could they have fed and taught the Pilgrims how to farm on a day we celebrate? Also, if they were such great farmers and took up so much land with the farming, why did the Native Americans still have to scavenge for food? The reality portrayed on the Native Americans is skewed in both ways. The truth is not one of the other, but lies between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)