Category: American Colonies

When speaking to my grandmother, she told me many interesting things about her ancestry. I’ve always known that I have French- Canadian and German descent on my mom’s side, and Pennsylvania Dutch on my father’s side. My grandmother told me that she just recently found out that she is related to a man named Degory Priest, who was a member of the Leiden contingent and a signatory on the historic 1620 voyage of the Mayflower. This was shocking to me as I never knew I was related to someone who was on such a famous ship, and someone who signed the Mayflower Compact. For me, this is something I think is incredible because this man was a part of American history that people have been learning about for years. Not everyone can say they are related to someone who once sailed on the historic Mayflower. My grandmother found this out by doing her own ancestry research on such sites. There’s not much that is known about Priest as it was such a long time ago, but it was known that he was a hat maker from London. He planned on bringing his family later, but he died during the first winter from illness as many other pilgrims did too. After his death, the rest of his family did make it to Plymouth in 1623. This is interesting to me to know that I’m related to someone who was on such a historic voyage. He wanted to make a better life for himself and his family, as many others at that time did.

Pilgrims at this time wanted to start a new life in America and practice religious freedom. They were known as Separatists and wanted to separate from The Church of England because it was becoming too strict under King Henry VIII’s rule. They originally were going to settle in Virginia to the Hudson River, but they could only make it to Cape Cod due to the weather conditions at the time. The Mayflower was a 66-day voyage with 102 passengers including men, women, and children. It wasn’t the best voyage due to the conditions at the time. Many people got seasick, the living spaces were very confined and tight, and they did encounter storms as well. In the book Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War, Philbrick said, “The ’tween decks was more of a crawlspace than a place to live, made even more claustrophobic by the passengers’ attempts to provide themselves with some privacy.” 1 This gives an example of the conditions these people had to be in for over 66 days. Some women were even pregnant on this voyage and one baby was born. Another big hardship was for families because not everyone could always go. The people who could settle their debts in Leidon were the first to go on the voyage. This is true for Degory Priest as he had to leave his family behind at first, but unfortunately, he never got to go with them and live out his life with them. This was a major hardship for families because some never saw their family again and they didn’t know when they were or if they were coming back.

Although it was a long and dreadful journey, the Mayflower did land on Cape Cod on November 9th, 1620. After exploring, they decided to stay in Plymouth and start to build their town. A result of the voyage was a compact which was called the “Mayflower Compact.” This compact laid out the self-government in the colony because many were concerned about the lack of structure in the colony. When the colonist began to build their town is when many of them became ill, including my ancestor, Degory Priest. It is inferred that many of them suffered from scurvy or phenomena which caused many of their deaths, which was due to the conditions of the cold, wet weather. Since the colony was mostly based upon fishing, whaling, timber, and agriculture, their bodies were weakened by all the salt they were eating at the time. They weren’t getting all the nutrients their bodies needed. In a letter from a man named William Hilton, a passenger on the Mayflower sent a letter home to his family. He says, “The sea affords us great plenty of all excellent sorts of sea-fish, as the rivers and isles doth variety of wild fowl of most useful sorts.”2 They had a lot of resources for food from the ocean but often became ill.

When the pilgrims landed, they didn’t have much money, so they had to make an agreement with investors. The colonist would work for the company by sending resources from fishing and whaling back to England.3 The investors would trade the colonist’s supplies such as tools and clothing.4 The pilgrims did have encounters with the Native peoples. In March 1621, they made a treaty of mutual protection with the Pokanoket Wampanoag leader, Ousamequin. The treaty basically said that no one would harm one another or steal upon one’s land. The Pilgrims learned a lot from the Natives such as growing Indian corn. Pilgrims began to harvest and even have gatherings with the natives. Overall the colony was stable with a growing population. The result of this significant time in history was a representative democracy. The idea of self-government was huge because they didn’t experience that back in England. The idea of self-government would play out throughout the rest of history. People learned how to separate and think for themselves. They eventually elected their own governor John Carver, then William Bradford replaced him. Back in England they never got to elect their leaders as they were ruled by a monarchy.

This significant time in history impacted my family on my mother’s side. Priest’s children would begin to build their own life and eventually would affect my grandmother, my mother, and then me. People came to America to find their freedom and to grow their families in peace, and the Mayflower journey made a big impact on American history as it represents exploration and self-government ideology.

Argumentative Essay

What influences did the Great Awakening and the Enlightenment have on this great event? What were the complaints of the colonists? Were their issues and complaints justified? What were the challenges faced by the independence leaders? What accounted for their ultimate success, and what challenges did they face after the war? Explain using examples from the reading.

The American Revolution occurred from 1765- 1783 it was a war that was fought for the independence of 13 Northern British colonies from British rule, they wanted to rule themselves. The American Revolution didn’t just occur out of thin air, there were several events that took place before the revolution that was part of the cause. There were Acts that were established before the American Revolution that made the colonists angry, unrepresented, and unjustified. Some of the acts include, The Stamp Act, in March 1765, parliament passed a law that taxed large transactions. Of course, the colonists did not like this law and resented it they felt that they should not have to buy goods from the British and get taxed on them as well. They taxed things such as magazines and newspapers, legal documents, and anything that had to do with being printed they taxed. Another act was “The Townshend Acts” which occurred from June 1767- July 1767. Parliament again tried to tax any goods that the Americans imported from Great Britain. They established a system to ensure that smuggling and corruption of officials were not breached.” Smuggled tea was cheaper because legal tea paid duties both in England and in America.” (pg.58, Morgan) The colonists also did not agree with this and started to rebel against this system, they organized a boycott and began to harass the British commissioners. Besides Acts what also resulted in the American Revolution was the Boston Massacre in March 1770 this event took place and left five people dead. One afternoon tensions between a British occupier and a Boston resident began and soon led to this.

The Boston Massacre became a memorable event that produced propaganda. The infamous Boston Tea Party was also very impactful, in December of 1773, the Tea Act was in place. This meant that any tea that was imported would be taxed. This didn’t make the Americans happier; they were angry that Great Britain was basically telling them they could not buy tea from any other country besides them unless they were willing to pay tax on it. The Sons of Liberty stood up against them, they disguised themselves, boarded the ships, and began dumping the tea as an act of defiance. In 1774 from March to June, the Coercive Acts were in place. It was a response to the Boston Tea Party and Great Britain passed this law to have the expenses lost paid for by the dumping. The Quartering Act was also in effect which allowed the British military officials to be housed in unoccupied houses and buildings instead of sleeping on the sides of the roads. The American colonists also had to pay for food for the soldiers and for housing expenses. The Battle of Lexington and Concord also influenced the revolution to happen. The British tried to be sneaky and attack the Americans, their objective was to take Samuel Adams and John Hancock captive, however, the Americans had their own sneaky moves and had Paul Revere undercover to spread the word that the British were coming. Naturally, the British’s attempt had failed, The Americans had won that night.

The last major event that led to the American Revolution was the British attacking the coastal towns in October 1775- January 1776. ”The colonists met the ill-conducted attempt to tax them with an almost unanimous assertion of the principle that taxation was the exclusive right of their own elected representative” (pg. 52 Morgan) The Enlightenment era and The Great Awakening also had an effect on the American Revolution because of these two events the Americans realized that they need to focus on nationalism and individualism of their rights. The Great Awakening revolved much around Christianity and also influence America to adopt it. Many of the leaders of America were influenced by the Enlightenment ideas which were; equality, freedom of speech and press, and religion. Some leaders included; Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. The actions of the Americans were justifiable they were expecting independence from a Great Britain and independence from Great Britain meant “Independent, of course, meant independence of Parliament, not the king” (pg.64, Morgan) The leaders of the Revolution War faced many challenges. For example, George Washington was declared the commander of two continental armies. He also had never dealt with such a large group before. Washington had many plans and tricks up his sleeve for the war. The fight did not necessarily end after winning their independence from Great Britain. The Americans still faced many challenges. The country was in debt because of the war and George Washington became the first president of the United States. Great Britain also violated the peace treaty and began to inhabit forts in the old northwest, and they also faced Spain. The leaders also had to work on establishing their new country and consult rules and ideas. They had to define the presidency, define a federal court system, figure out a financial program, and still dealt with battles. The American Revolution was justified in my opinion because I would not be in America today, probably, if not for it.

