Settling the New World

The first citizens of the Kingdom of Great Britain ever to arrive and settle in the New World came, aboard a ship named the Mayflower, in an effort to escape the religious persecution they faced in their homeland. These first settlers were known as the Pilgrims, who settled in Cape Cod around the year 1620. After the arrival of these early settlers followed a massive wave of British men and women who migrated to the American continent with hopes to find a new, more prosperous way of life than that which they had in England. With these new settlements, came a series of difficulties to be faced while developing a new way of life in an unknown part of the world. However, after some years of trial and error, the British were able to develop some key features among their colonies that assured success and prosperity for them all throughout the years. Among these key features were their religious beliefs, which guided the actions of many colonists throughout their daily lives, the ethnic diversity that was found in the most part of these colonies, and the great interest in trade that was developed by the settlers.

            The first British settlements of the 17^th century faced many difficulties in establishing a prosperous community that would be self-sufficient. This happened for many reasons among them the lack of skills and craft from part of the new settlers and their unrealistic expectations of finding great riches in the Americas. Their lust to find objects such as gold and silver or the coveted Fountain of Youth blinded them from the fact that they had a need to plant crops if they were to feed their own and successfully become a self-sufficient society. Other than this, they were unaware of the fact that native inhabitants had already encountered Europeans since 1492 and had developed a rather hostile attitude against them and their settlements. This caused the new British settlements to be severely attacked by the violent Native Americans, such as the one related by Mary Rowlandson: “Their first coming was about sunrising; hearing the noise of some guns, we looked out; several houses were burning, and the smoke ascending to heaven…” (Rowlandson 73)

                  The English colonies, however, were able to develop some prominent features that worked to their utter advantage in the establishment of successful and prosperous colonial settlements. One of these features was their religious belief, which guided the actions of many colonists throughout their daily lives. This religious way of living established guidelines for the government that ensured the well being of the people as a whole as is exemplified through the words of Puritan leader John Winthrop who expressed his desires “to seek out a place of cohabitation and consortship under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical” (Winthrop 71).  Later on he mentioned that “we must love brotherly without dissimulation, we must love one another with a pure heart fervently, we must bear one another’s burdens.” (Winthrop 71). Other than this, a second feature that proved beneficial for the prosperity of the English colonies was the ethnic diversity shared and promoted among the colonies. For example, William Penn made an invitation to “those of our own or other nations, that are inclined to transport themselves or families beyond the seas, may find another country (English colonies) added to their choice…” (Penn 74). Finally, the last feature that undoubtedly benefitted the development of the British establishments was the great interest in trade shared among colonists. This mentality was no better exemplified than by the words of John Appleby in saying that “evidence mounts that prerevolutionary America witnessed a steady commercialization of economic life: trades of all kinds increased; frontier communities quickly integrated themselves into market networkd; large and small farmers changed crops in response to commercial incentives.” (Appleby 94)

            Like all New World colonies, the British settlements faced a broad spectrum of difficulties during their early years of establishment. Fortunately, as history evidences, these ingenious settlers found a way to develop key characteristics in their villages that helped overcome these initial barriers and assure the prosperity of their towns for centuries to come. Had it not been for these early efforts and aspirations towards greatness, the world we live in might just not be the same. 

           

           

           

Works Cited

Rowlandson, Mary. “Mary Rowlandson, a New England Woman, Recounts Her Experience of Captivity and Escape from the Wampanoag during King Philip’s war, 1675.” Major Problems in American History, Volume I: To 1877, document and essays, third edition. Hoffman, Elizabeth Cobbs; Blum, Edward J; Gjerde, Jon. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 73. Electronic copy.

Winthrop, John. “Puritan Leader John Winthrop Provides a Model of Christian Charity, 1630.” Major Problems in American History, Volume I: To 1877, document and essays, third edition. Hoffman, Elizabeth Cobbs; Blum, Edward J; Gjerde, Jon. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 71. Electronic copy.

Penn, William. “Proprietor William Penn Promotes His Colony, 1681.” Major Problems in American History, Volume I: To 1877, document and essays, third edition. Hoffman, Elizabeth Cobbs; Blum, Edward J; Gjerde, Jon. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 74. Electronic copy.

