French Revolution Slogan

The name of the author of our slogan poster is Léopold Delafose. He is 25 years old and is stuck working as a wheat farmer. Léopold is unable to sell his crops for a sufficient amount of money because of government restrictions. He believes in this slogan because he feels he deserves to earn money for his hard work. With all of these restrictions he is unable to gain anything, while upper class members live a lavish lifestyle.

The Shays and Whiskey Rebellion

After learning about the Revolutionary War and the events afterwards, it is important to answer the essential question. Is rebellion ever necessary or acceptable? How should the government respond to rebellion? The two best examples to look at are Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. What was different and what was similar? Were the rioters justified?

The first incident was in 1786, “Shays’ Rebellion”. Farmers were growing angry because they were being asked to repay the debt from the war through taxes. However, the farmers were being taxed for so much that most of them had to sell everything they owned They were upset because they believed they should be rewarded for fighting for the government to exist. They grew so angry that Daniel Shays collected a fair group of farmers to fight and rebel against the government. At the time, the citizens were under the Articles of Confederation rather than the Constitution. The government only raised a small army against him, as they were not allowed to use the military.

In 1794, there was a 25% sales tax put on liquor by George Washington. Of course there were citizens upset with this, so a large group of people banded together, tarring and feathering revenue officers. At this time the U.S. citizens were under the Constitution, so Washington raised about 13,000 men to subdue the rioters.

The essential question was “is rebellion ever acceptable, and how should the government react?” My conclusion is rebellion depends on the situation. If it is a serious issue that needs to be changed, then rioting may be acceptable to be able to give a strong message to the government. However, the government should be able to respond with just as much force as the rioters to be able to subdue them and prevent further damage. The government will be able to learn and understand that their citizens feel very strongly about what they need and want and will make a change.

Saratoga through Yorktown

From the Battle at Saratoga to the Siege of Yorktown, there were many battles that tested the Colonist’s morale and their physical strength. The question is, which was more important, maintaining a high morale or winning big military victories?

First, we  should look at Battles that possibly helped boost the colonists morale. The first example is surviving Valley Forge. Although it was an extremely difficult time for the colonists, they were able to use their survival skills and tactics to survive. They faced many, many difficulties, the most common due to starvation, freezing, disease, and the lack of hospitals. This horrible and enduring trip through the winter bonded the colonists together in many, many ways because they felt as if they could survive many things together. Overall, it was a very bonding experience that brought them closer together.

When looking at the battles of the war that were considered huge military victories for the colonists. One standout example is the battle of Saratoga. The battle of Saratoga was considered a turning point in the American Revolution, but primarily because it was such a huge turning point in the war’s outcome. When the British surrendered to the Americans, that was when the war turned around, because the ragtag group of colonists had managed to defeat the great army of the British.

After looking through the evidence for both sides, I believe that it was mostly large military victories that helped the colonists win the war the most. It was because of the big victories that their morale increased, and without the victories their spirits may have been very low. It was important for them the maintain high spirits, but the big battles that they won were more important.

Washington's Leadership

          A good leader is motivational, experienced, a hard pusher, and brave. George Washington was the captain and leader of the American army during the Revolutionary War. I believe that he was a good leader during the events of the war.

          During the Battle of Trenton, there were many moments where Washington was acting like a good leader. He helped to motivate the men when he rode in between both lines and ordered the men to fire. This was a good example of leadership because not only did he bring reinforcements for his men, but he achieved lots of motovation and drove the men forward.

          There was also moments when Washington did not show good leadership. Over the winter, the officers and generals were being fed well, whereas the other soldiers were not. Macaroni Jack was caught for some minor offense, and his punishment was a few lashes from a whip. Before his lashes, he said "brothers, won't you help me?" Washington wanted to prevent any form of mutiny immediately and decided to execute men as punishment. This is not good leadership because instead of disciplining his men, or feeding them, he executed the offenders and cracked down with harsh discipline on the men. They were forced to obey him rather than obey him willingly.

          Overall, after reviewing the first half of the war, I believe that George Washington was a good leader. I believe this because although he was very harsh over the though winter, he was very motivational to the men and used lots of skillful tactics to achieve victories with each coming battle. 

Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence could be considered a break-up letter because, in a way, it was America breaking up with Britain. King George believed that what he was doing in America was a way of protecting the colonies, whereas the colonists saw it a different way. They felt as if they were being controlled against their will and were being oppressed and repressed.

The preamble is similar to the Enlightenment philosophy because it mentions the unalienable rights -- Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. It also mentions consent of the governed and the people’s safety and happiness.

A grievance is “a real or imagined wrong or other cause for complaint or protest, especially unfair treatment.” The Americans decided to include them in the Declaration of Independence because it included their claims of the poor behavior they had been receiving from the British. One example of a grievance is when King George forbid them to pass laws until he accepts, and he sometimes became lazy. This was upsetting to the Americans because they had no ability to pass laws on their own. One last grievance is when King George dissolved representative houses against the rights of the people.

          The Enlightenment helped fuel the American Revolution in many different ways because Thomas Paine, with his release of "Common Sense", had many convincing and interesting points about how complete independence is the only solution from the British.

          However, many of the colonists were not ready for a revolution. Many of them rejected him, and very strongly disagreed with his views and what he presented to the colonists. Because of this his plans had an impact, but it was not one that impacted the world for the better in any way.

A social contract is when a group, or groups of people exit the State of Nature, and voluntarily give up some of their rights in order to protect their natural ones. Thomas Hobbes believed that social contracts were necessary, because otherwise, the world would be in a constant State of War. There would be no government, and no rules, therefore a social contract would be the only way to definitively solve the problem. John Locke believed in social contracts because, although people will not resort to murder, a social contract is needed to keep people’s natural rights protected.

What is easy about creating a social contract that people are willing to follow is that you are going to have many followers, and they are willing to have their rights protected, such as life, liberty, and property. However it can be difficult because not everyone who agrees to have their rights protected may agree to your contract rules, so getting people to abide by your rules could prove difficult.

There were some changes I made based on my classmates’ feedback. One thing I changed was my third rule. It was originally “our main priority is to survive, not to be friends.” After receiving some feedback, I realized the rule was not very clear. So, making it more clear, I changed it to “Our main priority is survival because friendship can sometimes be a distraction.” I think it makes our reasoning a little more clear. It is not completely ruling out friendship, but it is merely suggesting it can be distracting when surviving. I also changed the fourth rule to “Weapons are only used by those who have shown worth. Worth is shown by trials; weapons are not allowed inside the walls of the community.” I changed it to this because it shows who is read to have a weapon, and who is not.

Enlightened Absolutism

          There were many monarchs that may have claimed to be "enlightened" absolutists, however many of them committed acts that could have shown them to be either more absolutists or enlightened. We decided to discuss this as a unit. Using the three rulers Joseph II, Frederick The Great, and Catherine the Great. We read a few documents on them each, and wrote a few notes on their decisions and how it either related to Absolutism or Enlightened behavior. The Venn Diagram is below. The pink font is Frederick the Great, blue is Catherine, and Green is Joseph II.

          An enlightened monarch is a ruler that exemplifies examples of enlightened behavior over absolutism. An enlightened ruler is generally a benevolent person. The choices they make are, for the most part (at least they say) for the greater good of the people. Even though they try to make choices that are of a certain belief, each one commits at least one act whether it is absolutist or enlightened. 

          I chose the ruler Joseph II. The propaganda poster I created portrays his enlightened actions because one of the major things he did was fight for the end of censorship. It was an very enlightenment driven move because it is driving for freedom of speech for everybody. However, there were some things Joseph did that could be considered absolutist. Although he did do many things for the good of the people, his motives were, ultimately, for absolute royal control. Although he sold the properties of the monasteries and convents out from under them, which is illegal, he did use it to build hospitals, which is also a very enlightened thing.

Resumes for Royals: Ivan the Terrible

The king of the nation of Absolutopia recently died without an heir and with no living relatives. Absolutopia is now seeking a new ruler to continue the previous king’s tradition of absolute rule. To fill this position, the powerful noblemen and noblewomen of the nation have posted a job opening and are seeking resumes from qualified candidates.

