Here are this week’s questions on Chapter Five written by your classmate, Peter Sacca:
1. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense helped to unify the colonists in the fight against Great Britain. If Paine had never written Common Sense, would the colonists have rallied to the cause of rebellion in the same way?
2. Instead of General Howe working his way up the Hudson into Albany to meet John Burgoyne like he was supposed to, instead he and his forces went and captured Philadelphia. What was the overall impact of Howe’s decision?
3. For the most part, most people would agree that the Articles of Confederation were a failure. But I believe that the Articles of Confederation were a much needed failure in order to create a much better government. What do you feel about the Articles of Confederation and its problems?
4. In need of money to pay war debts, states had to tax even their poorest citizens. The taxes angered the people, especially poor farmers. Did Daniel Shays have the right idea in rebelling? Or was there an alternate way of him getting he and his follower’s point across?
AMERICA TO 1877 
1)
Even without Paine’s pamphlet, colonists would still have caused a rebellion against England. At first colonists still believed that this problem with Britain would become temporary but after seeing Britain’s treatment with the colonists after several battles, there was no way for colonists to have the same relationship with the mother country. These events had caused a severe reaction for the colonists, which wouldn’t need a pamphlet. Nevertheless, the pamphlet was still an important document that explained the need for independence from England with words.
While I agree with you that a rebellion was imminent, colonists would not have rallied to the cause of rebellion in the same way. I think the war would have been a mess and conflict would have been scattered instead of being formed into one concentrated effort. It is Paine who emphasized that their relationship with their mother country was non existent.
#1. Pain’s “Common Sense” did help unify the colonist on their conquest against the British. If it did not happen, the colonies will have revolted against England eventually would have happened. It just may have taken longer and or another event is what would’ve pushed them over the edge to stand up against the motherland. Hostility was already amongst the colonies towards England so omething would’ve happened.
I believe Thomas Paine’s Common Sense accelerated the revolution. If he had not wrote it, the colonists would have continued being hesitant about parting ways with Parliament and the revolution would have took much longer or would not have happened at all. If the American Revolution had took much longer, Parliament would have kept the colonists under control by feeding them lies and hidden agendas as happened with the declaratory act. Paine did well writing Common Sense. He sort of acted as a leader for the colonists to act.
2.General Howe had devoted his forces to advancing and capturing Philadelphia, the capital of United States at the time. The Congress fled and the conflict continued. In Pennsylvania, he had then fought and won some of the battles. However, these were local victories and didn’t have any impact on strategic level. In addition, the Patriots under Washington were not defeated and still represented a threat. General Howe then positioned his troops in Philadelphia. His army was basically tied down because it needed to protect the captured city. American forces in New England then could focus their attention on John Burgoyne’s forces. Northern British force had no support in terms of Howe’s army and was surrounded. Being cutoff, without supplies and reinforcements John Burgoyne surrendered.
The overall impact of Howe’s decision was tactical setback. When I read about Burgoyne’s defeats I was almost sure that if Howe had not diverged from the plan, the British army would have made significant strides in disbanding resistance. I agree with the text that luck played a huge role in colonial success. Who could have anticipated such a terrible mistake? The British were doing relatively well and Howe likely acted out of confidence. Of course his decision was not the reason for American victory but even still I’m sure Burgoyne’s defeats did well to fuel and strengthen Patriot sentiments. Howe just happened to make a convenient mistake. Too bad.
I believe that by this time the Revolution was inevitable that either way with in five years the revoultion would have happened later one of the other firebrands would have motivated the people with either another speech or a different pamhlet the acts of parliment and the boston masscera were in the hearts of the die hard radicals and no matter how long revoultion would have eventually erputed
But would have any later speeches or pamphlets carried the same pizazz as Paine’s “Common Sense”? As Farhana wrote, it was released at a critical time. It was also written in laymen terms so it was easy on the eyes and a best seller at over half a million copies sold!
*Edit* I meant to say it was Marina who said that, not Farhana.
Although “Common Sense” was one of the most influential and important pieces written during the Revolutionary period, the war most likely would have occurred without it.
This question brings up and interesting idea though, about whether or not the colonists would have rallied together and rebelled without the existence of the press. At the time of the war, over fifty percent of the american men were literate, and were reading newspapers, pamphlets, almanacs, and various other texts that influenced their way of thinking.
If it were not for the copious amount of texts and ideas flowing throughout the colonies, I don’t think the war would have happened, or at least not when it happened.
1. By the strictness of the question, the answer is an obvious no. However, colonial Americans had a growing unrest about the increasing constraints of English rule. Also, with no ruling power physically there, it was hard to take them seriously; especially from the perspective of rebellious groups of English subjects. For survival’s sake, enemies often unite. In the case of a flourishing America, this same principle would have applied independent of whether Thomas Paine wrote the novel or was struck brain dead by a run away horse.
I agree with Zane I feel Common sense gave them a perspective as to what is going on, it helped put the problems and ideas in order as to what the problems are, and what it is they need to change. I believe for a movement to occur there needs to be organization and Common sense gave it that organization that it needs. People knew there were problems but they didnt know the total effects of these problems and Common sense was the summary or explanations to the problems that were occuring at the time, so for me I dont believe the same thing would have happened if Common Sense would have not been written.
#3 When I think of the Articles of Confederation. The phrase experience is the best teacher comes to mind. Things may seem like they might work in theory but you never really know if something is effective until you try it out. I think this applies to the Articles of Confederation. It was sort of America’s way of figuring out what worked best for them in terms of government. I agree that it was a very necessary failure.
