The Mayflower Compact + More PDF

Preview

Summary

Summaries of different documents related to the Mayflower (1620) written by European (mostly British) colonists. ...

Description

Civilisations étrangères TD 13.09.2016

Doc = choisi parce qu’il a influencé le cours des événements parce qu’il est emblématique/typique d’un climat précis (politique, intellectuel, relation homme et femme) ce sont les générations suivantes (dont la nôtre) qui jugent que le document vaut la peine d’être plus conservée plus étudié. Auteur = célèbre = macro-histoire parce qu’il a influencé l’évolution des événements = anonyme = micro-histoire parce que nous la lisons pour essayer de nous mettre à leur place. Lorsque l’auteur prend part aux événements qu’il veut influencer: _Quand le document est de nature politique : - Who? = attention à ses fonctions à l’époque où il s’exprime quel degrés de pouvoir/d’influence a-t-il à ce moment précis? - importance de son milieu d’origine : qui conditionne sa vision de voir - Notre travail est d’expliquer dans quels (?) = Traduite ce qui est implicite dans le doc.

- A qui/ To whom? A quelles personnes ce document s’adresse-t-il? A d’autres gens de pouvoir? Aux gens du commun - qui votent/qui ne votent pas?

- When? = Enjeux du moment = conditionnent la manière de présenter la situation où se trouve le pays/l’auteur/son auditoire/le peuple (dans ses différentes composantes) - Quand quelle mesure est-on à un tournant de l’histoire avec ce texte? (conséquences = conformes à ce que voulait l’auteur) _ Pourquoi/pourquoi pas? - Pourquoi le loser n’a-t-il pas réussi à convaincre?

- Where? = Largeur réelle du territoire à l’époque du document? - Quelle était l’influence réelle de l’Amérique dans le monde à ce moment là? - Nord/Sud? Etats déjà membres des USA ou pas encore? - What? = La priorité numéro 1 de l’auteur? = L’argument majeur qu’il veut faire passer? (articulation de la cuisse de poulet) (identifier les répétitions et les synonymes) - How? = stratégie d’organisations et de présentation des arguments: comment l’auteur persuade son auditoire?

- Why? = appliquée à toutes les autres questions en WH.! = pourquoi ce texte a-t-il un intérêt pour nous aujourd’hui?

Mayflower Compact, 1620 When? = 1620: not the foundation of the 1st British colony in North America (the first was Jamestown in Virginia in 1607) = Why is this date synonymes with the beginning of American History? Who? = passengers of the ship called the Mayflower who left Plymouth, GB, because they were persecuted for their religious beliefs = fundamentalist protestants known as Puritans. Where? = New Plymouth: in the area that became known as New England = the recurrence of the term «"new"» indicates a will to create a new setter version of England. What? = The reader could expect a text making explicit their break from Great Britain = Instead, the text is presented (title) as an «"agreement"»/ a «"compact"» - covenant= alliance with God = no boss, all the settlers are on an equal footing in the decision-making L.1 = The mention of God is unsurprising = Fundamentalist Protestant group Gives spiritual dimension to the text = The authors introduce themselves by stressing their level of education + literary (very important for people focused on the Bible) = But they travelled as families in order to create a new society = «"loyal subjects"» of the King = they sound very deferential to him, anything but rebellious = WHY? = (1) They have landed on territory that belongs to the Crown = (2) They need him to sign to the charter without which they can’t start the colony L.3-4 = Description of the purpose of their emigration : (1) to found a community that will be pure + more saintly than GB. (2) increase the prestige of GB + gain more territory for the crown (populating the region) 2 good pieces of news for the king : fewer puritans challenging his rule + more lands in North America :) L.4 = reassure the king about their intentions = they won’t share the same territory with the settlers in Virginia = simplicity describe the territory as virgin land/terra nulls (= no man’s land) L.4-5 = «"combine ourselves together into a civil body politic"» = turning point in the text, because here they define their model of society = (1) many settlers - 1 body = community putting equality + unity at the center of its existence (2) civil = citizenship l.7: laws are defined as «"just"» + «"equal"» —> officers are also defined on the principles of justice + equality => They are appointed by the men of the community by common consent and therefore the leaders they have chosen legitimate. l.9 —-> laws are voted + leaders elected «"for the general good of the colony"» => will be one of the founding principles of US democracy in 1776. Government exist only to make the people/citizens happy (i.e. happy + prosperous) 1. A founding text but not a revolutionary one in appearance 2. A colony with simplicity religious goals (covenant with God, not with the King) 3. A democratic convenant based on the principles of equality + common consent of the government