The monarch I am recommending is Ivan IV “the Terrible” of Russia. Ivan was born of Ivan Chetvyorty Vasilyevich on the date of August 25th, 1530. He was proclaimed king at age 3, so his reign ranged from 1533 to his death in 1584. His mother served as regent until he was 8 years old, when she died. He was crowned the Czar of Russia at age 16. It was said he was respected in public, but neglected in private, which may have led to his later attitude.

One example of divine right that Ivan has is when he was born from Vasily III. He was crowned king at only 3 years old. Ivan also created quite a powerful army. He had a goal to turn the country into a military heavyweight. He destroyed the Tatar stronghold, and later Astrakhan. However, Ivan also showed many moments of limiting power of nobility and church officials. Although Ivan was highly respected in public, he was very neglected in private by the nobles. This may have led to his further repressions against them. When his wife died, he accused them of poisoning her and and continued on a campaign of repressions. He however, did amass some wealth. He had the St. Basil’s Cathedral built for him on Red Square. However, he made a very poor decision. Because he found it so beautiful, he blinded all his workers to prevent them from building anything for anyone else.

In conclusion, I do not recommend Ivan for the role. When he was young, he was a respectable person, but as he grew, and stayed neglected, he became almost erratic in his behavior. He grew more and more constantly angry and upset, and he set many repressions on the nobles and church officials. If he were considered for the role, he would only cause harm and discomfort in it.

          The colony me and my group studied was the colony of Delaware. We first started off by learning the basics of our colony, seeing as none of us knew much about the topic. We read a brief document learning about an overview of its settlement and early years, as well as some more information in a textbook passage. Once we read up, we organized the info into bullets and answered some questions in order to organize the information better. It was easier once we got into the project. We put together a list of information that was essential to our work and began putting together our iMovie video.

          Next we began to work on our iMovie video. We started off by reading about when our colony was first founded. Delaware was first founded in the year 1638 by the Swedish. After a few years of settlement, they broke off of Pennsylvania and became their own colony. Southern Delaware was inhabited by Africans and English, and Northern Delaware was inhabited by Quakers, Scotch-Irish, and Presbyterian. They originally settled because King Charles II owed the Penn family a huge debt, so he gave a huge tract of land in the new world. Penn immediately saw possibilities. The economy focused on wheat, milling, lumber, and furs. They also performed sugar refining, distilling, shipbuilding, and trade. They originally settled for trade with other colonies. 

          Me and my group's project was mostly Logos, or logical appeal. We mostly discussed the appeals of the job opportunities and the widespread options there were for jobs and ways to live. There was not much Ethos, although we did state we accept anyone's religion, there were no strong examples of any Ethical or Religious support.

Overall, this was a very interesting project to study. I learned about William Penn, England, and more about how religions were accepted back in those times.

Puritans in America: Were they perfect?

The Puritans were a religious group that wanted to do one thing--purify the Church of England by getting rid of all traditional Catholic practices. They viewed themselves as “a model of Christian charity”, according to John Winthrop, but I don’t believe they actually were. As we study the Puritans, and what they accomplished in their time of settlement, we will answer the question of if they really were a perfect model or not. In class, we read over many documents, both primary and secondary sources. We read primary sources from John Winthrop, which read him claiming that God had claimed the land for them.

Puritans were a religious group that wanted to purify the Church of England by ridding all traces of traditional catholic practices. King Charles I was King James I's son. When he took the throne it became obvious that he had even less tolerance for religious difference than his father. Once Charles I became king, it was clear he had a very high dislike for the Puritans. The Puritans left to settle in New England because they weren't liked by Charles I at all. When they first settled there, they intended to live there in peace, to love other settlers like a brother, and to always help one another. “To do this we must work together as if we were one man. We must treat other settlers as brothers. We must enjoy each other. We must make others’ problems our own.” It was also said to make one another’s problems their own, and to work together as a community.