Independence For All

America is hailed as the land of the free and the home of the brave, but this was not always the case. Before becoming an independent state, America was governed by the English Monarchy and King George III. Our country was built on the ideals of freedom and justice, two doctrines that the citizens of the colonies greatly yearned for. There was a strong disconnect between England and the Colonies due to the sheer distance between them. It was as if the Colonists were being governed by a ruler from a different land. The Colonists attempted to disassociate themselves from the King which caused tension and disputes between the two. King George III was known to be a strict and corrupt ruler. He abused his power and denied the colonists their unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Colonists had exhausted all their efforts to correct these issues and came to a point where they could no longer suffer through his antics anymore. They were eager for change. The most important circumstances that brought the colonies to the point of rebellion were the violent actions of the king, the harmful economic policies he put in place, the oppressive and unethical laws he created, and his misuse of the military and its power.

King George III carried out many violent acts against the colonists. In the Declaration of Independence, a grievance against the king was “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people” (Declaration pg 37).

Under the orders from the King, the English army robbed the colonists, burnt down several of their towns, attacked their ships, wrecked their properties, and massacred people. King George III had begun to wage war on the Colonists, leaving behind a trail of bloodshed and carnage. The pursuit of happiness for the colonists was undoubtedly being violated by the King’s horrendous actions because they could not live peaceful lives. An additional complaint in the declaration was that “He [the King] has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands” (Declaration pg 38). The King was sanctioned by any American ship and its crew to be captured. The colonists were then to be treated as slaves and forced to serve in the King’s army. The consequences of this ordinance meant that the colonists were forced to fight against their brothers, friends, and neighbors. This act that King George III enacted was barbaric and cruel. Nothing is more violent than forcing a person to kill their family and fellow citizens. Lastly, it’s written in the declaration that “He [the King] is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation” (Declaration pg 37). The King had hired ruthless German mercenary troops and directed them to sail to America to attack and murder the Colonists. His method of choice for any quarrel or objection against him was destruction and executions. These three grievances about the King exhibit how violent he was, and his inability to be a sensible and successful ruler.

Poor economic policies put into place by the King were a major concern with the colonists. They claimed that King George was an inadequate ruler “For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world” (Declaration pg 37). Every single item that the colonists wanted to trade had to be overseen and approved by the King. This gave him complete control over all aspects of the trade, taking away what little jurisdiction the colonists had left. That created a power imbalance and more opportunities for the king to abuse his authority. This economic policy was particularly unfavorable because it created a consortium on all items that were to be traded within the colonies. It negatively affected the colonist’s ability to earn money and provide for themselves. The colonists were also outraged at the King “For imposing taxes on us without our [their] consent” (Declaration pg 37). King George III decided to tax the Colonists without any representation. The colonists had no say whatsoever regarding this policy and were not given the option of having any input over what would be taxed. The King enacted unreasonable economic policies in order to obtain control over the colonists.

Many citizens were angry over the oppressive and unethical laws that the King instituted. In the declaration, a grievance against the king was “For depriving us [the colonists] in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” (Declaration pg 37). Having a jury for a trial enables any bias to be eliminated, giving the accused person a fair trial. On the historical website Founding.com, it states that “Americans regarded trial by jury as a necessary protection to the rights of individuals against the abuse of power by government.” This is exactly what King George wanted to prevent. Without a jury, he was able to rule all parties guilty and punish them for his personal gain. This law let him maintain power and control over citizens. It mentions in the declaration that “He [the King] has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries” (Declaration pg 36). The Colonists were deeply upset with how King George III had complete power over judges and their salaries in America. If a judge and the King were to disagree with one another or have opposing views on a topic, the king would be able to automatically dismiss the judge. He would also be able to lower the judges’ salaries in an attempt to get them to quit or to manipulate them into siding with him. That is a complete abuse of the law. A second grievance against the king was “For taking away our [the colonist’s] Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments” (Declaration pg 37). The colonists were initially given the ability to have their own “state” laws. These state laws included charters, which were legal documents that outlined the citizen’s rights, privileges, and laws. When King George III expunged the colonist’s charters, they were unable to solve any problems locally. If a legal issue needed to be settled, it would not be done on time or in a prompt manner because the British Parliament was so far away. Taking away the colonist’s ability to make laws and solve them only strengthened the King’s hold on America. The King dissolved the colonial legislature and representative body but then did not allow for a new election to be held. Without a new election, the King would not have any opposing contenders, ensuring that he would stay in power. The colonists were furious because that law gave King George III complete reign over them, leaving them with no constitutional rights.

The king misused the English military forces in multiple ways. One complaint against the King was for how “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” (Declaration pg 37). King George III ordered the military to be present in the Colonies despite the fact that there was no active war occurring at the time. This was an act of brutality meant to threaten the citizens of the colonies. An army is intended to inhabit areas where there is clear conflict and turmoil. The colonists were not fighting with each other, therefore there was no need for the military’s presence. The King sent his army over to America in spite of the colonists’ protests. He did this not for the colonists’ benefit or to keep them safe, but to spy on them and make sure that any pockets of insurgence would be destroyed and reported back to him. It’s written in the declaration that “He [the King] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” (Declaration pg 37). The King had proclaimed that the British military would hold more power than the civilians and the colonial government would. The colonists strongly opposed this law. When an army has more power than the local government, it can become corrupt and essentially turn into a dictatorship. King George III let his army run wild. They could do whatever they pleased without any consequences because no higher court would hold them accountable. A military cannot make positive civilian decisions because they run a strong chance of becoming disreputable. King George III abused the power of his army for his own political aspirations.

The colonists considered the King’s abuse of the law to be the most distressing issue. The King was a malevolent and brutish tyrant. Every single one of his actions was inexcusable, but those pertaining to the law were the most pressing concern for the colonists because it deeply affected their everyday life and permitted the King to continue his abhorrent rule. If all laws were to be in favor of the King, there would be no chance for the colonists suffering to end. The colonists successfully justified their decision to declare independence from the English Crown because they listed in detail each and every way that King George III failed as a ruler. The founding fathers argued in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness” (Declaration pg 35). Declaring independence was the start of the colonists fulfilling their duty of abolishing the King’s oppressive rule and continuing on to create a new government around the ideals of liberty and righteousness.

Throughout the 16th to the 19th centuries, Native Americans in the Southern United States came in constant contact with varying European explorers and colonists, who not only recorded aspects of Native American society and culture, but also changed them, rather purposefully or indirectly. These records of Native American society give modern historians a glimpse into the lives and roles of Native Americans, including the roles of Native American women. Just as experiences of people vary by location in the modern day, the experiences, roles, and statuses of Native American women varied to some degree depending on where exactly in the South they were located, as well as on which group of Europeans they came in contact with. In general it seemed that most, if not all chiefdoms within the south were matrilineal, with everyday work being gendered but equally appreciated, and with women enjoying a rather equal, if not higher status than men. As Native American societies began to come in contact with Europeans, Indian women’s roles and status began to change, sometimes to their benefit, and sometimes not. As more groups of Europeans arrived and settled in the South, European women began to arrive and live with them, which allows for an interesting comparison between Native American women and European colonial women.

As stated, Native American women enjoyed an equal if not higher status than men in their society, which is a staunch contrast to the lives of colonial women, who were considered in all aspects to be subject to men and had very little equality or freedom within European society. As time progressed and Native Americans came to be more integrated into European society, there was a noticeable decrease in the Native American woman’s autonomy as well as social status and equality, making her much more comparable to the European woman, which served not only to “civilize” these Native American people, but also to promote a patriarchal system within Native society that better complemented the newfound European societies in the area.

