APUSH Unit 1 Test Evening Review
Remember, I have planned a forty question multiple choice portion of the test for September 20, and the essay portion for the September 21.
For the essays, one should be looking to address topics covering the big themes of the unit, such as the formulation of the chattel slave tradition in the southern colonies, and the impact of religious traditions in the colonies of New England.
25 comments:
Hey Mr. Davis, I have a question from the essay we had to write, how did geography exactly help create chttel slavery? Did it have to do with how hard it was to plant tobacco seeds?
liz is ready to study
Hi Tyler. You pose a good question. When we discussed this issue in class, we mentioned that geography did impact the growth of chattel slavery in the southern colonies. The fact that tobacco became the first major cash crop in the southern colonies is the key to this concept--the type of tobacco seed that John Rolfe introduced from the Carribean to the Jamestown Colony found suitable soil for germination in Virginia. Eventually, tobacco really takes off in the colony, and on a return voyage, it is said that Captain John Smith was absolutely amazed by how much tobacco was planted in so little time.
Eventually, as the indentured servant supply fell off, slaves became an ideal way to cultivate tobacco profitably.
Good question--keep them coming!
Liz, welcome aboard! Okay, fire some questions our way, if Tyler is still with us. And by all means, check out Tyler's post and my response--his question was a good one.
i just asked you a question but you must not have gotten it...I am confused on what exactly a "royal charter" is. Is it just England establishes the colony?
Sorry Tyler, and didn't get your post about the royal charter, initially.
The idea behind a royal charter is an interesting one. Having a charter to start a company in the new world meant that you had the Crown's blessing to settle territory that the Crown believed was rightfully theirs. Of course, the fact of the matter was, once land was settled by English colonials, it became part of English land, so technically one would want to have a charter. Second, a charter also meant that the Crown reserved the right to tax the profits of any colonial venture. It also allowed companies to seek investment in their venture, and remember investing in stocks, in this case a joint stock company, is a fairly new enterprise altogether (not like the sort of stock investing that we nowadays take for granted). A charter also basically meant that you could expect royal military protection at some point, as long as the Crown thought you were worth protecting.
Good question.
I don't think we ever received a straight answer about how the New York Colony resembled a feudal society and i was wondering what the right answer is.
wow tyler. but i was also confused on that subject
Couldn't one also argue that geography helped the development of slavery because it was easy to navigate the natural wind and ocean currents that created the Atlantic triangular trade (Africa, colonies, Europe, back)?
Tyler, what you are referring to is the Duthc "patroon" system of colonial settlement and government.
The Dutch created tradeposts along the Hudson River Valley, basically New York City up to Albany. The Dutch set up this system to resemble a European feudal system, with a catch: in the New World feudal system, people had to be recruited to be the lord of an estate, and as long as these would-be lords could rustle up fifty folks to settle under their care, the claim to land was theirs. Eventually, the Dutch are pushed aside by the growing Puritan settlements in New England.
That was the whole thing about how they could get 12 miles of riverfront and they could have their property go as far inland as they liked. And going back to the essay we had written, chattel slavery created the wealth that helped America gain its independence because it helped fund the revolution, is that right?
Welcome aboard "The Norvis."
Your observation about trade winds off the coast of the Atlantic is an insightful one. Certainly, being able to navigate in and out of the Chesapeake Bay region is key to carry on burgeoning international trade. Favorable winds aid and abet the development of chattel slavery, but it think the focus is better placed on how the notion of the slave as "sub-human livestock" comes into play in the southern colonies.
And remember, in the long term, not all the southern colonies are easy to navigate in and out of, but slavery still thrives. Next time you are down in the Carolinas, pick up one of those tourist maps that document all the lost trade vessels.
Norvis, quite a good question.
Did you say there were short reponse questions tomorrow with the multiple choice questions?
Tyler, you are right to assume that the southern colonies amass a decent amount of wealth from their plantation system. From what economic historians can tell us, by the time of the American Revolution--despite natural ups and downs of the colonial economy--colonial Americans enjoyed a lifestyle far greater than a great number of countries in the world today! Hence, the wealth that the colonials created became a reason for them to fight--it wasn't necessarily that they had the loot to pay for weapons (if so, why depend so heavily on France during the Revolution?) but they thought that they had created a lifestyle worth "taking on the road as a solo act." If you thought the Virginian planters were doing well, trust me, they had wealthy counterparts in the North, especially the New England merchants (read smugglers!) who were pulling down a pretty penny for their stuffs.
You know, I'm not sure we ever did quite get around to how "libertarian republicanism" grew out of proprietary colonies in the South. Could we have a clear definition of what that is, and how it developed?
Test format tomorrow:
40 Multiple Choice Questions.
That's the whole shin-dig!
On Friday, two short in class essays.
Is it true you wrote a book?
I was unsure about the answer to question 4 on the Chapter 4 supplemental reading.
The question was:
4. What does the relationship between Quakers and Native Americans say about the overall relationship between natives and colonists?
I thought that the answer was that the Quakers persistenyly sought peace with the Native Americans, and that since the rest of the colonists and the Indians were continuously fighting, the Quakers were ignorant of the actual situation between colonists and Native aAmericans.
Norvis, sure thing.
We talked about this briefly, then I think the bell rang.
Libertarian republicanism asserts that a representative style of government that involves itself in the day to day matters of its citizens is the best form of government. The development of representative government in both the Northern and Southern colonies consistently has to find a balance between the needs of a growing society, and the yearning by merchants and landowners to get on with the chief focus of their lives: business. Of course, represntative government goes on to take many differnt forms in the future, but at the outset, as long as their was some semblence of representation as we discussed, for example, with the Virginia House of Burgesses, landed proprietors could feel confident that the time and money they invested in their plantation ventures would be honored and protected. Through that respect and protection, they could and should expect profits!
Yes, Tyler, I wrote a short history of the city of Utica with one of my history teachers from my middle school days. It comes out in October, and I'll use my research in class once we get to the Erie Canal and industrialization.
Awesome! :)
Hi Pete. I like that question, and your answer is a pretty concise response. Professor Boorstin argues that the Quakers rather haplessly defended the natives, not understanding that A.)Some natives eventually welcomed the arrival of colonials because they would profit from trade with them and B.) The natives that did not welcome the colonials were willing to fight to the death the expell them. Boorstin thinks that the Quakers should have figured out that by giving supplies to Natives who were actually killing backwoods colonials certainly wasn't helping a situation that was anything but black and white. Boorstin thinks that picking a neutral side in a the very complicated cultural exchange between natives and colonials was never going to make the Quakers many friends.
Okay folks, I hope that was helpful. By all means, stop by during Periods 1 through 3 tomorrow with any additonal questions.
Thanks for the help!
Does this mean our session is over? Agh, it does, doesn't it? Oh well, I think those were my biggies.
For freedom! For justice! For passing the first quarter! Onward, dear friends, to test!!
Post a Comment