American+Revolution

//Wordle on American POV about the American Revolution//

//Wordle on British POV about the American Revolution//

__**10/5/10**__ - //Write a paragraph explaining how you feel a British person would feel about the American Revolution.// - I think a British person would feel regretful about the American Revolution because they surrendered instead of continuing to fight. They might have had a chance to win if they didn't give up.

__**10/8/10 - Do Now:**__ //What are some modern day issues on which there are varying perspectives? Make a list.// 1. Smoking 2. Drugs 3. Sexual intercourse 4. Pregnancy 5. Racism 6. The environment 7. Abusive relationships, either between lover or parents 8. Poverty 9. School lunch 10. Peer pressure, expectations of others

media type="custom" key="7137065"

__**10/18/10** **- British taxation on the Colonies Debate**__ //Score I gave myself for today's performance//: 87% //Reason for that score//: I think I didn't do that good today considering I didn't participate that much. However, I did make accurate statements when it was my turn to speak. Also, I admit that I only understood some of what the other team was talking about so I gave myself this score. I thought my performance today wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that great either.

Question: //Did your opinion change after the argument/debate?// Truthfully, my opinion from the very start was to oppose taxation. However, I was put on the other team which was to support the British taxing the Colonies. So, it didn't really change. I was just forced to support the other team.

__**Activity 1 - (me)**__ The poor because now they have a harder time to get money to pay off for the taxes. Especially for the merchants, they would be taxed tremendously because almost everything is taxed/stamped. The Stamp Act raise concerns for the colonists because they had no say in the change. If the Colonies had more say in the situation, there would've been less of a problem. media type="custom" key="7278511" //- Do you think the Stamp Act is a direct or indirect tax? Explain using supporting details and strong reasoning.// I think the Stamp Act is a direct tax because as soon as the Colonies bought any type of paper, they were stamped by the British official right away. The Stamp Act was more strict than the Sugar Act because for the Sugar Act, people payed slowly and it was just like a normal tax. However, for a direct tax, it's more faced upon as in it's everywhere especially involving paper.
 * //What class of people was more directly affected by the Stamp Act (Rich or poor)? Explain.//
 * //How did the Stamp Act raise concerns among the colonists about Britain’s right to tax them?//

__**Activity 2 - (Sarah Foster, but I added some work/thoughts of my own)**__ //The resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress: October 19, 1765// //Two column-notes//

__**Activity 3 - (Julie, but she didn't finished it so I completed it on my own.)**__ //- How does it seem the colonists felt about the Stamp Act?// They were probably all mad, disliked it, and protested against it since the Stamp Act was a sudden change for them. //- How do you think they might react to the imposition of this law?// They pay the taxes, but don't like paying it. They try to protest, but it doesn't go anywhere like the sugar act. //- Go back to your predictions that you made before listening to the podcast. Were your predictions correct or not? Explain your thinking behind your prediction, and why it was either the same or different from the colonists.// Yes, my predictions were correct. They were similar to the colonists' reaction because getting taxed/stamped for every single piece of paper would be frustrating. The colonists have a harder time working for money to pay off their taxes. Since the Stamp Act is more direct than the Sugar Act, it's more annoying because the colonies would have to deal with taxes every single day. Also, they did protest against the British Officials about the law. I knew they'll eventually get tired of the Stamp Act. //- Come up with a possible peaceful resolution for the crisis over the Stamp Act.// A possible resolution can be the Colonies gathering up together to calmly approach the British with their opinions on the Stamp Act. They could have the British hear them out on what the British could do that's better than the Stamp Act rather than keeping it on the Colonies.Maybe the British will change their mind and give up the law.


 * “Proclamation, 1765, Published by Authority by his Excellency Francis Bernard, Esquire” **
 * [] **
 * - The link doesn't work. When I click on it, it says "Page is not found." **

__**Townshend Acts - Homework - 10/25/10**__ //Key terms// - Townshend - Defiance - Spinning Bees

//Come up with a legitimate, legal way to oppose the Townshend Acts and describe either in detailed pictures, photos, or poetry.// - The Colonies can oppose the Townshend Acts by sending a letter that follows their thinking of "no taxation without representation." Maybe the British will change their mind if all the Colonists formed a group to support their opposition. The Stamp Act might have ended but the British created a new set of laws that follows the Townshend Acts. It basically taxed lead, paint, paper, glass, and tea that were imported from Britain__.__ The Townshend Acts were made without the consent of the Colonies which angered them. Not only that, but this time the rules were more strict. The new British government minister, Charles Townshend, also sent out soldiers to threaten the lives of the Colonists that refused to pay. Other than soldiers, "the British came up with the Writs of Assistance. They thought it would work, but it didn't go the distance." However, with the Colonies sending out a letter that was based on their opinion of the taxes, it can make a difference. Maybe then the Townshend Acts will end just like the Stamp Act.
 * __Homework - 10/29/10__**

Our War for Freedom Poem

__**Do Now - 11/2/10**__ //Why is today an important day in the U.S.?// - Today is election day.

//Summary of Townshend Acts// - The Townshend Acts was a set of laws stating that the Colonies needed to pay taxes made in 1767 but this angered them so it lead to the Boston Massacre.