The first Europeans to arrive in this time period were the Spanish in the 16th century. De Soto entered the Southern United States during the late Mississippian period and was one of the last to see the Mississippian world before its collapse. The world De Soto found was one that was one dominated by chiefdoms who had a Mico, or chief, that could be of either gender, showing that Native American women, unlike European women, could hold the highest office of their form of government. Kinship affiliations were all important in the Mississippian world as they determined one’s social rank as either a chiefly elite or non-chiefly elite. In sharp contrast to European society, Chiefdoms were matrilineal, meaning that their society was based off of their relation to women. Some chiefdoms, such as the Natchez, believed that the matrilineal line came from a female deity known as the Sun Woman. This religious context of the matrilineal line allowed women to not only be important politically but also ritually, as they were considered to be supernatural in nature, which allowed some women to not only be exempt from regular mundane activities, but also gave them a sense of mysticism that helped them keep their subjects loyal to them and made the seem like they knew the secrets to maintaining balance within society, which was all-important. In fact, scholars believe that religion and politics were likely inseparable, which was of great benefit to the matrilineal chief who’s right to rule seemed divinely ordained. This control through mysticism was exemplified by the Lady of Cofitachequi in South Carolina, who had a divine right to rule through the matrilineal line and used her seemingly supernatural image to keep her subjects in line. In 18th century Arkansas, Native women participated in ceremonial planting, which was central to religion and allowed women to be in the center of society, keeping them powerful.

Beyond ruling, women were also responsible for growing and cultivating food, which gave them immense power as farming villages were the foundation of the Mississippian economy, and was largely based around corn agriculture. This importance of agriculture as the base of the economy allowed chiefdoms to be largely self-sufficient, which meant that trading and other commercial activities were often for material and prestige goods which were used to show the power of the owner. As the Spanish advanced into the region, they became increasingly dependent on obtaining food from Native Americans, whether this was through gifts from the people or by holding a mico hostage and forcing tributaries to give up their food. With this dependence on food came the dependence on Native American women, who, as stated, were the ones that controlled food from its growth to its processing. The Spanish came to rely on Native American women even more as they advanced into South Carolina in the later 16th century. They recognized Indian women as being less threatening than their male counterparts and were more keen to rely on them as guides, translators, and sexual partners, which elevated the role of women not only in the eyes of the Europeans, but also in the eyes of other Native Americans, who understood that their women were the key bridges between their society and European society.

Native American women became even more important as the French and the English moved into the south and began setting up colonies. As the English moved into the Southeast, particularly in the area between North Carolina and Virginia, some men noted that the Native Americans did not differ from the Europeans because of any inherent characteristics, but rather were more “savage” due to their environment and lack of education. The best solution to this “savageness”, in the English mind, was intermarriage as well as Christian conversion. Because of this desire to intermarry, Native American women became even more crucial to the English and to the Indian community. For the English, the only way to acquire land as a foreigner was to marry an Indian woman, as she not only controlled the agriculture in the area, but she was also the door to familial connections, which were required if a European man wanted to make a living within the community. Native American women also provided the European man with status within her community in a way that Native American men could not. Since chiefdoms were matrilineal, one’s status within a Native American society was dependent on women, meaning that if a European man married an Indian woman, he would gain her familial ties and would be moved into her household, which was crucial since men could not maintain their own separate households. Furthermore, European traders needed to marry Native American women because Indian women controlled the production of food and because chiefs were very careful about making sure that European traders were not able to become too independent, meaning they forced them to marry Indian women in order to have access to food. Marrying into a Native family also produced a form of customer loyalty to the trader from his wife’s family. Without the support of a native wife, a white trader was often doomed from the start, as he had no guarantee of either food or business.

Native Women became more important in their own communities due to the desire to intermarry as well. Marriage allowed Native women to learn more about European culture without becoming Europeanized, and she was able to pass on this information to her chief who was then better able to understand the intentions of these new people and act accordingly. Chiefs recognized that intermarriage was a way to capture white loyalty to the tribe as well as produce powerful mixed blood children who would represent a blending of the two cultures but would not be subject to their white father’s authority, as Southeastern Indians did not consider a child’s father or his relatives to be blood relatives of their children. It was common for chiefs to be greatly involved in these intermarriages between native women and white men, and would actually regulate these marriages by controlling European’s access to native women and only presenting them with women from the family of the chief or other powerful families. With this new regulation of marriage came the loss of a native woman’s sexual autonomy that she enjoyed among the men of her own society. Because sex with European men was something that affected the entire Native community instead of just the particular woman’s family, women were not allowed to freely engage in sex with white men, which seemingly equated them with European women, who were absolutely not allowed any sexual autonomy, especially if they were married.

European women intermarried with Native Americans as well, but their experiences were quite different than their male counterparts. European women did not typically move from their colonial society to marry native men, but rather were typically captured at a young age and brought up in the chiefdom, becoming fully integrated into Native society. Because native societies were typically matrilineal, European women brought into these societies would obtain the same rights as Native American women, and would actually become more equal and powerful than they were in their prior patriarchal society.

The exact opposite would happen when Native women married white men and were subject to European rules, as was the case with Mary Musgrove in Georgia. Mary first married a white man to seal a peace treaty between the Coweta and the British. This type of intermarriage was used often in order to create kinship ties between Natives and Europeans. She married again in 1735 to a low status Englishman, possibly thinking she could control the marriage because he was of lower status, but was incorrect in this thinking as she was subject to English patriarchal rule, and therefore could never be of a higher status than her husband. Mary found herself subject to English rule once again when she was given a gift of land by a Creek chief but was unable to obtain it due to her inability to obtain a sanction from British authorities. Ironically, Mary found herself subject to an English law that did not allow for her to own property without a proper sanction, as well as a law that did not allow the English to transfer any land to Native Americans, making it impossible for her to obtain her land at all. Mary married an Englishman once again and was able to improve her social status as a Native American woman in colonial society, but also found that she had new limits on her status that resulted in the loss of respect for her as a person due to her gender, as well as the new need to have her husband speak for her and promise to “control her behavior” when she acted in a way that was deemed inappropriate for colonial women.

This subjection of Natives to European laws and standards as well as the subjection of women to men was a common theme in the development of relations between Natives and Europeans. As time passed, many Native societies that had once been chiefdoms had transformed into confederacies, which were still matrilineal but did not allow women to hold governmental positions of power. The chiefdom of Cofitachequi in South Carolina and the chiefdom of the Creeks were both transformed into confederacies over time, likely due to the fact that the European societies that they were encountering were patriarchal and did not respect women leaders. Native women in Tennessee after the Revolutionary War found themselves being subjected to increasing attempts by Europeans to force European gender roles on native society. Native Powhatan women found that their authority within their own society and European society declined due to relations with the English. Native American women in French New Orleans found their importance being snuffed out as the French turned the area towards plantation based agriculture instead of one based on trade and as Louisiana governors began attempting to regulate and restrain French and native intermarriage.

As Native Women’s power declined, they found their positions to be more equal to those of European colonial women. Colonial women in all of the European societies moving into the south were dominated by the patriarchal system. While Native Women enjoyed sexual autonomy and could get divorced rather easily, colonial women were not recognized as actual people outside of their marriage, and had absolutely no sexual autonomy. Colonial women, similar to Native American women, were essential for reproduction and the growth of the community, but unlike Native Women, colonial women and their children were subject to the rule of the father. Perhaps one of the biggest initial differences between Native and Colonial women is how they were viewed by their respective societies. Native Women were well respected within their communities, as their communities were not only matrilineal, but women were also in charge of producing and processing the food and in reproducing for the survival of the chiefdom. Therefore, native women had every ounce of respect that men had, and were never patronized or looked down upon because of their sex. Colonial women had a completely different experience. European men did not place importance on women in the same way that Native Americans did. While they did recognize the importance of women as reproductive bodies, they also considered them to be inherently frail, jealous, disorderly, and quarrelsome. They considered them to be unable to understand the consequences of their own actions, and believed that when women were “acting out”, it was because their husband had been unable to control them. While Europeans originally saw Native American women as hardworking, graceful, and beautiful, over time their Eurocentric views found a place among Native society, and they began to see them too as promiscuous, and “subject to wantonness”. It is clear that over time, Native Americans were becoming more and more subject to Eurocentric ideas, and because of that, Native American women, who initially enjoyed an increase in importance thanks to European men, were now being subjected to the patriarchy and were beginning to witness the decline in their status as well as the decline of Native American status in general.