Appleby, Joyce. “Worlds of Goods in the Northern Colonies.” Breen, T. H. Major Problems in American History, Volume I: To 1877, document and essays, third edition. Hoffman, Elizabeth Cobbs; Blum, Edward J; Gjerde, Jon. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 74. Electronic copy.

Socrates & Jesus: Did They Have to Die?

Some of the most remembered figures throughout history have been those who believe in the rightness of what they are doing up until the point of gracefully choosing to die because of it. Such is the case of the remembrance and legacy of Socrates to this day. The reason why Socrates’ ideas shape the society even to this day is due in great part to the fact that he was willing to die for what he believed in. Perhaps one of the best examples in which Socrates’ legacy can best be explained through is the legacy of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus, just as well as Socrates, began to preach against the holy laws of the state and developed a group of disciples that firmly coincided with his teachings and chronicled his messages. Just as well, he didn’t receive compensation for his labor; he preached his message for the sake of spreading what is good and what is just. Both Jesus and Socrates believed that the rightness of the messages they were spreading came from a higher power, that of a God. The sense of the rightfulness was so certain to Socrates that he even stated, “nothing can harm a good man either in life or after death.” What this meant is that, no matter in life or in death, he considers himself to be a good man and everything that will come out of the trial, even death, will be of shame to the accusers and not to himself. Jesus believed in this as well, and even asked the higher power “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Socrates made a similar statement in saying “I bear no grudge at all against those who condemned me and accused me.”

As is known through historical texts, both Jesus and Socrates died because of the messages they preached. However, they did not see their deaths as penalties but rather as the final step on their roads to preach what is right and just. In both cases, they ultimately accept death, as was mentioned by Socrates when he said, “the time had come when it was better for me to die and be released from my distractions.”

However, we must not assume that the mere fact of Socrates dying is what made his messages so transcendental. Quite particularly, it is the events that led up to his death, the successfulness of the spread of his message, his self-assurance of rightfulness, his higher calling, and his nonchalant attitude and acceptance at the time of his death that caused such a widespread sensation.

The fact that both Socrates and Jesus ended up dying magnified their importance to such an extent that their legacies are seen to this very day. Jesus’ legacy is more apparent, we see the cross, the thousands of churches, and the religions, and we see how Jesus has changed the world. However, the ways our governments are formed, the transcendental theories of social contract and Socratic teachings, are all due to Socrates and the message he was able to successfully spread not only through his lifetime and in his city but also throughout history and in every corner of the world.

Socrates’ death is not necessarily held responsible for the magnitude and importance of the message he promulgated throughout his lifetime. However, his death did play a deciding role in him proving himself honest and true in the eyes of the world by proving that his philosophical way of life is so correct, that it is worth dying for. Had it none been for his attitude and teachings up until the moment of his death, we wouldn’t be talking about his message as we are doing so today. 

The Colonists' Path To Independence

  

In between 1754 and 1763, the French & Indian War took place between the English and the French empire, both of which owned disputed colonies in North America. Although England successfully defeated their opponents, their victory did not come at a cheap price. As a result of this bellic conflict, as was mentioned during Lecture 10, England’s national debt doubled and the King felt the need and responsibility to protect their newly acquired territories such as Quebec, Florida, Detroit, etc. These consequences of the war led England’s Prime Minister at the time, George Grenville, to think of a strategy in which the Americans, as the mainland Englishmen called the colonists, ended up paying the price for the defense of their own territory. We can say that the implementation of Grenville’s ideas and the colonists’ reactions to them caused colonists to stop feeling British but rather create their own identity. In my opinion, one could state that the enactment of the acts to be discussed below actually generated for the first time the sentiments that would eventually lead colonists to revolt against the British Crown.

The way of charging colonists for the expenditures that were to be implemented in the North American continent was exemplified through the enactment of the “The Stampt Act of 1765”. This act established a tax on the colonies by means of a special stamp that would be placed on any printed product such as: playing cards, letters, permits, death certificates, etc. As one might imagine, this bill affected much of the colonial population and they would not remain silent.