While you cannot deny common sense made a hugh impact on the people of the colonies in terms of unifying them. I do not believe it is the only cause. Common sense made it easier, but the feelings of resentment were already there. Pain might have been the first to write towards looking at the British government but that does not mean others had not thought of it. Also I think the rebellion would have went on even without Pain’s book. It was important because it moved everything forward and spread the message quicker across the colonies; it was direct and easy to understand. since so many people could read and write at that time also helped spread other messages of rebellion quickly not just Pain’s
The articles of confederation was considered a failure. But I believe it was a neccessary one. One of the major problems was that 9 of 13 states had to agree on a law making it nearly impossible to get things done. There were other problems too, but as Michael Jordan said, “I’ve failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why suceed.” I dont know why I thought of him but the principle is true. Mistakes happen the lead to succeed.
Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was actually published during the revolution. I believe the overall message of Paine’s “Common Sense” was the abolishing of a Monarchy as a governmental system. His main argument was that if America was to leave Britain, then they should abandon Monarchy as a whole. If it was written before the revolution, then it should be considered a radical revolutionary writing such as the radicalism of Samuel Adams in the Sons of Liberty. After the emergence and popularity of “Common Sense”, “The Declaration of Independence” was published and argued mostly for a Republican form of government with a new ideology on the issue of “natural laws”. As for the Articles of Confederation it did not contribute to the fact that there was and emergence of a n upcoming nation. To most of the people,it meant that congress does not represent the people but the states therefore they cannot tax the people. The articles attempted to unify the states, but failed to recognize that these people were so different. It also diminished the essence of a balanced constitution, and focused heavily on the addition of states and war, which are not the only factors that should be considered when writing a document that reflects on the new government of a new nation. One of the positive outcomes of the articles was the fact that it was prescriptive, in whichout the rules in a written document rather than descriptive form of the British.
would the colonies have rallied he cause the same way
#1. If Thomas Paine had not written Common Sense, I believe the colonies would have eventually came to a general agreement to fight the war to be completely independent of Britain. At this point, most Americans agree to going to war with Great Britain because of their intolerance and sensitivity to Britain’s habit of implementing laws without their consent. And as Nicky said above, they were other pamphlets circulating that influenced their thinking before the war and touched on seperating themselves from England. Common Sense just happened to be the pamphlet introduced after the war began, confirming and shedding light on what most people were already thinking. If Britain were to do anything else to show their strict parenting practices, colonists would have came to the same conclusion. As well as if there was any other pamphlet that was as eloquent, clear and direct as Common Sense. Or maybe a year into the war was longer than some expected and fear led them to advocate keeping ties with Britain, in hopes to avoid completely being destroyed.
I somewhat agree that the Articles of Confederation was indeed a needed failure in order to create a much stronger government. As with many things in history trial and error is in important factor. One thing that I find interesting is what was the reason for the colonist favored a stronger local government over a stronger national government? I feel clearly the reason for this was based on the relations that the colonist experienced with England. The colonist did not want a system where there would be no representation, no input on taxation,limited trade restriction due to a national regulation and no control with the drafting of troops. The colonist basically want to remain self independent states and operate much like they were during pre-French and Indian War time. But the colonist did understand that a national government was needed to have the authority to conduct wars, foreign relations, and borrow and issuing of money. In order for the the national or central government to issue taxes they must first have to make formal requests to state legislators, which refuse these taxes most of the the time. This system created or rather served as protection for the state from national government, in fear that the government as England had previously shown would turn against its on people. Of course this system had flaws, for example in order for any legislatures to be passed ALL thirteen states had to approve of any amendments of the Articles. This causes a potential problem because states differ in region, population, culture, infrastructure, and economic interest. I feel that the Articles of Confederation was overall a success because it raised many question concerning state vs national government and the colonist knew that some order would be necessary to insure survival of the new nation.
5. Initially America had already faced the challenge of financing the war. Although paper money was used, to much of it was being printed so its value quickly depreciated. During the war some farmers were able to acquire wealth because of the abundance of paper money, and non regulation of wages and price control. However with inflation they began to accumulate enormous debt. Requesting money from the state was a grim prospect because the state was already trying to control its financial problems, Taxation became the solution to rectify the states current monetary situation. America continued to face issues within its local boundaries Danial Shay’s Rebellion was justified because the farmers were being taxed without regard for their obligations of debt. Although they were within their rights to rebel, I don’t think printing up more paper money was the solution. On the other hand modification on tax reliefs could have lessened the burden of debt the farmers had incurred.
Daniel Shays had the right idea of rebelling to make his voice and actions be seen and heard. The only other option for him at the time was to sit back and watch his life become financially worse because of state taxes. He did what he believed to be right, and there was nothing wrong with his decision to take action.
Shays stood up for all the poor farmers. He started his rebellion because he wanted better living conditions for farmer’s families because they were at risk of losing everything. It wasn’t fair for the state to tax the very poor people because it was immoral, they just had no means in affording their property anymore. I think Daniel Shays started the rebellion with the best intentions, he wanted respect for him and his community and didn’t want the government to take away their lands. The state really had no right to impose large taxes on the really poor because it was simply unjust.
4.
Daniel Shays reacted as any other American would have if the government was beginning to raise taxes. Many of the poor farmers were heavily affected by this new increase of taxation and if it wasn’t for Shays, somebody else would’ve prostested. In a sense, the American people have the rights to voice their frustration against the governement and that is exacty what they did, eventhough it was unsuccessful. These farmers rioted, in hopes to make a difference and have their voices heard.