Before leaving England in 1630, John Winthrop and other Puritans attended a sermon by Rev. John Cotton, who said "god promised his plantation" saying they were chosen people. “The settlers can plainly see the influence of God leading them from one country to another. God makes room for a people to live there when he drives those who live there away by a just war.” He is saying that God is leading the Puritans to New England, and if there are settlers there, it is justified to wage war against them. And, after a short while in the New World, they waged war against the Pequot tribe. It was an all-out massacre, and they ended up burning the entire village down, which consisted of ⅓ of the total population. It was unjustified in my opinion because it was a complete and utterly brutal massacre that killed hundreds, if not at least thousands of Pequots for no good reason. They were too brutal with their attack. One thing that also struck my interest was how poorly women were treated in Salem. Anne Hutchinson was put on trial for speaking her mind, and defied the church by interpreting the bible for herself. She was given no rights and was put on trial immediately. As a woman, she was expected to cook, clean, and care for the children around the household. And also, related to trials, the witch trials were just as unfair, if not more so. If the girls screamed, and accused someone of being a witch, they were put on trial, but 9 times out of 10 they were executed.

So, overall, the Puritans were not a perfect model of Christian charity they thought they were. In fact, they were the near opposite. Although they left England because Charles I didn't like them, they had no religious rights in America and they didn't own any land because of God. They completely massacred the Pequot colony, because they believed that they were justified into doing so because God sent them to that land and the Pequots were blocking it. They, however, crossed the line when they waged war and burnt the village down. The women were also very highly oppressed, and treated very poorly. They had almost no rights, and some were put on trial for even speaking their mind. The Salem Witch Trials were also one big last example. Basically, no matter how religious, how well-respected that person was, if they were accused they were eventually going to be executed.

The Pequot War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFfxRm8ZXsw (Part one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G92duTgaZ_A (Part two)

Salem Witch Trials: Life in Salem in 1692

http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/life/

Jamestown DBQ

Jamestown seemed at first to be a promise of new life and a new, safe lifestyle for all. However, this was not the case, because of the 110 original settlers, only 40 survived. The reason the English came to the Americas is to establish the first permanent settlement. A group of investors called The Virginia Company. The first settlers were men of the ages 17-35. Most were lower classmen, more so poor people. Early Jamestown was a colonization of English people in America that lasted from 1607 to 1611. What is so confusing about this is why so many of the colonists died in such a short period of time.

One of the first causes of death in the Jamestown were environmental issues. One of the issues was that when the English settled, they did not settle far enough upstream. When high tide arrived, it sometimes mixed with the freshwater in the stream, creating brackish water. Brackish water causes poor health if people used it as their water supply. Also, they happened to land in it’s longest unbroken period of drought. Without rainfall, it was very difficult to impossible to water crops for food. Brackish water and lack of rainfall were a detriment to the settlers and the environment during the years 1607 to 1611.

Another cause of death in early Jamestown was the lack of settler skills. One of the issues is that, in 1607, out of the 110 settlers that traveled, 82 of them had occupations, but 47 of them were ‘gentlemen’. That is over 55% of the total people with an occupation. ‘Gentlemen’ were people born of wealth who were not used to working with their hands or working at all. Another problem is that there were no females whatsoever in both trips in 1607 and 1608. Females had many important jobs in the community, which were caring for the young in homes, creating clothing and furniture, and also for medical care. Another thing the English lacked was proper skills of organizing a trade and being civil. “In 1609 Francis West and 36 men sailed up the Chesapeake Bay to try to trade for corn with the Patawomeke Indians…” Although it sounds as if the English meant for a peaceful trade, the document also states this: “Though West was able to load his small ship with grain, the success involved ‘some harshe and Crewell dealinge by cutting of towe of the salvages heads and other extremetyes.’” It seems the English took to violence rather than negotiating or acting civil.

One last reason the English died so quickly was because of their relationships with the natives. In the previous statement, when the English were confronted with a trade of corn, they responded with violence and ended up decapitating two of them and dismembering many others. There is no evidence in the documents to support why the English used force rather than peaceful trade. Perhaps they used force because they didn’t understand the Indians and did not know how to interact with them in any other way. The surviving Indians would most likely want revenge on the people who killed their own and took their crops forcefully.

Although Jamestown seemed as if nothing could go wrong, many things obviously did. There were many, many issues in the surrounding environment, including brackish water and water with festering waste. Another problem was how poorly their settler skills were. 55% of people who had occupations were gentlemen, who had no skills with labor whatsoever. Finally, the way they treated the Natives was very poor, and the Natives most likely tried to retaliate against them and take revenge. The English were basically overall terrible and had no settler skills, lived in a bad environment, and treated the Natives poorly.