            Mad and determined to speak out, the colonists started to demonstrate resistance to the Stamp Act in spring 1765 and continued until it was repealed the year after. These demonstrations of resistance all led 9 of the colonies to send delegates to convene in the newly created Stamp Act Congress, in which they published a resolution voicing the opinion of the colonists. In this text they exemplified much of the emotions felt by the British subjects of the American continent such as the sense of loyalty, self-government, disappointment, indignity, and resistance that suddenly conglomerated together following the enactment of the Stamp Act.

            The loyalty that the colonists felt towards the King & Country, especially after a war in which they contributed avidly towards its success, is perfectly seen in the introduction to their resolution, which says that the members of the Congress are “sincerely devoted with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to His majesty’s person and Government.” (Major Problems 104) However, the rest of the document illustrates some of the ideals that lay the foundation for the American Revolution, the ideals of no taxation without representation and self-government; government with the consent of the governed.  These were the main reasons why they were protesting the Act; they began to realize that they were being taxed without their approval and that their rights as British subjects were being reprimanded. For example, the colonists started to realize how the legislation began to illustrate a “manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists” (Major problems 104). This led them to state in Article II “That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the Kingdom of Great Britain” (Major Problems 104). With regards to the illegality of being taxed with improper representation the members of the Stamp Act Congress expressed in Article III “That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives”(Major problems 104). Finally, even more convincing that this resolution served as a predecessor for the foundations of the American Revolution, the colonists expressed in Article V “That the only representatives of the people of these colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures.” In other words, since 1765, the colonists refused to be represented by the British Parliament but rather demanded that their affairs be resolved amongst themselves in their respective colonies, which seems a lot like a sovereign form of government.

Without a doubt, the foundations that led to the eventual Declaration of Independence of the United States of America can be seen as early as 1765 through the Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress. Such an opinion is best represented by “Liberty, Equality, Power” which indicated that the resolution affirmed “colonial loyalty to the King and all due subordination to Parliament but condemned the Stamp and Sugar Acts.” In other words, although the English subjects of North America stilled hailed loyalty to the King, as they have increasingly done so up until the late 18^th century, the implementation of these unjust acts began to change the tide of American loyalism. So much did these this acts change the sentiments of the colonists, that none more than 11 years later, they proudly and rightfully proclaimed Independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain. In an odd way, our path to independence was sparked by the intolerable policies of the very nation our fathers called home.

The Social Contract Theory

The legitimacy of a government is validated only so long as the terms that were agreed upon among the people being governed before its creation are upheld to its fullest extent. This agreement is commonly known as the social contract. Since the ancient Athenian civilizations and throughout history we see this term being discussed and debated on by multiple scholarly figures. As a result of these discussions, this term has been ever evolving. Even to this day, its legacy is easily identifiable in and plays a huge role on our governmental circumstances and general way of life.

To understand the term of social contract we must first understand where its legitimacy to arise as a political theory comes from. As of today, we consider government a permanent structure, a system that has been there constantly for many years. However we must ask ourselves why do we even have government in the first place, when does this idea of government become a reality and what held together a society of peoples before the existence of a governmental system.

The reason government arises is for the mere issue of solving what is known as the collective action problem. This problem arises as a group of people acting rationally with regards to their own personal and individual interests, as a result, causes an unfavorable & irrational outcome for the population as whole. This resulting problem, which affects most people in a society, is too massive for only one person to resolve, and no single person is incentivized to solve it on his own. Thus, a government is formed by and in representation of the people in order to solve the collective action problems that may arise among them. However, it is the way and the terms under which this government gains its legitimacy that make way for the social contract theory.

The theory states that the people give up some of their individual sovereignties and liberties in name of the government in order for it to serve in the common good of its citizens. The main ideas of the contract are better defined by saying that “Social contract theory expresses …that the idea that “will” and not “force” is the basis of government; and the value of justice or the idea that “right” and not “might” is the basis of all political society and of every system of political order.”¹Other than this, one of the main objectives of the social contract theory is “to attempt to explain why we should, most of the time, obey governmental laws and authority”²

Various scholars throughout history have had many discussions with regards to what terms constitute a social contract. Just as well, many have criticized the very purpose of developing and practicing such a theory.