-

wrong leaders/culture of disunity => prompt ryub if the colony —> Binary between an exemplary society and hell on earth. => Problematique: to know whether or not God will bless the colony, there is no other solution than interpreting its economic + moral revolution Uncertainly about the durability of this * exceptional mode_ Puritans settlers + their descendants could also be wiped out - Settlers are bound for the «"Promised Land"» but they have to deserve it. i.e.: their behavior towards one another will lead God to bless their efforts. —> How? -> L.22: «"to keep his commandements.. and the Articles of our Covenant with him"». => the promise is valid only for those who fit in the Puritans model, and naturally excludes the Native American + enslaved populations. Until you can own some land, you have no right. - Risk of falling into materialism if the colony is successful => ends with a warning to the settlers that the root of success will always be in the preservation of a covenant with God.

Warnings: «"to avoid this shipwreck"» => not just a naufrage metaphor : they were on a boat and they had all read the story of Jonah in the Bible (God sending a deadly storm to punish a disobedient prophet) - «"deal falsely with our god"» = not repeating the rules/laws established by the community («"civil body, politic"» in the Mayflower Compact) = disobeying God. —> Unity becomes a sacred principle ! => equality may become less fundamental than conformity

John Winthrop’s City upon a Hill, 1630 1630 —> The Puritan colony of «"Plymouth Plantation"» had just begun making one money (3 years before) = it became possible for new puritans to invest a new trip. = Second wave of colonists including some rich Puritans like John Winthrop (a new colony + businessman) he was to be elected as the 1st governor of a new colony, the Massachusetts Bay Colony, modeled on that of New Plymouth —> Speech delivered on board of the Arabella (the ship carrying them to North America). —> Not all of the people on board were Puritans! - Goal of the speech —> create unity among these new colonists. —> only common motivation between these settlers: to found a prosperous colony.

How to behave «"we must be knit together.. as one man"» => principle of unity is absolutely necessary for survival => since the leader of the community is a Puritan this means that the settlers will move to follow the rules set on by Winthrop or else. => Civil body politic which implies they have to support one another, even materially => paradox: he wants a community of «"saints"» practicing solidarity/sharing as if they had not made the voyage to get rich individually. God’s blessing (L.9) will make the community rich if they stay united (unity is a contract with God and among the settlers (same as the Mayflower)). Help us defeat «"our enemies"» (L.12) —> Indians (seen as «"savages"» + children of Satan «"make us a praise and glory.. a City upon a hill"» (l.13-14) => the goal was to create a better GB, both were religious + richer = hoped that the king would change and return to the fundamentals of the Bible.

How does he proceed to convince to stay untied? Some of them are Separatist Puritans (who don’t want to hear of the Church of England anymore) but most of the people on board were protestants who did not want to separate. => Only common reference: The Bible: Winthrop based his speech on the Bible «"The American Jeremiad"»

1) Defining the new nations as a community of saints, acting as one body. 2) An exhortation powered by the anxiety of failure of the model. 3) The problem of maintaining unity in a community made up of individualists/materialists

Benjamin Franklin, Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. Benjamin Franklin, as an American colonist (from Pennsylvania), wanted more equality between American manufactures (i.e industries) headed by settlers, and British manufactures_ in the context of the Industrial Revolution. He was criticizing GB’s economic choice of forcing Americans settlers to only sell it raw materials while it kept all the technology for itself —> Mercantilism —> He was unable to convince his powerful British readers_ especially after the French and Indian War, which caused GB to raise taxes in America but not encourage industrialization. 1. It is not useful for an North American to receive more European migrants, unless they are like the Puritans (= «"The Natives"» ), that is (c’est à dire) hardworking + having few needs (=economical (économe) ) He advocates natural increase (i.e. having babies) instead of calling for more migrants => warning to GB. Possible asset for GB in having more British people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean => expansion Natives —> the descendants of the English settlers, who had already acquired an American way of life (here defined as the Puritan work ethic). Tawny/Swarthy: dark-skinned

