Difference between revisions of "Week 5 Questions/Comments"

From McClurken Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 52: Line 52:
  
 
I also found it surprising that the Native Americans so quickly gave up the six nation treaty they had created the year before when the British Commissioners asked for their help in fighting against “the rebels.”  When Jemison described the British Commissioners coming before the Chiefs to try and convince them to help I really hoped the Chiefs would be able to look past their promises of material goods and an alliance with a rich King.  Sadly the Chiefs were blind sighted by the promises of wealth and agreed to fight against what the British promised to be “only a few easily subdued people who deserve the punishment for their disobedience to the King.”  Just a few passages later Jemison refers to a battle in the spring of 1776 when the Indians were completely beaten and thirty-six died.  It seems like the “sorrow and distress” that quickly falls over the town when the warriors returned from the battle could have been easily avoided if the Chiefs had just stood their ground and not given in to the British demands.—Caitlin Quinn
 
I also found it surprising that the Native Americans so quickly gave up the six nation treaty they had created the year before when the British Commissioners asked for their help in fighting against “the rebels.”  When Jemison described the British Commissioners coming before the Chiefs to try and convince them to help I really hoped the Chiefs would be able to look past their promises of material goods and an alliance with a rich King.  Sadly the Chiefs were blind sighted by the promises of wealth and agreed to fight against what the British promised to be “only a few easily subdued people who deserve the punishment for their disobedience to the King.”  Just a few passages later Jemison refers to a battle in the spring of 1776 when the Indians were completely beaten and thirty-six died.  It seems like the “sorrow and distress” that quickly falls over the town when the warriors returned from the battle could have been easily avoided if the Chiefs had just stood their ground and not given in to the British demands.—Caitlin Quinn
 +
 +
I was interested in the questions that Woloch raised in the introduction to the diary of Grace Galloway, a Loyalist Wife.  Specifically, can women be held responsibile for their political opinions?  In this case Galloway's property and inheritance was confiscated because she was a Loyalist.  I thought this was a bit extreme considering her husband had already fled never to return and she didn't seem like a die hard loyalist in her diary and was more concerned about her possessions.  Additionally, at the time women were thought to be politically ignorant.  Was this instance more about show rather than politics?  - Fiona Cobb

Revision as of 02:18, 27 September 2007