A reoccurring theme in the history of the Native Americans throughout the Southern United States is that as time went on, Native American women, as well as Natives in general began to see a loss in their status as they found themselves in continuous contact with Europeans. While Native women were initially respected, at least to some extent, by Europeans and were considered different than their European counterpart, they gradually began to be pushed into the same situation as European women, one where they were considered inferior to men. On the opposite end of the spectrum, as European women were in contact and were within Native society, they were able to gain more freedoms and respect than they were in their own colonial society. Overall, As Natives and Europeans came into contact, Natives status declined due to the patriarchal views and the intense desire of land of the Europeans, and European men gained both status and wealth as they subdued and “civilized” the Natives and took over their land for monetary gain.

Innumerable downtrodden populations have fought the domination of political and economic elites throughout history out of a desire to be free. Liberty was the motto of the Atlantic revolutionaries who, at the end of the 18th century, defeated autocratic kings, haughty nobles, and slaveholders, bringing an end to the Old Regime. In the 19th and 20th centuries, black civil rights activists and women fought for the development of democracy in the name of freedom, while populists and progressives fought to end workers’ economic supremacy. We think of freedom as an emancipatory ideal for good reason.

Many people have been inspired by the desire to be free throughout history. For good reason, we consider freedom a glorious concept. Throughout history, countless oppressed groups have fought for their freedom against the rule of political and economic elites. The Atlantic revolutionaries overthrew despotic rulers, pompous aristocrats, and slaveowners at the close of the 18th century, bringing the Old Regime to an end. Black civil rights activists and women struggled for the development of democracy in the name of freedom in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, while populists and progressives fought to abolish workers’ economic dominance. For good reason, we consider the liberty to be a liberatory ideal. Throughout history, the longing for liberty has inspired many people.

The Atlantic Revolutions’ authors adamantly rejected that they would offer greater freedom. Liberty, according to Scottish philosopher Adam Ferguson, an ardent opponent of the American Revolution, consisted in the ‘security of our liberties,’ as he put it. And, in that sense, the American colonists were already free, even if they didn’t have a choice over how they were ruled. As subjects, they had ‘greater security than any people had ever had before.’ This meant that sustaining the status quo was the only way to protect the colonists’ liberty; attempting to govern themselves would only result in anarchy and mob rule.

This viewpoint became prevalent among European elites during the 19th century, who continued to aggressively fight the arrival of democracy. One of Europe’s most famous political theorists, Benjamin Constant, dismissed the French revolutionaries’ example, claiming that they had conflated liberty with ‘membership in public authority.’ Instead, libertarians should look to Constitution, which firmly established hierarchies. Even though less than 5% of citizens could vote, Constant asserted that freedom, defined as ‘quiet enjoyment and individual independence,’ was completely secure here. Many others, including Hungarian politician Joseph Eotvos, agreed. Writing in the wake of the brutally suppressed revolutions that rose against several European monarchies in 1848, he complained that the insurgents, battling for manhood suffrage, had confused liberty with. ‘the principle of direct democracy.’ However, such ambiguity can only lead to democratic despotism. True liberty, as described by Eotvos as respect for ‘well-earned rights,’ could be best attained through limiting state power to the greatest extent possible, rather than through democratization.

Conservatives in the United States were equally keen to claim that they, and they alone, were the true protectors of liberty. In the 1790s, some of the more radical Federalists attempted, in the name of liberty, to reverse the democratic accomplishments of the previous decade. For example, it was a mistake, in the opinion of staunch Federalist Noah Webster, to believe that ‘to attain liberty, and establish a free government, nothing was necessary but to get rid of kings, nobles, and priests.’ Instead, popular power ought to be restricted, preferably by reserving the Senate for the wealthy, to protect true freedom-which Webster described as the peaceful enjoyment of one’s life and possessions. However, in the United States, such viewpoints took longer to gain traction than in Europe. To Webster’s dismay, most of his contemporaries believed that increasing democracy rather than reducing public influence over government was the best way to protect liberty.

Conservative attempts to recover the concept of freedom, however, gained traction by the end of the nineteenth century. Slavery was abolished, and fast industrialization and large migration from Europe dramatically expanded the agricultural and industrial working classes, as well as providing them with more political power. This sparked growing concern among American elites about the popular rule, who began to assert that ‘mass democracy’ constituted a huge threat to liberty, particularly the right to property. The scion of a powerful Boston family, Francis Parkman, was one of a rising number of statesmen who questioned the idea of universal suffrage, claiming that ‘the masses of the nation… demand equality more than liberty.’

When William Graham Sumner, a powerful Yale professor, warned of the emergence of a new, democratic sort of despotism, he spoke for many when he said that the only way to avert it was to limit the scope of government as much as possible. Sumner decided that ‘the doctrine of liberty’ was ‘laissez-faire,’ or, in plain English, ‘mind your own business. When conservative politicians like Rand Paul and advocacy organizations like FreedomWorks or the Congress Society talk about their love of liberty, they usually don’t mean the same thing as civil rights activists like John Lewis or the revolutionaries, abolitionists, and feminists who walked in Lewis’ footsteps. Instead, they’re channeling 19th-century conservatives like Francis Parkman and William Graham Sumner, who felt that freedom is about defending one’s property rights, even if it means impeding democracy. Hundreds of years later, the two opposing perspectives on liberty are still completely incompatible.

On the eve of colonialism, Europeans had a range of ideas about freedom. Some developed during the early modern era’s political struggle, while others dated back to ancient Greece’s city-states. Others are barely recognized now, but some laid the foundation for modern conceptions of liberty. Freedom was not a single concept, but a collection of rights and privileges, many of which were exclusively available to a limited portion of the population. Throughout Europe, freedom was considered a moral or spiritual condition rather than a political or social one. What it meant to be free was to give up a life of sin to follow Christ’s teachings. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord resides, there is liberty,’ the New Testament says. Because those who accepted Christ’s teachings became ‘free from sin’ and ‘servants of God’ at the same time, service and freedom were mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting states in this idea. ‘Christian liberty’ had no connection to later conceptions of religious tolerance, which didn’t exist anywhere near the time of colonization. Religion was more than spiritual conceptions and rituals in the premodern age; it was a belief system that pervaded all aspects of people’s lives. As a result, religious beliefs became intricately related to what came to be known as ‘secular’ problems, such as who had basic rights. The economic, political, and social status of a person were closely interwoven. Every country in Europe had a church that decided what kinds of religious worship and beliefs were acceptable. Both state-sanctioned persecution and church-sanctioned condemnation afflicted dissenters. It was practically unknown that a person’s religious beliefs and practices are a matter of private choice rather than a legal requirement. The religious conflicts that raged across Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were about determining which religion would rule a kingdom or territory, not about citizens’ right to select which church to worship in.

In its secular form, the association of liberty with obedience to a higher authority emphasized that liberty meant obeying the law. According to Aristotle, the law is liberty’s ‘salvation,’ not its adversary. However, the link between liberty and the rule of law did not entail that all subjects of the monarch were equally free. The social classes in early modern European civilizations were highly hierarchical, ranging from the king and hereditary nobility to urban and rural peasants. Inequality was pervasive in nearly all social interactions. The king claimed to rule under the authority of God. Those in positions of power ought to be respected by those below them.

