Was the United States a Christian Country?

In the late 1700’s America was filled predominately with Christianity. Whether one practiced as a Catholic, Jew, Turk, or Protestant, the American people for the most part had major ties with Christianity. However, when state and religion mixed, Americans were surprised and concerned of the lack of religious support within the constitution. Many feared that religious silence in the constitution could invite more non-believers into America. In the politician frame of mind it was best for religion to not be mentioned in the constitution due to different state laws. As different states required different religion practices to hold office, the potential clash of the people were at stake if the constitution mentioned a specific religious practice.

1. What role did James Madison of Virginia play in regards to religious liberty?

2. If the United States was a Christian country, then why was religion not mentioned in the constitution?

“Common Sense,” Thomas Paine, January 1776.

1. What was the author arguing?

        

The author, Thomas Paine was arguing about the separation of America and Great Britain. The purpose of Thomas Paine writing “Common Sense” was to push the debate of complete independence. The text points out the faults of the British Monarchy and reasons why America should be completely independent from Great Britain. Paine argued that Great Britain’s motives were interest not attachment that “America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her.” Paine goes on to talk of Great Britain and how people cannot make laws without the consent of the king. He also mentions Great Britain’s authority in America by stating, “The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form of government, which sooner or later must have an end.” Paine continues by stressing the idea of districts between colonies. That each district is to send a certain number of delegates to Congress, where they will sit and choose a president, where there will only be one. Even if it meant war, Thomas Paine was determined to get his point across. You can picture this “Common Sense” article as a persuasion. Thomas Paine thought that nothing but independence could keep and preserve the peace of America.  

           

2. How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their argument?

            The authors appeal to logos within the argument is quite clear. The author’s logo’s was to persuade his audience that America needed to be totally separated from Great Britain. Paine communicated that America was not benefiting from Great Britain at all; basically that America could do better without them. The appeal to pathos is very strong. Thomas Paine was very precise with his examples of the British monarchy and really showed his emotional side and protection of America. I though his emotions were at best when he stated “I am not induced by motives of pride, party, or resentment to espouse the doctrine of separation and independence; I am clearly, positively, and conscientiously persuaded that it is the true interest of this continent to be so.” I felt as if I could feel Thomas Paine speaking while I read the text. Thomas Paine’s appeal to ethos backed up his argument. Paine’s character in the text was an educated man, a man that has thought long and hard of what is going on in his country. Paine was a man that truly wanted to make a difference in America and was not afraid of war if it came down to it.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

            The article “Common Sense” played a huge factor of pressure for independence in 1776. The pamphlet in which the article was published sold over 150,000 copies. People from all over America were reading the work of Thomas Paine. It was acts like these of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty of give me death” that truly made a mark in American history. Patriotic men that fought for what was right, and did not fear war as a result.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why of why not?

            I definitely found Thomas Paine’s argument convincing. The power and emotion that was put into the article speaks for itself. I found it brilliant that Paine wrote “Common Sense” and actually published it. Especially at a time where not everyone thought about independence, where colonists still believed in the “Mother Lands” way of ruling, because that all they knew. I found Paine’s actions to be brave and convincing. 

“Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death,” Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

1. What was the author arguing?

            It is first important to understand who the author is. Patrick Henry was a political man and a patriot. He stressed the rights of the colonists and supported rights in the English colonies. Patrick Henry presented resolutions on the Stamp Act that were known as the Virginia Resolves. Patrick Henry was one individual that paved the way for standing up against Great Britain. Within the text, the author was arguing that the colonies should form soldiers in way of defense from Great Britain before the arrival of the British. Patrick Henry was speaking towards the fact that colonists should stand up for themselves and not let Great Britain take advantage of them. In the time period of the “Give me liberty of give me death” speech, there were some doubts regarding the colonies and if they could even stand up to British attacks. Patrick Henry argued that “we,” meaning colonists are not weak if they made proper use of people and arms. That with the power of God and strength drawn by liberty, the colonists could stand up to any enemy force.

2. How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their argument?

            The authors appeal to logos within the argument is quite clear. The author’s logo’s was to stand up against Great Britain now before it was too late. For the colonists, to truly represented the English colonies and showed the British, in modern terms, that they are a force to be reckoned with. He also argued that they should not just ignore Britain and the Acts being put upon the colonists, they need to stand up and be heard; struggle for liberty. I thought the authors appeal to pathos was brilliant. As you read the text, you can truly feel Patrick Henry speaking with real emotion. This is what he believed in, what must be done. From an emotional quality stand point, Henry was polite with his speech at the same time poured his words into the minds of the listener. The author’s ethos was stout. Henry was a bold character and got his point across well. By using motivation, Henry was able to convince others in fighting for liberty.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

            The “Give me liberty or give me death” speech is one of the most profound speeches of all time. It delivered such deep meaning and honor towards others within the House and colonies. The speech was a true act of patriotism and faith, in what is now America. The significance of this piece is simple. Were would we be as a country today if it weren’t for Patrick Henry speaking up to fight against the British. Life could be so different without historical figures like Henry. This speech brought strength to the English colonies and helped them to see that it is possible to defend their land and rights from the British.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why of why not?

            I do find the author’s argument convincing. In a very mature and professional way, Henry was able to communicate the importance of standing up to the British. Henry believed that a man was to be treated equal and be able to speak freely without reserve. The speech was truly a form of patriotism, so convincing that his voice could not be shaken.

Why did English colonists consider themselves superior to Indians and Africans?

English colonists considered themselves superior to Indians and Africans because of how different their cultures were. English colonists thought that the Indians and Africans lacked traits of English civilization. Colonists migrating from Europe to the New World were coming from a place that was well established with religion, government, arts, and much more; which was far different to the Natives of the New World and the Africans. English colonists arrived to the New World to find the Native Americans clothed with leaves and had thoughts of the Indians acting with savage behavior. English colonists considered themselves superior to Africans because of the color of their skin. In the Oxford English Dictionary the word black (which English colonists referred to Africans as) meant many negative things like horrible, wicked, deadly. The word white meant pure and goodness; the exact opposite of the word black. Because of the opposite meanings between black and white, it was easy for English colonists to think they were superior to the African people in the New World. Because the skin color of the Africans were viewed as un-Elglish, the Africans were cursed in the eye of the English colonists.

Questions:

1. As colonial settlements grew in the seventeenth century, how did the English colonists go about acquiring new land that was already claimed by the Native Americans?

2. What were two things that the Indians controlled that colonists desperately wanted? Why did colonists want these two things?