Crispus Attucks being shot during the Boston Massacre.

(John Bufford after William L. Champey, circa 1856)[6]

African Americans were an integral part of the revolutionary war for the Americans. They served as soldiers, guides, messengers and spies. They fought in key battles for the Americans such as in April 1775 at Lexington and Concord as well as The Battle of Bunker Hill. Whether the African Americans were enslaved or not, many of them wanted to fight for the Patriots with the idea that it may lead to freedom or more rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War#African_American_Patriots

Image of Black Loyalists in the American

Revolution.

The British did use African Americans as laborers, skilled workers, foragers and spies. Except for those blacks who joined Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment, there were only a few blacks who served in the British army while the fighting was concentrated in the North. It was not until the final months of the war, when manpower was low that blacks were used for fighting for Britain.

Continental frigates Hancock and Boston capturing

British frigate Fox, June 7, 1777

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_navy

Man Power was short in the Patriots Navy so African Americans were recruited. However, both sides signed African Americans into their navy. For the rebels the Africans had the ability to pilot the vessels and take responsibility of the ammunition on board the ships.

On the British side the Africans were much more willing and able to work. Mainly because the British soldiers were arrogant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans_in_the_Revolutionary_War#African_American_Sailors

And I hereby further declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing the Colony to a proper sense of their duty, to this Majesty's crown and dignity.

-- Lord Dunmore's Proclamation

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr4.html

During the American Revolution, slaves made up at least 25 percent of the population of N.C. In reality, blacks totaled perhaps seventy thousand but only about 5 percent were free. Most Black people lived in the countryside and worked on land. Some worked at trades or were servants to slave holders. Skilled slaves worked as carpenters, coopers, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, and other skill requiring occupations. In towns on the coast they worked in the shipping business.

Blacks faced difficult choices with the war. They fought for both sides, providing manpower to both the British and the revolutionaries. Most believed that victory by the British would lead to the end of their slavery, especially with the new rule the British had of allowing the black people to fight for them in return for freedom.

Fears of a slave revolt gripped the South. Before the war, British military leaders recognized that the southern colonies could be greatly weakened by an uprising of slaves against their masters.

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-revolution/1917

In the beginning of the Revolutionary war only a few militia’s had Black soldiers, mainly due to the fact that most colonies did not allow blacks to fight. Though, towards the end of the war, after the British initiated the rule that if Blacks fought for the British then they would be freed, the Colonies began to allow Black people to fight in the war.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://negroartist.com/REVOLUTIONAY%2520WAR/images/During%2520the%2520American%2520Revolution,%2520most%2520militia%2520units%2520had%2520black%2520soldiers%2520among%2520the%2520ranks_%2520The%2520Continental%2520Army%2520initially%2520refused%2520to%2520enlist%2520African%2520Americans_jpg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://negroartist.com/REVOLUTIONAY%2520WAR/pages/During%2520the%2520American%2520Revolution,%2520most%2520militia%2520units%2520had%2520black%2520soldiers%2520among%2520the%2520ranks_%2520The%2520Continental%2520Army%2520initially%2520refused%2520to%2520enlist%2520African%2520Americans_jpg.htm&usg=__9HNtDyKmMhknF-Y0ROdoPq8BFVk=&h=309&w=300&sz=38&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=8AVlss9CNUJutM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAfrican%2BAmerican%2Bsoldiers%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bamerican%2Brevolution%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1388%26bih%3D906%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=424&ei=xxqjTOP9MsH88AbIqqXFCQ&oei=xxqjTOP9MsH88AbIqqXFCQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=57&ty=78

Cripus Attucks was a black slave and dock worker who played an important role in the fight for independence. In 1770, a group of angry people gathered in front of the Custom House on King Street. The group had accused a soldier of using the butt of his gun on a boy who made slurrin gremarks to his officer. The British officer, Captain Preston that day, and eight other British soldiers came to the aid of the one accused. The town fire-bell rang causing more people to come into the street and they were all throwing snowballs at the soldiers. The soldiers panicked and killed five civilians. Cripus Attucks was one of them.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2004_summer_fall/soldiers.htm

The Great Awakening occurred in mid-18th Century. Forward thinking men such as Johnathan Edwards and George Whitefield instilled emotion into the colonists of the New World. The seeds of the great awakening were planted early in the 18th century. Church goers were complaining about how boring the "old dogs", or the traditional clergymen, were. Liberal ideas gradually began to challenge the old time religion.