__**Do Now - 11/3/10**__ //Make a list of ways the colonists protested the Townshend Acts.// //-// Sent a letter to Parliament involving the phrase "no taxation without representation" //-// Smuggle //-// Boycott //-// Protest - Writs of Assistance (bad)

I think it's the big guy's fault with the club (Crispus Attics) because if he didn't hit the Private, the gun wouldn't have accidently went off. The British soldiers wouldn't have started firing people if they didn't hear the gun go off.

The difference between the two images on the Boston Massacre page is that on image 1, it shows British soldiers shooting/killing the Colonists. But in image 2, it shows the Colonists trying to attack the British soldiers.

I think the mob of 200-300 people are to blame for the Boston Massacre because by daring the British soldiers to fire at them, the British soldiers misunderstood the taunt and took it as a command. Also, since the mob wanted to knock out the private, the private lost control of his gun and the gun hit the floor causing it to shoot. This signaled the British soldiers to start shooting the Colonists. Therefore, if the mob never started that taunt or went physical with the private, the Boston Massacre wouldn't have began. They caused their own death.
 * Homework** - //Who is to blame for the Boston Massacre? Why?//

__**Do Now - 11/4/10**__ //Describe what happened at the Boston Massacre.// - The mob of Colonists that consists of 200-300 people ganged up on the British Private and physically knocked him out. As he faints, he loses control over his gun and the gun accidentally shot up in the air as it hit the ground. The noise of the fire signaled the British soldiers to shoot the Colonists.

- Captain Preston says that he was standing in front of his men and that he never ordered them to fire (Close enough to have touched him) - The Colonist state that the Captain was behind his men - The rioters were shouting "FIRE!" - A man talked to Captain Preston before the massacre began (Richard Palms) - Richard Palms said that Captain Preston responded "it would be foolish to order his men to fire." - Richard Palms says "after the first shot went off" was when the British soldiers started to shoot - Robert Godard = The man that said "I dare you to fire" - Private Montgomarin was knocked out by a Colonist that held a club, lost control of his gun = caused British soldiers to shoot - British soldiers aren't guilty, John Adams was lawyer

They responded that it wasn't their fault. The British Government went through court with the mob and their lawyer, John Adams. John Adams was able to declare that the British soldiers were not guilty. They stated that the mob was the one at fault since Richard Palms yelled "I dare you to fire" towards the soldiers which signaled them to shoot. The mob caused their own death, not the British.
 * Homework** - //How did the British Government respond to the Boston Massacre?//

__**Homework - The Road to Revolution Slide Show**__ media type="custom" key="7444987"

__**11/15/10 - First Continental Congress**__ //Who -// There were representatives from 12 out of 13 Colonies (Georgia wasn't there) //What -// It was a meeting //Where -// Philadelphia's Carpenters Hall //Why -// It was held so that the Colonies could discuss their responses together about the British "Intolerable Acts" //How -// The Colonies would bring up suggestions/ideas to deal with/protest the "Intolerable" Acts and they would all agree on a few //When -// September 5, 1774

With the Colonies being fed up with the British's "Intolerable Acts," they decided to amend together to discuss their frustration. This assembly was known as the First Continental Congress. It was held in Philadelphia's Carpenters Hall on September 5, 1774. On that day, there were representatives from twelve out of thirteen Colonies that were there, only Georgia didn't attend. This meeting was formed so that the Colonies could work together to settle on a way to deal with or protest those Acts. Each representative would share their ideas and responses on/about the situation and they would all decide on one or a few ways to carry out the plan later on. The First Continental Congress was not only an assembly, but it was an action taken by the Colonies so they could make a change in what they believe in.
 * Homework** //- Paragraph//

//Make a list of 8-10 key terms for the Road to Revolution and define them.// - Obituary - a published announcement of deaths - Radicals - extreme changes or forms - Lithograph - a print produced by lithography ( the art or process of producing a picture, writing, or the like ) - Oppression - feeling heavily burdened - Commentary - a series of comments - Convene - to come together or assemble, usually for some public purpose - Podcast - series of audio files that can be downloaded from the internet - Treason - violation or betrayal of the allegiance that a person owes his sovereign or his country