Within their households, men had power over their wives and children. According to the legal notion known as ‘coverture,’ when a woman marries, she surrenders her legal identity, which is ‘covered’ by that of her husband. She couldn’t own property or sign contracts in her own name, she couldn’t control her salary if she worked, she couldn’t write a separate will, and she couldn’t get a divorce unless she was in the direst of circumstances. The husband was a businessman who also represented the entire family in court. His wife’s ‘company,’ which included domestic services and sexual encounters, was solely owned by him. In Europe, family life was built on male dominance and female submission. Indeed, political writers in the sixteenth century related the king’s power over his subjects to that of the husband over his family. Both of their lives had been meticulously planned by God. They backed up their argument with a verse from the New Testament: ‘As the male is the head of the woman, so is Christ the head of the Church.’ Neither sort of power could be called into question without putting the social order in jeopardy.

Understanding one’s social station and carrying out the tasks that came with it provided liberty in this hierarchical society. Most men lacked financial freedom. Because of property restrictions and other factors, the electorate was confined to a small percentage of the adult male population. Employees were required to follow the law to the letter, and violators of labor contracts were subject to legal penalties. When ‘liberties’ meant formal, specific advantages granted to individuals or organizations by contracts, royal edicts, or purchases, such as self-government, tax exemption, or the ability to follow a particular trade, the Middle Ages left an indelible impact on European notions of liberty.

A liberty is a privilege… through which men may enjoy some benefit above the common subject,’ according to one legal definition. Certain commercial operations, for example, were confined to those with ‘freedom of the city.’ Many civil liberties were not available at the time. The law defined what kinds of religious worship were permitted. The government has a history of suppressing media it doesn’t like and criticizing it can lead to incarceration. Personal independence was only attainable to a small percentage of the population, which was one of the reasons authorities saw ‘masterless men’ as so dangerous those without regular jobs or otherwise under the influence of their social superiors. Regardless, every European nation that invaded the New World claimed to be spreading freedom to its own citizens as well as Native Americans.

The English Civil War, which lasted from the 1640s until the early 1650s, ended the power struggle between Parliament and the Stuart rulers James I and Charles I. Religious differences over how far the Church should distance itself from Catholicism in terms of doctrine and ritual sparked this long-running feud. Conflict arose between the king’s and Parliament’s separate powers, resulting in repeated references to the concept of the ‘freeborn Englishman’ and a significant development of the concept of English liberty. The concept of empire as the world’s guardian of liberty, as well as the belief in freedom as a common heritage of all Englishmen, helped legitimize English colonization in the Western Hemisphere and cast imperial wars against Catholic France and Spain as struggles between freedom and tyranny.

In 1642, a civil war erupted, with the troops of Parliament triumphing. The monarchy was dissolved in 1649 and was declared a Commonwealth and Free State’ a nation controlled by the people’s will. After the king’s execution, Oliver Cromwell, the victorious Parliamentary army’s commander, governed for nearly a decade. The House of Commons and the hereditary nobles of the House of Lords accused the Stuart rulers of jeopardizing liberty by collecting taxes without parliamentary authorization, imprisoning political opponents, and leading the kingdom back to Catholicism. A civil war broke out in 1642, with Parliamentary troops triumphing. In 1649, the monarchy was abolished and was declared a ‘Commonwealth and Free State,’ or a country governed by the choice of the people. The victorious Parliamentary army’s commander, Oliver Cromwell, ruled for over a decade after the king’s execution. The Levelers exemplified the current idea of liberty as a universal right in a community founded on equal rights, not a function of social position. The Diggers, a new group, went even further, intending to give independence an economic foundation by establishing shared land ownership. ‘You are like men in a mist, striving for independence and not knowing what it is,’ stated Gerard Winstanley, the Diggers’ leader. True liberty applied equally to ‘the poor and the rich,’ and everyone was entitled to a comfortable livelihood in their own land.’

The Levelers, Diggers, and other radical movements generated by the English Civil War had been defeated or forced underground even before the monarchy was restored. However, English immigrants would bring some of the libertarian concepts that were popular in the 1640s and 1650s to America. In the Civil War, Thomas Rains borough was murdered, but his brother William and other Levelers sailed to Massachusetts.

These fights, which were accompanied by heated debates about the rights of freeborn Englishmen, echoed across’s colonies, separating them both internally and externally. During the Civil War in the 1640s, the majority of Newers supported Parliament. Some returned to join the Parliamentary army or become preachers to assist build a godly commonwealth at home. However, as the idea of religious toleration for Protestants gained traction, Puritan leaders became increasingly uneasy. Roger Williams’ charter for the Rhode Island colony he created after being expelled from Massachusetts was given by the Revolutionary Parliament in 1644. Several of Anne Hutchinson’s supporters became Quakers, one of the groups that arose during the Civil War. These clashes echoed across’s colonies, separating them both internally and externally, and were accompanied by passionate discussions regarding the rights of freeborn Englishmen. The majority of Newers supported Parliament during the Civil War in the 1640s. To help construct a Christian commonwealth at home, some returned to join the Parliamentary army or become preachers. Puritan leaders became more anxious as the idea of religious toleration for Protestants gained ground. In 1644, the revolutionary Parliament granted Roger Williams a charter for the Rhode Island colony he founded after being exiled from Massachusetts. During the Civil War, several of Anne Hutchinson’s supporters became Quakers, one of the many religious sects that developed.

How did African slavery come to replace indentured servitude as the primary form of labor in the colonial world, particularly in the South?

According to Chapter 2, “Indentured Servants” were individuals of any race and gender working in the fields and homes of more affluent Englishmen for a set period of time in exchange for passage into America. (Hewitt & Lawson, 48). In 1619 many English colonists and planters needed to find a way to grow their land and become more viable. These planters were required to find means of managing and harvesting their crops such as tobacco which was extremely viable for the colonists in the early 1600s. A system became available known as indentured servitude. This servitude allowed the colonists to come up with a way to show more dominance over the African population, and also get their needs of harvesting crops met. A binding contract usually lasts between three to five years between master and servant in which the master gained work and labor from the servant for expansion in exchange for special liberties after the contract has been settled. However, these contracts didn’t always end according to plan. The servants began to riot for not receiving their contracted liberties at the end of their service. Indentured servants like slavery were hard, labor-intensive strenuous work. The indentured servants wanted to find a way of getting to America and this was one way of selling hard work, and labor to get there. The indentured servant was able to live with their master, housing, clothed, and fed for the length of the contract. This means of service had become the way of getting work done in the early English colonies.

African slavery however did exist in the colonies in the early 1600s, slavery had been around even before indentured servitude. Indentured servitude happened to be the contract of choice by the English colonists because it helped both the master and the servant. The master got the work and labor done, and the servant promised free passage to America along with land and freedom.

Slavery however was an unbearable, lifelong duty and hard work by a human being. The life, treatment, and struggles of a slave were horrid. The textbook states, “They labored under harsh conditions and punished for every infraction could be severe. They were beaten, whipped, and branded for a variety of behaviors.” (Hewitt & Lawson, 51) which becomes the biggest epidemic in our history. Slavery came to replace indentured servitude by the colonists because it was a more reasonable way to get more work done without any rewards that would come after the years of service were complete. In the late 1600s, a bill by the House of Burgesses was passed allowing Africans to become enslaved. The growing and expanding trade brought out more reasons to gain more labor and enslaving African workers seemed like the perfect idea for the English colonies. The growing tobacco and sugar market-led for the English colonist to find a way to meet the demand of their trade. The colonist began to use both indentured servants and African slaves to work together to help with their growing crops. Race also played a big role in the change between indentured servants and slaves. The indentured servant could be any race or gender, but most slaves were African-born people men, women, and children some were born into slavery and kidnapped from their homeland to do a life of service and hard labor. The textbook states, “In 1662 defined slavery as an inherited status passed on from mothers to children. The slow march toward racial slavery had begun” (Hewitt & Lawson, 50). This movement and the harsh conditions under which these slaves worked began to become too much for some which in turn led to numerous rebellions over the course of our history.

