Hist101 week 3 forum 2 solution one for a-h one for i-z
You have been divided into two groups. For this forum, Group A (Last name A-H) will assume the role of an individual who supported the American Revolution (a Patriot or Whig), while Group B (Last name I-Z) will argue against it 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. You can click on the enclosed link to read Thomas Paine at Gutenberg Project. Then read the excerpted text from Chalmers below, shaping your statement in support or in opposition to Chalmer’s argument.
Your submission should be a minimum of 200 words in length. 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.
After your initial submission, you are then required to continue the debate by responding to three of your classmates. Your responses should be a minimum of 100 words, and should contribute to the dialogue. Your initial response is due by 11:55pm, ET, Friday and your responses to 3 other students by 11:55pm, ET, Sunday.
“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 societv 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]