The first 'revolutionary' man was Jacobus Arminius. He preached that individual free-will determined a persons fate rather than divine decree. He led to Johnathan Edwards.

Mr. Edwards proclaimed the folly of believing in salvation through good works and affirmed the need for complete dependence on God's grace. He wrote "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". This sermon was meant to shock the listeners into leading a faithful life.

Next came George Whitefield. Mr. Whitefield preached of human helplessness and divine omnipotence. His speaking manner, or eloquence, brought critical men to tears and caused cheap men to add to the collection basket.

How did the Great Awakening contribute to the development of the separation of Church and State in America?

The Great Awakening caused many schisms in countless denominations across the colonies and older clergy were undermined by the emotional spirituality. Though, the Great Awakening did tend to break down sectional boundaries and denominational lines. All of these effects contributed to the separation of the church and state. People who no longer went to church were still active politically and political leaders could see from the lasting effects of the Great Awakening that if the church and state was kept together then in the future an event similar to the great awakening could occur in the politics of the state.

Relating to the picture of an intersection:

I think that this picture embodies the American spirit of pushing through the final frontier. I think that this picture depicts the paving of new places through the farm lands through to the West. I do not see this picture as much as an intersection as a picture of connecting the different sections of the United States. The roads do not divide which direction to take, rather, the roads help to unify the places of the United States.

Songs 1-3

What do you think the recording artists hoped to accomplish with these songs?

With these songs, the recording artists must have had to had a profound connection with the music that they were producing. Because Realistically, I do not think that they recorded these songs to make a #1 single. The tracks are most likely to allow people to hear what the type of music was before the United States was ever the United States.

What parts of American history do they highlight?

The parts of American history which these tracks highlight are the pre-settlement era. This music was played before any white men ever set a foot on North America.

To what extent do you see these voices and the experiences they represent as part of the American story?

I do not see these voices as part of the American story. When I listen to these tracks, I hear a cultural music that most likely had no influence from any outsiders. I think of these tracks as the type of music that would be played or sung at a sacrifice to the earth spirits, or something along those lines.

Songs 4-15

Song 4-Brave Wolf

• Written in-1997,
• Is about- A battle which took place during the Seven Years War. Highlighting General James Wolf.
• The story is told- Along the same way that the battle was played out. The song starts out slowly, as the battle did, and then gradually worked into the climax, or the final struggle in the battle.
• What I think about the song is- This some actually is not that bad. It is not something I would listen to regularly though.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn-I suppose how battles took place, starting out slow and then hitting the climax.

Song 5-Johnny Has Gone For A Soldier

• Written in-Folk Song Dating back to the American Revolution
• Is about- A boy going of to be a soldier to fight, leaving his loving wife behind.
• The story is told- through the way of a soldiers journey to the war.
• What I think about the song is- This song is good to listen to and it tells a story. It allows the listener to know the troubles of Johnny's wife after he left to be a soldier.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- that if it wasn't for boy's like Johnny, then the United States may not be here today.

Song 6-Hard Times come Again No More

• Written in-1864
• Is about- The civil war coming to an end.
• The story is told-through a blues, R&B type feel to it. With strong emotion that the listener can here well.
• What I think about the song is- That this was a song that was sung around the end of the civil war as a way to lift peoples spirits up about the end of the war. The people who sang this are in a way saying that something like to civil war will not happen again.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- That the people who lived during this time had to live through the struggles and hardships of the civil. We learn that the people were still able to sing and rejoice as well.

Song 7-Paddy's Lament

• Written in-2002
• Is about- The journey of an Irish immigrant who left his life in Ireland to make a fortune in America. Though when the boat landed all the immigrants were recruited to fight for the North in the civil war.
• The story is told- In way which tries to draw out sympathy from the listener.
• What I think about the song is- I do not enjoy listening to this song. i suppose it is because of the voice of the singer.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- that the US forced immigrants who were looking for a safe place to fight in their war. The immigrants wanted nothing to do with the war, except maybe to avoid racism.