Dennis B. Blanton, “Jamestown’s Environment,” Center for Archaeological Research, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia, 2000.

Adapted from “The Lost Colony and Jamestown Droughts,” Science, April 24, 1998.

Adapted from John Smith , The Generall Historie of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles, Book III, 1624.

Ivor Noel Hume, The Virginia Adventure, Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.

The Conquistadors

There are many sides and differences to the first meeting of Moctezuma and Cortes. However, what really happened, and what was meant is much different than what was recorded in textbooks, and many other documents written by historians. We, as a class, read 4 passages--a textbook passage, and 3 documents written by professional historians. First, the textbook excerpt gives an excerpt on the document on the arrival of Cortes. In class, we read a set of questions determining what the document was about, and what it was stating had happened. We then looked at the other three documents, and it was clear that the textbook document was very different from the other three documents, written by professional historians and first-hand sources.

Upon the arrival of the Spanish, according to the textbook edition, the Aztec, apparently very much Moctezuma, greeted Cortes with great respect, great honor, and believed him to be a god. They offered him lots of gold, and even the throne. They told him he resembled their god Quetzalcoatl, and  told him he was their true, indisputable leader. However, this is not really what happened. When the Spanish and Cortes arrived, Moctezuma did welcome them with warmth, and gave them gold and all those things, but this was not his true intention. It was a part of the Aztec culture to say the opposite of what you actually mean when meeting new people, as a way of respecting them. Cortes misinterpreted this, as he had no way of knowing that this was their custom.

Reading these different documents and learning the differences in the documents, I learned the severe importance of knowing the perspective and bias of each story. I learned that without doing research on the author or the background of that author, you may be given either false or biased information. For example, when reading the textbook’s document, I, at first, believed the information I was reading. I thought it was a bit weird, almost crazy, that Moctezuma would believe him to be their God and true ruler. Once doing more research and reading the other documents, I learned that the textbook information was either biased or false, and that I should always do research to answer my questions.

The Columbian Exchange

The Columbian Exchange was the exchange of ideas, foods, crops, people, animals, and cultures between the New World and the Old World after the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492. It started after Columbus’ first expedition to America in 1492. From then on, each expedition was working bringing more newer ideas to the country at a time.

Throughout this whole exchange, there were moments of suffering, but also benefits. Many benefits. Mostly, the benefits were towards the Old World, or Europe and the African allies. One of the great benefits was the transfer of cash crops such as tobacco and cacao beans. They also enslaved lots of people, and brought them back to the Old World.

Although there was success for the Old World, there was unfortunately more suffering for the New World. So much disease was spread so quickly that an estimated 90% of the population was killed. The rest were unable to help themselves, so they suffered. The Europeans, unknowing that it was their diseases that spread to the Americas, called the Natives weak, and incompetent.

The Columbian Exchange, although it seemed to be a success for all, was really an “unequal exchange”. It was an unequal exchange because, although the Old World and the New World both received very good crops and items, the Old World receiving tobacco, cacao beans, tomatoes, and turkey, and the New World receiving livestock, citrus fruits, sugar cane, and the honeybee, the Old World gave the New World something worse: Disease. Horrible diseases such as smallpox, influenza, and malaria infected and killed an estimated 90% of the population. The remaining were unable to help themselves. So, although it may seem otherwise, the Columbian Exchange was certainly the Unequal Exchange.

Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue

Christopher Columbus, at first, may seem like the person we all think we know him to have been; the wonderful explorer who discovered the new world, known as America, that we live in today. However, that was not the case whatsoever. Columbus, while he was an explorer, did not intend to discover America, nor did he name it America. Columbus thought he had landed in the continent near India, and that the Natives living there were, in fact, Indians. His objective was to find gold, and he did whatever he had to in order to achieve that goal. He enslaved the Native people against their will, forced them to do hard labor, and killed them for sport, when they had been so nice to him and had saved him. He was brutal, and was hungry and desperate to bring gold back to the king and queen of Spain.