Hewitt, Nancy. A. and Lawson, F. Steven. “Exploring American Histories”. Volume I, A Survey with Sources. 2nd Edition. Bedford/St. Martin’s. 2017

The success of England and France’s colonies in the New World and their interactions with Native Americans reflected each country’s motives for colonization. Both colonial powers strived to profit from trading New World commodities and spread their brand of Christianity. England and France shared similar goals for colonization but had different motivations. The New England colonies and New France are examples of how different motivations for colonization can shape their interactions with Native Americans. In New France, native Americans were instrumental to the colony’s goal of profiting off the fur trade and establishing missions that required the knowledge and cooperation of Native Americans. This resulted in friendlier interactions between the French and Native Americans in comparison to the English. The Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies were founded as Puritan refugees, thus resulting in more hostile interactions with Native Americans. The New England colony’s goal of creating a new social order allowed for its population and wealth to flourish in comparison to New France which aspired to recreate the feudal state.

New France had friendly interactions with local native populations and in some cases embraced their culture because the colony’s goal of spreading Catholicism and capitalizing on the fur trade required it. In 1618, Samuel de Champlain wrote a letter to the King of France outlining New France’s goal of spreading Catholicism to Native Americans and transforming them into French subjects. Samuel de Champlain established a trading outpost at Stadacona with the goal of creating a monopoly on the fur trade by purchasing furs as they traveled from the interior to the coast. Jesuit missionaries published instructions for how its priests should interact with the Huron Nation and it stated “You must conduct yourself as not be at all troublesome to even one of the barbarians”. When France regained control of Quebec from the English in 1632, Jesuit missionaries were responsible for maintaining relations with the colony’s trading partners. Jesuit missionaries adopted the diet of the Illinois people to their displeasure because they realized they had to accommodate some of the Illinois customs if they wanted them to embrace Catholicism. New France made concerted efforts to develop friendly relations with the Huron and Illinois people out of strategic necessity. For New France to gain control of the fur trade it needed to ally itself with the Hurons and other local groups because they had the connections and knowledge to procure beaver pelts. The friendly sentiment expressed toward Native Americans as evidenced in Champlain’s letter to the King was born out of necessity. It shows that Native Americans had a pivotal role in the function of the colony. The prominent role the Jesuits played in the colony with regard to trade also contributed to friendly relations. Jesuit missionaries were not motivated by profit and likely saw the fur trade as a means to establish missions. They realized if they wanted the Native Americans to convert to Catholicism they would need to build their trust. While violent interactions between the French and Iroquois occurred, the Jesuit’s leadership role in the colony likely reduced this by a significant portion.

The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies had frosty relations with Native Americans because these colonies were focused on creating new social orders that fit with their puritanical worldview. John Winthrop, one of the founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, stated that all the churches of Europe have been infested with sin and that God provided this land for those seeking to escape the depravity of Europe. When Winthrop is asked to provide a justification for inhabiting Native American land he answered that God has given them the right to inhabit this land. He further states “ Thirdly, God hath consumed the Natives with a great plague in these parts so as there be few inhabitants”. The Protestants living in New England believed that the apocalypse was upon them and that they were engaged in a holy war with the Antichrist. The Puritans in New England were willing to destroy anything that stood in the way of God’s plan and the destruction of the Pequot people served as an example. The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies did not view their settlements as only economic ventures but as bulwarks against the decline of religion in Europe. This meant these colonies were more concerned with creating and preserving their new social order and Native Americans did not have a role in this new social order. While these colonies did have friendly relations with Native Americans it was not as important as it was in New France. These colonies felt entitled to Native American lands because it was endowed to them by God. The fact that New England colonies believed that God summoned the plague that wiped out native populations shows that they viewed the native peoples as an impediment to God’s plan. Combine this belief with the urgency associated with the apocalyptic Puritan beliefs and it will create a ruthless mentality This mentality reared its ugly head when the New England colonists destroyed the Pequot people.

While both England’s and France’s colonies in North America fought with local Native Americans, England’s violent interactions with Native Americans arose out of revenge for perceived Indian transgressions while France’s violent interactions were a cost of doing business.

During the early years of New France, colonizers became frustrated because their native trading partners were dragging them into turf wars. The French were seen as intruders into an ongoing war between rival Native American nations but their trading posts were never destroyed because they made it easier for the Iroquois to rob fur traders. Lion Gardener, an English military engineer who witnessed the Pequot War, stated “The Pequits gave them wampum and beaver, which they loved so well, but they sent it to them again and killed them because they had killed an Englishman. John Oldham was an English trader that was purportedly murdered and looted by the Niantic people who were formerly subordinate to the Pequots. This prompted the Massachusetts Bay colony to send soldiers to a Pequot stronghold near the Mystic River and kill a quarter of the Pequot population. The French relied on strategic alliances with Native Americans in order to get access to the fur trade, but this also forced them to take sides in a war between the Algonquin and the Iroquois. To build and preserve their alliances the French would accompany their Algonquin allies in warfare against the Iroquois people. The English engaged in violence out of a sense of justice and their motives were more personal than France’s motives. The French used violence pragmatically in order to gain the trust of trading partners by fighting side by side in the war. The difference in the use of violence reflects each colony’s motives and reveals what they each value.

England’s colonies became more populous and wealthy than France’s colonies because England’s colonies provided more opportunities for social advancement while France’s colonies were less profitable and sought to preserve the old social order. The Massachusetts Bay Colony offered any person who paid their passage across the Atlantic fifty acres of land and fifty acres for any servant a master brings over. One thousand immigrants arrived in Massachusetts in 1630 and by 1635 another nine thousand immigrants came to the region. The worsening condition of Puritans in England correlates with the increase in immigration into New England. The appeal of spacious land, acceptance of puritanical beliefs, and local self-government drove urban planters to move to the region. In New France, all of the lands were held in seigneurial tenure, or specifically, the land was owned by a few large investors. These investors were expected to populate their parcel of land with hundreds of servants. Aside from the Catholic Church and lay seigneurs only three hundred people moved to the colony in its entire history. New France struggled to attract people because it had a short growing season, no viable cash crops, and crucial waterways for a trade would freeze over for most of the year. England was significantly more successful in producing sustainable colonies in North America because it was more appealing to people in the colonizing country. New France on the other hand was less appealing than life in France because it maintained a similar feudal social structure but with worse living conditions. As more people immigrated to New England, it created momentum for its population to grow and easy ocean access made the colony more economically viable than New France. New France’s desire to preserve feudalism and its poor growing seasons made it an inferior place to live when compared to France. This could not be said about the New England colonies because they offered land ownership and self-government, two things unthinkable in Europe at the time. The motivations for the establishment of England and France’s colonies played an important role in shaping the trajectory of each country’s colonial mission.

England and France’s colonial endeavors and their interactions with Native Americans reflected their social and economic motives for colonization. New France’s goal of profiting off creating Catholic missions amongst Native Americans required partnerships with them. England’s frosty relationship with its Native American neighbors reflected its insular goal of creating colonies with a puritanical worldview. When analyzing England and France’s motives for violent encounters against Native Americans, it becomes clear that France viewed violence as a cost of doing business while England viewed it as a form of justice and retribution. The Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies grew more populous and wealthier than New France because it afforded unique opportunities not available to the common individual in the Old World. Overall the motives for colonization play a major role in shaping each colony’s structure and its eventual success or failure.