__**11/16/10**__ //Arms and ammunition// - guns and bullets (musket) //Minutemen -// younger members of the militia (at 15, the guy has to join the army) //Militia -// a military force, a civilian army //British Regular -// redcoats, British army //Alarm Riders -// someone who rides around to tell people that something bad is happening //Paul Revere -// a patriot in American Revolution, famous alarm rider //Joseph Warren -// an American doctor and a Major General during the American Revolutionary War, the only unwanted patriot leader (remained in Boston, British needed him)

//CCQ// - THAT'S UNFAIR!!! WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS MEN!!!!!


 * Homework**

1. Colonists' POV - The British threatened us to shoot them! They began this, not us! 2. Britishs' POV - We did nothing wrong. We were ordered NOT to shoot but Colonists attacked anyway. We are not at fault.
 * -** //Create a list of possible Points of View (POV) that one could examine about this event//

__**11/17/10**__ //**I See...**// - soldiers (Colonists) standing in a line - a preacher/minister standing in front of that line - a British militia with muskets marching on the green - 2 British men on a horse - a man behind a stonewall with a gun - British begin the first shot after hearing a shot go off - Colonies running away - people in the bushes shooting the British, British fired back at them and at the Colonists

//**I Hear....**// - a drum - a flute - "Don't fire until they do" said Colonists' General - "DISPERSE!" said a Colonist - "This is the King's green. Disperse," said the British general - A gun shot go off - many muskets went off after that shot - more gun shots - "FIRE!" yelled a guy in the bushes

//**It Means...**// - a formation to fight - the preacher helps the Colonists and he comforts them - British went there to carry out their orders, ready to fight - the men on the horse (redcoats) are generals - the man behind the stonewall with a gun began the American Revolution - British started shooting after the first shot, killed many Colonists - Colonists' general told his army to disperse, they didn't fire back - the 2 British people on the horse (generals) talked about who shot first, said it was the Colonies - a guy in the bushes shot a redcoat on a running horse


 * Summary -** When the British arrived on Lexington green, the Colonists were intimidated and so they dispersed after hearing the shot with the British firing against them. This started the American Revolution.


 * Homework -** After watching the opening scenes of the American Revolution, had you been asked to take up arms against your own government soldiers under what circumstances would you agree to do so? Is it possible you might never do so? Explain why.

- If I was asked to go to war against my own government soldiers, I would agree to it only under a few circumstances. If my family was being threatened or tortured by the government soldiers or if the government refuse to accept the idea of freedom, that's when I take action. Even though I benefited from the government in many ways, I would go against them if they're being unfair to the people of the country.

//Summary// - The British and the Colonists had a different perspective on who started the Battle of Lexington and Concord.
 * __Homework - 11/18/10__**

__**11/20/10** - **Homework, Golgster**__ //Your task in creating this Glog is to prove or disprove the following argument: The outbreak of the American Revolution was inevitable. If you agree with this, then prove at what point it was inevitable. If you disagree, explain why.//

media type="custom" key="7631381"

__**Do Now - 11/23/10**__ //List at least 2 reasons why you think the Lexington Training Band(militia) stood on the Green on April 19, 1775.// 1. To help collect military items 2. To scare the opposing side with their drums.

__**11/29/10**__ //Objectives// - Analyze causes and effects of the Battle of Bunker Hill - Identify reasons for creation of a continental army - Summarize reasons for GW to take command

//What do you think of when you hear the words "Bunker Hill"?// - Community College - Boston - Train - Hill - Fighting/battle - Grass

//Pg.115-116// - British won - fighting still occured while Continental Congress ran - colonists gain confidence from war - British set Charlestown on fire - standoff at Boston began Battle of Bunker Hill


 * Summary** //- Unfair taxes led to many wars which led to the Battle of Bunker Hill. The battle was between the British and the Colonies with the British winning but the colonists gained confidence after the fight.//

1. Americans put together an army 2. British crossed Charles River from Boston to Charlestown meeting colonists on Breed's Hill 3. Colonists ran out of gunpowder and retreated to Bunker Hill 4. British wins, set Charlestown on fire