I believed people should not continue to celebrate a holiday in his name anymore. He was not at all how our teachers said he was. He was a brute, and did whatever he wanted to achieve his goal of finding gold. He enslaved, beat, possibly tortured, and killed the Natives for sport. He not only unintentionally found the Americas, but they were not named after him in any way. He was not even the first explorer to land on the supposed “New World”. His intentions were for the greed of his own personal gain, and not to benefit the knowledge of the world of any of those around him. For those reasons, I believe Christopher Columbus day is a lie and should not be celebrated anymore.

Scientific Revolution

The scientific revolution was a great change in the way science and scientists viewed things, such as the human body and how it works. It started with the scientific method. The scientific method was a 6 step method on how to test and/or prove a theory you may have. Back in the 1500's, a new, popular exploration that was happening was the study of astronomy. Two very important astronomers were Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei. Copernicus was a very important astronomer because he was the first to discover that the solar system was a heliocentric one. The idea was revolutionary, even though it went against the beliefs and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Galileo redefined those discoveries by basing it off of Copernicus'. He used a large telescope, and discovered 4 moons of Jupiter, and even more so how the moons and the planets orbited. Back then, not only was the belief of how the world worked different, but chemistry and medicine worked differently too. Robert Boyle was a chemist. He created the formula pv=k, and also the air pump. He discovered the process of combustion, and also made the principles of observing the world around you. Leonardo da Vinci was a surgeon who dissected 30 deceased bodies to learn more about their muscles, brain, lungs, and heart. It didn't go over well with the Roman Catholic Church, but it did play a major role in how we view our bodies today. Throughout the lives of all these astronomers, chemists, and medics, the Roman Catholic Church stayed in one place. They stuck to their beliefs that the earth stayed immobile, while all other bodies in the universe revolved around it. The discoveries that chemists and surgeons such as Andreas Vesalius and Robert Boyle were against the church's discoveries, teachings, and beliefs, so they tried their hardest to cover up their stories and discoveries, however, the word spread too fast, and many people knew before long. Being a merchant for da Vinci, Vesaluis, and William Harvey themselves, I have learned much about their discoveries.

When I first heard about the spreading news about Leonardo da Vinci, Andreas Vesalius and William Harvey and their discoveries on the human body, I was very critical. Not only was what they were doing going against the Church, but they were using actual corpses! It sounded completely disgusting and immoral. I didn't know what else to feel except angry, and disgusted. But, after some further research, I realized that the church was wrong, and was using too much force in trying to stop this and cover this up. The more I learned about this, the more fascinated I became in their study of the human body. Becoming more and more intrigued, I discovered that Vesalius had written a book called de Humani corporis fabrica. It contained all sorts of findings and discoveries on the human body. The church made it seem as if only they were right, all the time, and anyone who went against their teachings or beliefs were to be punished. However, it seemed to me that what da Vinci and Vesalius were doing wasn't doing any harm; in fact, it seemed to be doing good. Vesalius was appointed the lead physician of the holy Roman emperor Charles V. So why was it so bad, if it was gaining him special attention and giving him roles of higher importance?

cover image of Andreas Vesalius' "de Humani corporis fabrica"

Printing Press during the Renaissance

Before the reformation, the spread of news around Europe was very slow, and often wasn’t very successful. However, after the printing press was invented, the spread of ideas and information became a lot easier, and a lot more successful. Many more copies of books were printed much more quickly, and many people learned to read this way. The spread of the reformation and any information became a lot more possible after the invention of the printing press.

This is a representation of a modern-day representation of how people would communicate their information in the days of the renaissance. This is through the eyes of two ordinary people, and it is an act of fiction.

@calvinismguy News is spreading that Protestantism has a new branch, called Calvinism! #johncalvin #weird #interested

@catholiccivilian I know, it predetermines whether or not you go to heaven or not. But, work hard and you might prove that you’re heaven-bound! #heaven #excited #hardworking

@calvinismguy It is my lifelong dream to get into heaven, I have sinned many times in the past. I should consider Calvinism…#calvinism #hopeful

@henryfan123 Henry VIII just got married a second time… #unusual #desperate

@ihatehenry He’s just trying to get a boy child so he can have an heir. There’s nothing wrong with that! #henryisthebest #greatness

@henryfan123 Dude...word’s spreading he beheaded his wife...how is that okay in any way?! #insane #crazy #hell-bound

Martin Luther and the Reformation

Martin Luther was a Catholic monk, born in 1483 and died in 1546. Martin Luther was originally discomforted and challenged the Roman Catholic Church because the Church was selling indulgences, or a way to buy yourself into heaven. Martin believed that the Church was wrong in doing this, and sent a letter explaining himself.  “He was troubled by the selling of indulgences so he mailed a letter to the Archbishop of Mainz to explain his position.” He strongly believed, at first, that the message the church was trying to send was not just to gain money, but one of much more spiritual value too. However, once he researched more, and looked into the topic, he realized what the church was really trying to accomplish.