The New World does not begin with the arrival of the Europeans; it was new to the Europeans but had been a homeland to many other residents. Residents of the Americas were no more a single group than Europeans or Africans. They spoke hundreds of different languages and lived in numerous societies. North and South American societies-built roads, trade networks, and irrigation systems. the South American societies were grander and organization than the North American societies. North American, Indians lacked literacy, wheeled vehicles, metal tools, and scientific knowledge necessary for long-distance navigation. Cahokia was a City near present-day St. Louis with a community between 10,000 and 30,000 citizens. Residents built giant mounds that were hundreds of feet tall. It was the largest community in North America until New York and Philadelphia in the 1800s. Indian tribes living in the eastern part of North America sustained themselves with a diet of corn, squash, and beans and supplemented it by fishing and hunting. Tribes frequently fought with one another however, there were also many loose alliances. Indians saw themselves as one group among many diverse groups before the Europeans arrived. The idea of owning private property was foreign to Indians. Indians believed that land was a common resource, not an economic commodity. Wealth mattered little in Indian societies and generosity was far more important. Bartolome de las Casas wrote about the injustices of Spanish rule toward the Indians. He believed that “the entire human race is one,” but favored African slavery. Las Casas’s writings encouraged the 1542 New Laws, which forbade the enslavement of Indians. England’s stability in the sixteenth century was undermined by religious conflicts. England’s methods to subdue Ireland in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries established patterns that would be repeated in America.

The English crown issued charters for individuals such as Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Sir Walter Raleigh to colonize America at their own expense, but both failed National glory, profit, and missionary zeal motivated the English crown to settle America. It was also argued that trade, not mineral wealth, would be the basis of England’s empire. A worsening economy and the enclosure movement led to an increase in the number of poor and a social crisis. Unruly poor were encouraged to leave England for the New World. The land was the basis of liberty. The land was also a source of wealth and power for colonial officials. The English were chiefly interested in displacing the Indians and settling on their land. Most colonial authorities in practice recognized the Indians’ title to land based on occupancy. English goods were eagerly integrated into Indian life. Settlement and survival were questionable in the colony’s early history because of high death rates, frequent changes in leadership, inadequate supplies from England, and placing gold before farming. Pilgrims sailed in 1620 to Cape Cod aboard the Mayflower. Adult men signed the Mayflower Compact before going ashore. The Massachusetts Bay Company was charted in 1629 by London merchants wanting to further the Puritan cause and to turn a profit from trade with the Indians. The Pequot War As the white population grew, conflict with the Indians became unavoidable, and the turning point came when a fur trader was killed by Pequots. Colonists warred against the Pequots. After the English Civil War, there emerged a more general definition of freedom grounded in the common rights of all individuals within the English realm: A belief in freedom as the common heritage of all Englishmen A belief that England was the world’s guardian of liberty. The Civil War and English America Most New Englanders sided with Parliament in the civil war. Ironically, Puritan leaders were uncomfortable with the religious tolerance for Protestants gaining favor in England, as it was Parliament that granted Williams his charter for Rhode Island Many of Hutchinson’s followers became Quakers but were hanged in Massachusetts. The Crisis in Maryland Virginia sided with Charles I, but in Maryland, a crisis erupted into civil war.in 1649, Maryland adopted an Act Concerning Religion, which institutionalized the principles of toleration that had prevailed from the colony’s beginning. The Mercantilist System in England attempted to regulate its economy to ensure wealth and national power. Commerce was the foundation of the empire, not territorial plunder. The Navigation Acts required colonial products to be transported on English ships and sold at English ports. Land and Labor in Virginia Virginia’s shift from white indentured servants to African slaves as the main plantation labor force was accelerated by Bacon’s Rebellion. Virginia’s government ran a corrupt regime under Governor Berkeley. Good, free land was scarce for freed indentured servants, and taxes on tobacco were rising as the prices of selling tobacco were falling. Nathaniel Bacon, an elite planter, called for the removal of all Indians, lower taxes, and an end to rule by “grandees” a campaign that gained support from small farmers, indentured servants, landless men, and even some Africans. The End of the Rebellion and Its Consequence. Bacon spoke of traditional English liberties.

The rebellion’s aftermath left the Middle Passage was the voyage across the Atlantic for slaves. Slaves were crammed aboard ships for maximum profit. The number of slaves increased steadily through natural reproduction. Three distinct slave systems were well entrenched in Britain’s mainland colonies Chesapeake, South Carolina, and Georgia, and the Nonplantation societies of New England and the Middle Colonies. Chesapeake slavery was based on tobacco. Chesapeake plantations tended to be smaller and daily interactions between masters and slaves were more extensive. Slavery transformed Chesapeake society into an elaborate hierarchy of degrees of freedom Large planters, Yeomen farmers, Indentured servants, and tenant farmers. Slaves With the consolidation of a slave society, planters filled the law books to protect their power over the slaves. The Seven Years’ War began in 1754 as the British tried to dislodge the French from western Pennsylvania. For two years, the war went against the British. the tide of war turned in 1757 when William Pitt became the British prime minister. Thomas Hutchinson Before the Seven Years’ War, London had loosely tried to regulate some of the colonies’ economies. After the Seven Years’ War, London insisted that the colonists play a subordinate role to the mother country and help pay for the protection the British provided. Members of the British Parliament had virtual representation. The colonists argued London could not tax them because they were underrepresented in Parliament. The Boston Massacre The March 1770 conflict between Bostonians and British troops left five Bostonians dead. Crispus Attucks The boycott ended after the Townshend duties were repealed, except for a tax on tea. The Declaration of Independence declared that Britain aimed to establish “absolute tyranny” over the colonies and, as such, congress declared the United States an independent nation. Jefferson’s preamble gave the Declaration its enduring impact. The Declaration of Independence completed the shift from the rights of Englishmen to the rights of mankind as the object of American independence. All states wrote a new constitution and agreed that their governments must be republics. States disagreed as to how the government should be structured, Pennsylvania’s one-house legislature and John Adam’s “balanced governments” of two-house legislatures The property qualification for suffrage was hotly debated. The least democratization occurred in the southern states whose highly deferential political traditions enabled the landed gentry to retain their control of political affairs. American independence resulted in the loss of freedom for the Indians. Indians were divided in allegiance during the War of Independence. The British and Americans were guilty of savagery toward the Indians during the war. With too many patriots, access to Indian land was one of the fruits of the American victory. But liberty for whites meant a loss of liberty for Indians. The Treaty of Paris marked the culmination of a century in which the balance of power in eastern North America shifted away from the Indians and toward white Americans freedom had not played a major part in Indians’ vocabulary before the Revolution, but now freedom meant defending their independence and retaining possession of their land. Shays’ Rebellion Facing the seizure of their land, debt-ridden farmers closed the courts. Invoked liberty trees and liberty poles. Shays’ Rebellion demonstrated the need for a more central government to ensure private liberty.

England had an unstable economy; because of a population explosion, there was not enough land, food, or shelter for many. Employment was difficult to find, wages fell greatly, and many became homeless. England’s government established corporate charters to settle people in the new colonies in America. England was governed by a monarchy that held undivided rule and absolute sovereignty over its citizens. The landowners and those with private wealth were expected to pay duties and taxes to the government. The parliament wanted an opportunity to seek wealth by colonizing America and having access to timber and fur trade. There was a power struggle among the European countries and England did not have any power. England wanted new land to produce more goods as well as the natural resources found in the new colonies. The society of England was changing in many ways which caused friction between the church. A divided church in England caused people known as Puritans to be very unsatisfied with the Catholic practices of idolatry, materialism, and abuses of local powers that still existed in the church of England after the split from the Catholic church. They wanted to reform these practices. Religious freedom was important to the people who found the church of England to be impractical and demanding.