Song 8-Jesus Christ

• Written in-Late 1940s, Early 1950s
• Is about- a modern day spin on Jesus' story. The song follows Jesus' path through America through all the people he told to give their riches to the poor.
• The story is told- Through a thoughtful ryhme which actually keeps the listener listening to the songs.
• What I think about the song is- that it is annoying. I could not listen to this song very much more at all.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- that the successful people back then did not really care for the poor people and that whenever someone came through and told them to be charitable, the wealthy people struck him down.

Song 9-Do Re Mi

• Written in- 1940
• Is about- The journey of a person who is trying to get to california to flee the dust bowl, though he is not the only one with that idea.
• The story is told- In a way that is telling the man not to go to california and to stay where you are. That 'you better go back to your beautiful texas'.
• What I think about the song is- That is serves as a warning for people who think that they will be able to make it in California.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- That the dust bowl was bad enough for thousands of people to want to leave there homes everyday. Though if they didn't have the Do Re Mi, they probably would not make it.

Song 10-Strange Fruit

• Written in-1939
• Is about- The song is talking about the time after a black person got lynched.
• The story is told- This song uses a gross sarcasm to show what the south is not. Referring to the South as 'Gallant' and a dead black man in a tree as 'strange fruit'.
• What I think about the song is- That the point is conveyed in a sick and twisted way. this song is nasty, the subject matter is unsettling.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- Mainly what we already know, that the south was the epitamy of racism and that southern people had no problem killing black people.

Song 11-A Change is Gonna Come

• Written in-1964
• Is about- The end of segregation. Today is a good day.
• The story is told- Through the strong voice of a powerful singer who has been through the struggles which the change is going to end.
• What I think about the song is- I really do enjoy this song. I enjoy the beat and the hopefulness in the words. This song hits home to me.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- That through all the racial oppression and the hardships of being a colored person in mid twentieth century America, black people were still able to be hopeful and look forward to a new day, new day.

Song 12-Youngstown

• Written in-1995
• Is about- The downfall of Youngstown. Youngstown was a steel producing city, that is all it did, was produce steel, so as a result of the economic downfall, the city of Youngstown fell and many people lost their jobs.
• The story is told- It sounds like Springsteen has a nonchalant air to this song. Such as,'Well I lost my job, I guess I should find another one.' It does not feel like he is emotioanlly attached to the steel working job.
• What I think about the song is- That it tells a good story, though it is boring to listen to. The singer's voice sounds the same through out the whole song. It could be hard for some people to pay attention to the meaning.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- that the building up of industry's that are not meant to fail is a recipe for disaster, because when it does fail, the result is magnificantly terrible.

Song 13-The Times Are A'Changing

• Written in-1964
• Is about-Dylan is saying that globalization is occurring now and that moms and dads should not stand in the way of their children going to do great things.
• The story is told- With an upbeat tune. The song is giving the advice to mothers and fathers to allow their children to go on to greater success.
• What I think about the song is- I think song is good in that it serves as encouragement for people to get out and leave home, to go and take on the world, to see what good they can do today.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- That attitudes towards leaving home are rapidly changing in this time. Rather than stay in your cute little town working your nine-to-five job, go out in the world and make something of yourself.

Song 14- The Hands That Built America

• Written in-2002
• Is about- How the United States was built by many different nationalities and ethnic people.
• The story is told- In a way that you really have to be listening intently to the words of the song, because if you don't, then you miss the entire meaning of the song.
• What I think about the song is- I think the song has the right stuff to advocate unity with in many individual cultures.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- That our world today was not built by just white people, or just black people, or just yellow people, that our our world today was built with the hands of many different people.