complexion —> skin tone Defining whiteness as a quality associated only with certain european nationalities. (i.e. the AngloSaxons) - but excluding German colonists. L.32-35 —> Fear that the German colonists will not integrate from a cultural («"Manners"») or linguistic point of view («"Germanize us"») —> why? 1) Pennsylvania had attracted many German dissenters (anabaptists including the Amish) 2) These religious dissenters refused to bear arms => they were perceived as unfairly depending on English settlers for their defense besides, they sent their children to schools where they were taught in German.! —> Tenets (principes de base) of American identity are defined in this attack / German colonists: 1) speaking English => right to be considered as White/a Good American 2) bearing arms

L.24-25 + 40 + 43-44 —> Advocates an end to the triangular slave trade for the sake of racial purity => utopia of a country of White men

A Royal Proclamation, October 7, 1763 - 1760 —> Coronation of King George III => still a new sovereign when he issued the Proclamation

- l.2 —> French + Indian War = Treaty of Paris (1784)—> see map. Territory of the 13 colonies could have been expanded thanks to GB’s victory.

- l.3-4 —> to avail themselves of = to take advantage of, to benefit from! —> which must accrue there from: qui en découlent

- paragraph 1 —> sounds as if he is going to give American colonists new opportunities for land. - paragraph 2 —> Begins addressing the status of Indians + their land! l.11 —> tribes with whom we are connected"» = vague => they are not protected under any specific law, they are not even defined as subjects of the King => they have no rights

- L.11 = «"who live under our Protection"» => they are defined as dependent on the Crown = problem as the Crown was far away, in GB.!

- L.12-13 = «"possession"» of land - a European understanding of the relation of human beings to

-

the land, which did not make any sense to Indian nations for whom the Earth is a motherly figure and the soil belongs to the ancestors.! Indians territories are designated as «"hunting grounds"» (l.12-13)! = justification for the need to keep a huge territory for nomadic practices (hunting the buffalos). Still the king retained the possibility of buying lands for himself (= certain colonists) L.19-21: colonists had to ask for royal permission before they could own any (more) land.! It meant more taxes for the King’s coffers. L.22-25 —> the King was perfectly aware that many colonies acted as squatters with no titles of ownership. Why did he now ask them to «"remove themselves (leave) from such settlements"»? —> the King want to avoid continuous warfare with Indians, who could unite in conflicts.

Patrick Henry’s Speech to the Virginia Convention When? : One month before the battles of Lexington + Concord (Massachusetts) —> Virginia NOT yet ready to take up arms. —> But the patriots (i.e. colonists in favor of independence) wanted south colonies (especially Virginia) to join in the war effort + (Petition for Taking up Arms)

Where? : Virginia convention/House"» (l.1) = Assembly of Virginia lawmakers. —> Purpose : figure out whether VA would send delegates to the Congress in order to negotiate further with GB for independence. Who? : Patrick Henry = a lawyer from VA —> Later, he was one of the major defenders of anti-federalization (not one of the founding fathers) What? : P. Henry was taking part in the debate over whether VA should prepare to go so as fight a war against GB. Some thought it was not the right thing to do. l.2: «"a question of freedom or slavery"» —> rhetorical strategy whereby he exaggerates. The loss of political + economic freedom for the American colonists. Not an actual critique of the enslavement of Blacks. l.3-4: «"The great responsibility.. to God and our country"» —> Puritan ideal of an exemplary society based on values of moral + economic freedom => American exceptionalism —> Argument: if Americans accept further control over their activities, they will betray the spirit of their ancestors. => JEREMIAD l.5: «"my country"» : still in the making, but he speaks of it as already one nation. —> God = America : disloyalty to America = disloyalty to God. l.13-14: Targets the Loyalists (the colonists opposed to a war with GB) - numerous in the Southern colonies/states whose economic activity entirely depended on trade with Gb. (raw materials for British industries) —> «"last ten years"» = since the Sugar Act. l.17-23: Since 1765 (end of the French and Indian war) GB had left its soldiers on American territory, in part to have them fed + paid for by the colonists and also to make sure the King’s Proclamation on Indian lands would be respected. —> this point= the King cannot be obeyed by any longer in North America without using force = he is the one who is responsible for the independence war. —> Declaration of Independence = the war for Independence is not a rebellion, but it is the reaction of a free people who refuses submission. l.24-53: Rejects diplomacy and advocates war. —> Anger at seeing the King not take the colonists’ petitions seriously. => discredits those in the audience who still want to a kid war. l.37-45: Acknowledges the weakness + small numbers of the armed colonists and the madness of provoking the most powerful army + navy in Europe. (= the argument of The Loyalists) —> Argument : now is the time to wage war => needful all 13 colonies to build a front against Britain. —> Hopes for the intervention of the «"God of Nature"» = an Enlightenment concept to designate the maker of man as a reasonable being (John Locke) => Clever means to unite colonists of different faiths/churches. —> Concept of the just war, in which America losses will necessarily be restricted to a minimum and where God will find allies to «"fight our battles for us"» = France (thanks to Ben Frenchlin)