New England’s government was demarcated into several levels. The lowest level was the town government with town hall meetings. Next were local governments elected by white male property owners or by the legislature. The government was also closet connected to the Puritan church leadership. Only men could participate in the government if they attended the local church. The colony had elected legislation with a governor and his advisories. These colonies did not have the resources to be big farmers, so fishing and shipbuilding were needed for the economy. The colonies also raised livestock, ran mills, and operated the textile industry. Social events were subtle and moderate. The clergymen were at the top of the social classes. Next in the social class were men who owned small businesses. Women and slaves were considered last. The true goal for New England’s settlers was to start a new colony. Pilgrims and Puritans wanted to break away from the church of England. The Chesapeake colonies of Maryland and Virginia had an economy consisting of selling large amounts of tobacco grown on plantations. Colonists grew wheat, corn, and rice. They had a mixed farming economy. A major seaport of trade was established. The General Assembly was the colony’s form of government. The House of Burgesses was the government of Virginia which was the first elected governing body, and each county had two representatives. How much wealth people had was crucial for their social standing acquiring more wealth meant buying more land. Large plantations brought indentured servants to the colonies in order to work for them and to produce more crops for trade. Chesapeake colonies came to America for religious freedom. Maryland was mainly Catholic. Puritans and Quakers also developed this region but had different beliefs. The Carolinas had manufacturing textiles, plenty of water, forests, cotton, rice, and tobacco. South Carolina was one of the wealthiest early colonies. South Carolina relied on slaves to grow rice and cotton while North Carolina was tobacco farmers. The geographical differences along with political differences caused the Carolinas to split. The proprietors gave the Carolinas different governors. Quakers were some of the first settlers of North Carolina and the Church of England was North Carolina’s religion. The religion of South Carolina was the protestant religion.

The English colonies encountered a totally different environment when they started to colonize America. They had no knowledge or skills that would help make them successful. The Native Americans were unsure and skeptical of the colonists since their dealings with the Spaniards. The Indians keep them from starvation by teaching them to plant crops, hunt for food, and how use the land and other natural resources. The Indians wanted to learn about the tools and weapons that the colonists brought with them. The two groups of people had to learn to communicate in order to trade for goods and teach each other new skills. Both groups benefited by sharing knowledge and keeping the peace.

Both men and women servants worked for years to pay for their passage to America. They were vital to the colonial economy as they worked for free to pay their way to America. Male servants were skilled laborers who worked with their hands as blacksmiths and more. Women servants did domestic chores like laundry, sewing, and cooking. The wealthy bought slaves due to the fact that they are more costly than servants. In 1670, slavery was introduced in Carolina.

England started colonies in Native America for several reasons, and one was to establish homes and farms. The English settlers wanted to make a stable and successful life for themselves. They established a relationship with the natives to learn from them. The population of the English colonies grew from the promotion of the indention servants, who after their indention was completed, bought land, had families, and started businesses. The colonies were financed by joint stock companies that had an interest in financial growth and provided for settlers to come to America. The English colonies became prosperous because of a profitable trading system. Colonial trade centered around a variety of raw materials. Also, fishing, lumbering, shipbuilding, and iron-making were important items used for trade. Determination, a strong work ethic, and a strong focus on building the future made the English colonies powerful. Their abundant amount of resources and their diverse population also made them powerful.

1. During the age of exploration, many countries set out with the hopes of discovery. This was simply due to the search for monetary gain through learning new trade routes, gold, silver, or new crops. Spain became of one the leading countries in exportation and certainly had one of the greatest impacts. The competition over the new world stemmed from many things. Typically, it was a fight over religion, gold, and fame. Many looking to conquer the new world had cemented religious intolerance, hence the wars that had occurred before especially in nations like Spain. As mentioned previously, many wanted to find new trade routes due to the many problems occurring around the know routes at the time. Finding these new trade routes would give them the capability to have smoother trade as well as new routes to rich cities that had desired items such as silk. At the time, there was almost a competition between Spain and Portugal that caused each country to want to expand and discover more for their country. Portugal’s footing threatened Spain and then they retaliated by sending out Christopher Columbus who is credited for discovering the new world. America was, in fact, a “New World” to the Europeans due to the fact that it was drastically different than what they were used to. The climate and some of the inhabitants were far different than what they were used to. Although America is a country influenced by many, European culture flows through the very essence of what America is. Due to this fact, Europeans affected America in both positive and negative ways. To determine if most of it was negative or positive would depend strictly upon the opinion of the individual, their background, the area they live in, and many more objects.

2. In 1492, Europeans discovered the new world, and soon after the American natives were introduced to them. The Indians had to be shocked due to the reality that they had probably never seen people like the Europeans before. There had to be a level of curiosity and also fear in dealing with someone new coming to your land so suddenly. The conflicts between the natives and Europeans rarely ever were the fault of the natives. The natives had their way of living completely interrupted by the Europeans, which would cause anyone to be in a state of unrest. The Europeans tried to make the natives conform and the natives resented and resisted them for it. This caused the Europeans to get angry and hostility broke out between the two groups. It is clear that the aggressors or agitators of the relationship between the Natives and Europeans were the Europeans. The Europeans came into the situation with a superiority complex, they tried to bend the natives to their will instead of learning to live in harmony. They brought diseases, which killed off about ninety percent of the native population, stole land, disrupted lives, and were overall aggressive in their dealings with the natives despite the natives helping them learn to survive the many different aspects of their land. The relationship between the natives and the Europeans was not always strained and/or hostile. Their interactions started off peacefully and full of curiosity. The natives once helped the colonist survive when they were on the verge of dying out due to their lack of understanding when it came to the new land’s climate and the different crops that resided there. The relationship did not turn hostile until the very people they helped began to dislike their way of life.

3. The most important of the thirteen colonies was the colony of Massachusetts. The colony of Massachusetts was so successful because its main focus was not on making money. These were mainly people looking for a safe place to practice their religion and live in peace. Due to this fact, most of these people were willing to listen to the natives, and in return, they were able to learn vital skills for their survival. Their biggest concern seemed to be to create a peaceful place to raise Christian children. They even created a government for themselves in which only landowning men could vote in. This colony seems to have been supposed to have been started as a commercial venture to help transfer the wealth of the New World to England but ended up becoming a political statement due to a bad business move. The economy of Massachusetts was heavily based on the things taught to them by the natives. They made most of their money from agriculture, such as fishing, corn, fur, and livestock, and manufacturing, such as lumbering and shipbuilding. The natives were essentially not treated well in any of these colonies and Massachusetts was no different. Due to their religious differences, the Massachusetts colony had a strong dislike for the natives. The colony also wanted more land and that stepped on the toes of the natives. These things combined eventually resulted in a war. Massachusetts colony was the first colony to start having slaves in New England. This colony relied heavily on it. Massachusetts was even involved in what was called the Triangle Trade, which was getting slaves directly from Africa, selling them to the West Indies, and then getting sugar for rum. This colony stands out because of the way that they seemed to be able to set themselves up for success against anything that they saw as against them.

5. The Acts that had the greatest effect on turning the colonist against Britain were The Sugar Act, The Revenue Act, The Navigation Act, and The Stamp Act. The Sugar Act actually decreased the amount of taxes paid on importing things like molasses but with The Revenue Act, the colonist no longer had the ability to be able to smuggle different items in and out. The Revenue Act stated, in combination with the Navigation Act, that wool, hides, and more were now required to go through England rather than directly to where it was meant to be. The Stamp Act required a stamp that needed to be bought through British authority to be on all printed materials. The Stamp Act was the first direct tax put upon the colonies. This particular Act was seen as a threat to the money and freedom of the colonies and ultimately was the final straw that caused tension to reach an all-time high. If this Act was never put into place, there may have never been a revolution, to begin with, because it would mean that the actions that followed may have never happened. There will never be a sure answer. The exact opposite also may have occurred. The colonies seemed to have always wanted their freedom so even if this particular situation had not happened, there still would have been another that caused the colonies to rebel and start the revolution. The colonist was being very reasonable with their request. They simply asked that Britain grant them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The colonist wanted these things to never be able to be taken away by Britain. These demands were basic freedoms and something that all people in the colonies and onward deserved to have.