Song 15-We Didn't Start The Fire

• Written in-1989
• Is about- This song pretty much highlights any and every significant thing that happened in the twentieth century. It is almost like a timeline of everything important.
• The story is told- in a way that essentially is just listing the events of the twentieth century in a way that ryhmes.
• What I think about the song is- The beat is good, though I do not like the song itself.
• Concerning the history of the United States, the song allows us to learn- Almost every important modern thing that occurred up until 1989. This song is a valuable learning tool, in a way.

• When was it written?

• What is it about?

• How is the story told? That is, does the singer/ songwriter offer a current or historical perspective on events? Do you feel like they are writing about events as they happen, something they are really participating in themselves, or is it more of a story? Do they use any interesting or evocative language or metaphors?

• What did you think of it?

• What does it allow you to learn about the history of the United States?

1. What beliefs and character traits that typified the Pilgrims enabled them to survive in the hostile environment that greeted them in the New World? Did some of the same traits that helped them survive limit them in other ways? How so?
2. The beliefs and character traits of the pilgrims that enabled them to survive in the new world vary. There are a few main characteristics though, which include the will to succeed, perserverence, ingenuity and strong faith. With out these main characteristics, the pilgrims would have ended up like the people who had gone before them. Either at the bottom of the ocean or killed by Indians. I do not believe that the same traits that enabled the pilgrims to succeed limited them at all. I think that if anything the traits kept the group together.

1. Philbrick shows us that many of the classic images that shape our current view of the Pilgrims—from Plymouth Rock to the usual iconography of the first Thanksgiving—have been highly fictionalized. Why has America forsaken the truth about these times in exchange for a misleading and often somewhat hokey mythology?

Concerning the faux thanksgiving images and Plymouth Rock, the early pilgrims needed to get more people to come over. For example, if I was a person in Britain who was thinking about emigrating to the "New Frontier", then I would want to know it was like. If the people who were already there painted a picture of terrible diseases and vicious Indians, then I would be seriously rethinking moving to the New World. Now, if all I have heard from the New world is that the Indians are friendly and that they are having feasts with the local people, then I am going to be thinking, "Alright, cool, the New World does not seem too bad at all. I may enjoy myself. I mean, if there is enough food to have a feast with a lot of people, then the going must be pretty laid back over there". Of course the early pilgrims are going to work up the great and wonderful things of the New World and down play the pitfalls of the New World. That is smart PR.

1. The Pilgrims established a tradition of more or less peaceful coexistence with the Native Americans that lasted over fifty years. Why did that tradition collapse in the 1670s and what might have been done to preserve it?

The tradition of a peaceful world between the pilgrims and the Indians collapsed because the pilgrims were getting greedy. The pilgrims constantly wanted more and more land, the Indians refused more and more, and eventually the pilgrims said okay we'll just take from them. The connections between the leaders collapsed and the bloody confrontations began between the pilgrims and the Indians.

1. Discuss the character of Squanto. How did the strengths and weaknesses of his personality end up influencing history, and why did this one man make such a difference?

Squanto was a mastermind and a schemer. He seems like a guy who goes to study his subjects and then uses the information he learns to completely destroy them. Squanto relates somewhat. He went to england. So he was able to see the english people in there comfortable state. He learned English and he milked that skill for all that it was worth. Back in the New World, Squanto talked with the pilgrims to set up deals. He talked with his fellow people to warn them of the English's plague which they could release at any moment. Then he tried to talk the pilgrims into attacking the Indians. Squanto's big plan was to step in in the midst of the debacle and essentially take control of all the Massossoit's tribes. Unfortunatley for Squanto, Massassoit discovered his plan and was ready to kill Squanto. Though, William Bradford decided to stand up for Squanto, resulting in Massassoit not trusting him or any of the pilgrims for a long time after that. Tough luck for Squanto and the pilgrims.

Eventually another man by the name of Edward Winslow was able to build another bridge between the Indians and the pilgrims. Squanto single handily ruinded the relationship of the Indians with the pilgrims. By trying to play both sides, he ended up pushing both sides away from eachother.

1. The children of the Pilgrims were regarded in their own time as “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” unworthy of the legacy and sacrifices of their mothers and fathers (p. 198). Why did they acquire (and largely accept) this reputation? Was it deserved? Were the denunciations of the second generation a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?