Perhaps the first of many great scholars to truly set up the idea of a social contract was Plato. Through his dialogue in the book “Crito” he lets us know that “he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.”³ In other words, he tells us that if you have lived up to the point where you recognize the rules of the state and still decide to live there, to educate yourself there, to develop your family there, then you have to abide to the state’s rules and follow them to the fullest extent. He swears loyalty to the social contract to the extent that, if you break the law and find yourself under penalty of death, just as he found himself at the time he spoke the previous words, you must accept death gracefully as you are morally obliged to obey the contract and its terms, regardless of your opinion in relation to the “justness” of the law. As of Plato, the social contract is sacred and cannot be broken even if you think the laws are unjust, the only remedy Plato mentions against a contract one does not agree with is that “he who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him.”⁴

One of the greatest exponents of the social contract theory is John Locke. Through his book, “The Second Treatise on Government” he wrote one of the most elaborate definitions of the social contract theory. He argued that before government existed there was a state of nature, a period of time before government, in which people acted based on their individual self-interest. In this state, he says, humans live peacefully “with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature.”⁵ John Locke epitomizes the reason why we organize ourselves politically by saying that “as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with… a life fit for the dignity of man… we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others.”⁶ He specifies that this treaty is one established by “the mutual consent of those who make up the community”⁷ in order “to preserve the members of that society in their lives, liberties, and possessions.”⁸ Lastly he specifies that if there happens to be grave mistakes from part of the rulers, the people have the power to rebel, remove them from power and “put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.”⁹

Other scholars, such as Thomas Hobbes set up a version in criticism of the original social contract theory, by disregarding the period before government existed and stating that politics and the state were natural and that they had always existed among society. He states that although this state of nature never existed, it is being lived today by some savage groups and that this brutal behavior is how people act without the contract: “there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner.”¹⁰This version of the State of Nature is much more pessimistic than the one explained by Locke, in which everyone lived peacefully before government. Other then this, he sets up a monarch-centered version of the social contract, as “Political sovereignty, was situated with the rulers and not the people. Monarchs were sovereign; they had political power, not the people, and therefore the people had no ability to limit an abusive ruler.”¹¹ Hobbes, further in defense of the monarchs stated “The only way to build a common power is to entrust the power and strength to one man”¹²

Another famous critic of some of the common components of a social contract theory is David Hume. His theory of social contract agrees with most in the sense that they start off as a contract explicitly specifying the terms of it and that the citizens must follow it under any and all circumstances. However, it differs from it in one way, as he believes that a social contract evolves over time and transcends its legitimacy from a signed contract to more of a moral obligation. He believes that “though the duty of allegiance be at first grafted on the obligation of promises, and be for some time supported by that obligation, it quickly takes root of itself, and has an original obligation and authority, independent of all contracts”¹³

The theory of Social Contract, although one of the most important foundations of modern day society, has been greatly disputed throughout the ages by some of the most prominent scholars mankind has ever known. From the origins of the theory found in Plato’s writings, to its conceptual development under Locke’s treatise, we see the convincing arguments created in support of the social contract. On the other hand, many famous thinkers such as Hobbes and Hume have enacted convincing arguments that seem to prove those versions created by other exponents, totally wrong. Regardless of how much this concept has been discussed and disputed throughout history, it has been the basis used to shape most if not all of the greatest political entities that have governed our nations.  Our current form of government, the liberties we enjoy under it, and the natural rights we most defend, are all a reality due to non other than the social contract theory and the philosophical giants who evolved the concept through time.  

Works Cited:

1.     Ishiyama, John. Breuning, Marijke. 21^st Century Political Science. New York: Sage Publications, 2010.

2.     Bennett, William. The Social Contract. Debate.uvm.edu. Web. September 24^th, 2013.

3.     Baird, Forrest E. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2011.      Print.

4.     Baird, Forrest E. From Plato to Derrida. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2011.      Print.

5.     Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hollywood: Simon & Brown, 2011. Print

6.     Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hollywood: Simon & Brown, 2011. Print

7.     Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hollywood: Simon & Brown, 2011. Print

8.     Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hollywood: Simon & Brown, 2011. Print

9.     Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Hollywood: Simon & Brown, 2011. Print

10.  Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. United States: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011. Print.

11.  Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. United States: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011. Print.

12.  Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. United States: Pacific Publishing Studio, 2011. Print.

13.  Hume, David. Treatise on Human Nature. United Sates: Jonathan Bennett, 2008. Electronic.