1) A call to arms against Loyalists arguments 2) A just war for liberty, or an uncertain guerrilla against a great power? 3) Liberty + unity for all? The problem of slavery in the construction of American national unity.

Letter Regarding Dunmore’s Proclamation (November 1775) Lord Dunmore Proclamation : (November 1775) —> promised freedom to all Black men who would escape from South plantations + join the British army. Dunmore= the British Governor of Virginia —> hoped to scare VA slaveowners. But in fact this text made them join the cause of independence

- Model of the decolonization statement: - creation of a new people (l.1-2) in spite of a common cultural/ethnic/linguistic background - «"separate and equal station"» (=) Paine’s plea for a redefinition of America as a continent on its own.

- justification for independence is green by the reference to the Lockean definition of God as «"nature’s God"» + by the repetition of the notion of necessity.

- Prototype of the declaration of human rights (L.5-11) - equality + liberty + life + pursuit of happiness = the essential nights that God gave every

-

-

-

human being (white men) = supposedly self-evident! equality/liberty : contradicted by the existence of slavery (+women)! life : Ahem! masters could kill their slaves and not be punished! pursuit of happiness : result of compromised between North + South delegates Raison d’être of a gouvernement: to secure the happiness of the people (l.7 + 10-11)! completely new notion —> opposed to absolute monarchies ruling European/societies.! => The powers of any government are considered «"just"» (fair) only if they are based on «"the consent of the government"» : revolutionary notion that actually went far beyond the preservation of the privileges of the white male landowner who wrote the text. The people being the source of all powers, it keeps at all times the right to rebel against its leaders => today, it is visible in the right to demonstrate and also in the right to launch a popular initiative. ! => Potentially dangerous —> the rest of the text is meant to justify the American Revolutionary War and address European monarchies : their own subjects :GB, France and Spain Essential political rights => taxation => representation (In Congress, but at individual state level + in the person of the Polt + in the SCOTUS)! —> l.27: the legislative body CANNOT be dissolved! —> l.32-33: freedom of movement (blocking expansion was one of the British crown’s unforgivable abuses)! —> l.40: standing armies in time of place among civilians —> contrary to essential freedom of US citizen. (curfew) —> // Ferguson 2014, Selma, Alabama in 1965! l.49: right to be tried by one’s peers (=> similar racial, ethnic + gender identities as the citizens who are judged.

The Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe - Adresses : The Russian + British imperial powers

-

-

—> Monroe places the Us government on an equal footing with them => effort to gain more independence from GB l.10-11 —> «"The American continents"» —> notion of «"western Hemisphere"» in which the dominant system of government would be democratic republics (l.22-23 + 27) while the European system would remain monarchial. Diplomatic rhetoric but at bottom, we already find the belief that only the US is a modern system of government. Ambiguity in the way the Federal authority (embodies by President Monroe) warned European empires.!

l.11 : those American countries which are already independent must be left alone by European colonial powers —> But how did the USA intend to protect the independences of South American nations.! // professor of neutrality + isolationism vis-à-vis European powers (l.18-19)!

This

neutrality

interests

are

stops

perceived

whenever/wherever to

be

US

threatened.

=> seeds of the international version of Manifest Destiny: the policeman of the world + the principle that an attack on any US citizens is the equivalent of a declaration of war on the US itself (cf. Al Qaida) ! l.26-28 —> European nations were warned that new colonies could not be planted any longer in the Caribbean + South American BUT there was no strong US army/navy. l....