1. George Washington was chosen to lead the new army (the Continental army) because of his successes but in class, Mr. Hurley said that he only made two accomplishments and he had failed many times. So why didn't the Congress choose someone else? 2. I find it interesting how unfair taxes led up to many wars and those wars led up to the Battle of Bunker Hill. But why do they name it the Battle of Bunker Hill when the riot took place on Breed's Hill? 3. What did you need to do to be in a continental army? Were there certain expectations and standards that you had to meet?
 * Homework -** //Write 3 CCQ's which prove you met today's objectives//

__**11/30/10**__ //Objectives// - Analyze why Americans felt the need to be independent - Identify reasons for second Continental Congress - Summarize the shift from opposition to independence

__//Second Continental Congress//__ - a meeting held in Philadelphia to discuss the unfair taxes Parliament gave the colonists

- The Declaration of Independence was written in, signed from, and sent from the Second Continental Congress - Continental Army = Colonists Army -> fight Redcoats -> George Washington wasn't successful but he had experience, learned from his mistakes (chosen to lead army) - Malden = First Americans to declare independence

1. I never realized how hard it would be to be independent because you won't have any kind of protection or rights. 2. How did the Second Continental Congress differ from the first? Was it because the Declaration of Independence was written in the Second Continental Congress? 3. I was surprised that Malden were the first Americans to declare Independence because I thought many people had done it already. Also, I expected some kind of big capital to be the first rather than Malden.
 * Homework -** //Write 3 CCQ's which prove you met today's objectives//

__**Do Now - 1/11/11**__
 * 1st Amendment** - Congress can't make a law prohibiting the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and you have a right to petition government if we have a complaint.
 * Amendment** - Change in the Constitution.


 * 2nd Amendment (Pg.186)** - Anyone __//in the militia//__ can own a gun regardless of who you are and the age. (To protect the United States) Therefore, not everyone can just have a gun in Massachusetts -> Protects citizens. not necessary


 * 3rd Amendment** - "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." -> This means that a soldier can't live in your house against your will.


 * 4th Amendment** - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' -> The police has the right to search your house only if you allow him to. If you're drinking in your house and the police knocks on your door asking if he could come in, you have allowed him to search your property. If you say no, then he will get a warrant to search your house under suspicion due to your reaction.


 * 5th Amendment** - You will not have to testify against yourself in court. -> "I plead by the fifth." Don't have to admit/say what you did wrong even if people will question you.


 * 6th Amendment** - The person being prosecuted the right to a fair and public trial and a fair and impartial jury in the district where the crime was committed. (even if someone has committed a crime; he/she still has a right to defend themselves in a fair trial.) Protect rights of people, guard against the powerful people.


 * Double Jeopardy** - You can't be trialed for the same crime twice. If you go to trial and if one person disagrees with your guilt, then you are not guilty. -> No one can say "that's stupid!" etc.


 * 7th Amendment** - You have right to trial by jury as long as the amount of money in question in the lawsuit exceeds $20. (In a civil case of any kind where a person could win more than $20, the person who is about to lose that money has the right to ask for a jury to hear their case. And once the jury has given their decision, it can not go back before the court again unless they go by the rules of the common law.) -> $20 = $400 today or about.


 * 8th Amendment** - No Cruel and unusual punishment. (Can't torture people) But if that torture saved many lives, then that action will not be punished. (It will be accepted)


 * 9th Amendment** - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people." -> The bill of rights does not out rule other laws just because it is written. (limits the government's power over rights not listed in the constitution)


 * 10th Amendment** - It means that the federal government can't create new powers for itself. New federal government powers, like creating the IRS, must be approved by the states or the people. It is also seen as a guarantee that the individual states have rights, because unless the Constitution says the power is a federal power, it belongs exclusively to the states or the people. (Congress has no powers except what the Constitution gives, and can't expand its power. Only STATES or the people can amend the Constitution to surrender their powers to the Congress)


 * Constitution is made to limit the government's power. **
 * SUMMARY - The role of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution is to limit the government's power by giving the people more rights. **

__** Activity - Can You Say That? **__ //**Did the principal's deletion of the articles violate the students' rights under the First Amendment?**//


 * Task: Make two separate lists, showing arguments you think may have been made on either side of the case. Some points to consider: **


 * What rights (if any) should students have to publish what they wrote in the student newspaper?
 * Should there be a school policy against certain student writings?
 * Why shouldn't the principal have been allowed to cancel that page in the student newspaper?
 * Why should he have been allowed?
 * Is it fair that some articles got cut from the newspaper, even though they had nothing to so with the case?
 * Is it fair that the divorce article could be cut even though the students were reporting facts?
 * Does it make a difference that the students were not trying to hurt anyone's feelings?
 * Would it be fair to the parents involved to have their story printed in the school newspaper?