The children of the Pilgrims acquired the reputation of “the degenerate plant of a strange vine,” because compared to their mothers and fathers, they were disgusting. The may have said that were part of a religion, though their actions told a different story. The mens need for power pretty much sealed the deal for the fate of their generation. Since the beginning of the pilgrims, the state of the group as a whole (their attitudes, composure, contenance...) deteriorated significantly. I believe that it was deserved and that the denunciations of the second generation were a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.
1. Compare Philbrick’s portrayals of natives in Mayflower with the ways in which they have been represented in popular culture, for instance, in Hollywood movies. How does Mayflower encourage us to rethink those representations? On the other hand, are there some popular images of Native Americans that seem to be somewhat rooted in what actually happened in the seventeenth century?

The MAYFLOWER encourages us to rethink Hollywood representations of natives by trying to tell the natives story from their point of view, or at least from a "put yourself in their shoes" point of view.

Images such as ones with Indians tribes and pilgrims together conducting business (i.e. trades, exchanges...) seem to represent events that actually occurred in the seventeenth century.

1. In the chaotic, atrocity-filled conflict known as King Philip’s War, does anyone emerge as heroic? If so, what are the actions and qualities that identify him or her as a hero?

I think that Benjamin Church could be a heroic. Mainly because of his adapability to the situation around him. He recognized that no matter how good his English battle tatics were, they would be close to useless in the wild terrain of the Indians land. He understood that he needed to use the local Indians to help him and he was correct because later on it was his company that killed King Philip.

1. As Mayflower shows, the American Indian tribes of New England were not a monolith, either culturally or politically. However, the English were not consistently able to think of them as separate tribes with different loyalties and desires. How did misconceptions of racial identity complicate the politics of King Philip’s War?

The misconceptions of racial identity complicated the politics of King Philips War in an obvious way. Plainly, if King Philips had a hard time seeing individual tribes, then he probably just went ahead and attacked the ones that gave him the slightest reason to attack them. Doing this is clearly not smart. If every ruler fought his wars like this, then how could there every be alliances? There would not be any because everybody would be worried about where the next king would go on a rampage. Would he attack my kingdom? What do I do if my neighboring country is attacked? and so on.

1. Philbrick shows that the English, as well as the American Indians, engaged in barbaric practices like torturing and mutilating their captives, as well as taking body parts as souvenirs. Could either side in King Philip's War make any legitimate claim to moral superiority? Why or why not?

No, either side can definently not make any legitimate claim to moral superiority. Anybody who mutilates their prisoners body's and takes their body parts as souvenirs is straight up disgusting. If anything the two sides should be competing for last place. If the winning side allowed the losing side's people to live in peace then that would earn them a few points. But in general, neither side can make any claim to moral superiority.

1. During King Philip’s War, significant numbers of Native Americans sided with the English. How do you regard those who took up arms against their fellow natives? Do you see them as treacherous, opportunistic, or merely sensible? If you had been a native, which side would you have taken, and why?
2. 
   

The Indians who took up arms against their brothers and sisters did what they believed they had to do. Whether it was right or wrong, It is hard to say. On one hand there is the loyalty and honor side. Those on this side would never switch sides because in their hearts they know that they are fighting for there own kind. On the other hand there is the opportunity takers, the people who look for the easiest way to success. These people know what they have done and they my not be at peace with themselves, though they did what they needed to do to survive. For these people, they saw that if they did not switch, then they would most likely die. In order to survive they turned against there fellow Indians. The made a decision that would provide the best odds at surviving and living to see another day.

1. One reviewer of Mayflower asserted that Nathaniel Philbrick “avoid[ed] the overarching moral issues [of his subject] and [took] no sides.” Do you find this to be true? Are there moral lessons Philbrick wants us to learn? If so, what are they?

I agree with the reviewer to a certain extent. With books such as this one's nature, the author, in a way, needs to be neutral on the subject. That way the author can write an objective book, with just the facts, without emotions or attempting to push the reader towards one side or the other. It is quite difficult for an author to write objectively. More times than not there will be bias in the 'voice' of the book.