I believe, at first, that his intentions were for the good of the people. At first, he was very polite, almost timid, but after he had gained a following, and after many people were supporting him, he became more powerful, and more strong in his words. He was supported by the people, so he decided to try harder for them and make a lasting impression. I also believe that Martin was more concerned with spiritual reforms in the church than with the peasants. First, Luther was more involved with the church long-term, and that was his life mission. The peasants just became to be a greater issue once he had given that document, the An Admonition to Peace. The peasants decided to revolt against the church, and Luther decided to take care of it quickly, to keep the peace and the church alive. When he issued the Against the Murderous, Thieving Peasants, it became clear where he was placed in the matter.

The Medici and Machiavelli

This week we studied the Medici and Machiavelli. Our essential question was “How did new wealth in Florence contribute to new ideas during the Renaissance?” In class, we discussed the question, watched videos, and read documents on the Medici family and Machiavelli during the Renaissance. We learned about patronage, and how it was artists that were paid to complete works of art in the homes of the families that paid them. We discussed the Medici family, and their rise to be the most powerful and most wealthy family in all of Florence. They sponsored someone who aspired to be pope, and the pope made the Medici bank the head bank of Florence. We also talked about Machiavelli, and how he wrote a book called “The Prince” when he got banished, to try to win back his political career, but it was too late, and it failed.

It is important for a prince to spend all of his time studying the art of war because “it is the sole art that belongs to him who rules”, or, it is the key art of a true ruler. It is not only, as he states, the force that upholds those who are true, born princes, but it allows men to rise up through the ranks. By studying war and knowing it well he could be well-respected, and well at ease knowing these skills. By being lazy and not studying war, you will grow to be despised and even more lazy.

Overall, I don’t agree with Machiavelli’s ideas on leadership. It seems his idea of a good leader is a strong one, who studies war and martial arts. Also, he states that, of the two, it is better to be feared than to be loved. I don’t think many leaders nowadays follow his principle of leadership, because a good leader is loved, not feared. Men during this generation would not follow this, because morals of peace, not war, is being spread around.

Link to the excerpts: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/prince-excerp.asp

The Black Death

     So, during this lesson we learned about the Black Death. We learned what time period it took place during, the effects it had on the millions of people involved, and how we could tell which sources are legitimate and which ones aren't.
     First, I'm going to introduce the Florentine Chronicle article. It is a short passage giving us a bit of information on the horrors of the Black Death. It was written sometime between the 1370's and the 1380's. The author was a man named di Coppo di Stefano Buonaiuti, who lived from 1336 to about 1390. The Chronicle is a reliable source because he was a primary source from the Black Death, so he may have had first-hand experience with it. It may not be reliable because he was only about 2 when the height of the plague was around. I don't know about you, or anyone else, but I remember barely anything from when I was 2 years old, unless an adult has told me something.

    The second article I'm telling you about is the Decameron article. It was written by a man named Boccaccio in 1348, who was alive and witnessed the Black Death. Now, this article may be believable because he was alive during the Black Death, and was an old enough age to be able to remember the horrible accounts that were witnessed. This may not be believable as well because it is a work of fiction; otherwise it is not real. It is a fake documentation of the Black Death based off of this man's witnesses, and it probably contains a lot of false information.

     Now, after reading through and analyzing both articles, I have to conclude that the Florentine Chronicle is the more accurate and believable article. I believe this because, first off, the Decameron is a fictional work. I know it was based off of real witnesses, but non-fictional works are a lot more trustable than a work of fiction. The Chronicle is more trustable because it tells brief instances of the horrors from a primary source.