If a principle find that the students' actions are interrupting their learning, he has the right to ban the articles. He is the editor of the newspaper, he isn't part of the government. Therefore, he has the right to do what he did such as violating the first amendment to protect the students' learning environment.

- removed the articles because it disrupted the students' learning enviroment - not part of government but rather part of the press (newspaper editors) so he has the right to cancel the articles -> is allowed - it's fair because the articles involving their parents' divorce could be hurtful to their parents and it doesn't include what they are suppose to learn (not part of their education) - it wouldn't be fair to the parents involved to have their story printed in the school newspaper because what if they wanted to keep that a secret? having their own child write about their separation that they might have wanted to keep a secret is now revealed without their notice. this is to protect the students' education along with their parents. - even if they weren't trying to hurt anyone's feelings, writing an article about something that doesn't involve what they're learning, it is my job to stop that and make sure they do write about something that DOES involve their current education.
 * //PRINCIPAL//**

- under the first amendment, students have the right to freedom of speech - there shouldn't be a school policy against certain student writings because they are writing their thoughts and as they think, they learn about ways to create a writing using different techniques - the principal shouldnt have been allowed to cancel that page in the student newspapers because that violates the first amendment, the students were only speaking their mind - it's not fair that the divorce article could be cut even though we were just reporting facts because a newspaper is to put up news, and this is what I think is important and this is NOT inappropriate. writing something about my life isn't illegal.
 * //STUDENTS//**

//**As a US Supreme Court Justice, with whom do you side in the case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier?**// I sided with the school district (Hazelwood School District) because the principal's job is to make sure everyone is doing what they're suppose to do in school and that is learning. Those articles written by the students are not supporting the students' education/learning environment and the principal is not part of the government. In this case, he is part of the press (newspaper editors) so he has the right to speak his mind and cancel the articles (therefore, is allowed) and he won't be violating the first amendment. It wouldn't be fair to that student's parents because what if her parents wanted to keep that situation a secret? By writing that article, she is interfering with their privacy along with revealing what could have been something that her parents didn't want others to know.

__**Checks and Balances**__// - After each statement identify how the particular action could be checked by another branch of the US government. //

1. I am the President, I can declare war on Lower Slobovia; I can make any decision I want. - Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) can reject appointments made by the Executive Branch (President). 2. I am a Senator; I can help write and pass any law I want. - Executive Branch (President) can veto that bill sent by the Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives). - Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) can declare that laws passed by Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) can be unconstitutional. 3. I am the President of the United States; I can veto any law passed by Congress. - Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) can override a veto made by Executive Branch (President) if there are enough supporters. 4. I am the President of the United States; I can do anything I want. - Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) can find actions taken by Executive Branch (President) to be unconstitutional. 5. I am the President of the United States; I can make a treaty with Upper Slobovia. - Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) can reject treaties written by Executive Branch (President). 6. We're the Supreme Court; we'll be ruling on every law for years. - Legislative Branch (Senate and House of Representatives) can impeach on Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) justices. -> Can vote to remove people in the Supreme Court, including the President in the Executive Branch.

- I would spend the money on a better smart board and stylus or have an upgrade on them along with faster computers (it takes awhile to load and that holds back the class).
 * We'll conclude this activity with a simulation in which the class works on a real-world problem using a system of checks and balances. Here's how it works: **
 * $250.00 is available to the class to use to purchase some piece of technology that only this class will be allowed to use. Each of you— without consulting others — should write down how you would spend the money.
 * The class will be split into four groups . Group 1 controls the money (the executive branch); Group 2 decides how the money will be spent (the legislative); Group 3 (judicial — odd number of members) will rule on any challenges. Each group will select a spokesperson in a closed session. From this point on, when any group meets it is done in fishbowl style, with the rest of the class surrounding the group members, but observing only.


 * The legislative branch meets to decide how to spend the money. Check Staples and Best Buy ads online. The proposal is written down. Add a place for signatures in case of approval and another place for a veto.


 * Next the executive branch meets. The group discusses whether to approve or veto the proposal. If changes are desired, the group vetoes the entire proposal. Any recommendations can be written down, but the executive branch itself cannot create a new proposal. If necessary, the legislative group meets again to reshape the proposal or, in case of a 2/3 majority, to override the veto.


 * Once the legislative branch creates a proposal that is approved by the executive branch,There will be a legal challenge put forth for this. The judicial group hears the challenge and rules on it. If the proposal is turned down, the legislative group should meet once more to refine the proposal.

//**Reflect on the final decision - Was this a worthy use of the classes' money? Why or why not?**//

**﻿**