In the debate, Lord North made a much more compelling argument than Sam Adams. He pointed out many ways in which Britain was being nice, like cutting the price of tea in half, and repealing the Stamp and Townshend Acts. He also added that the people in England were paying taxes much higher than the people in America and were not complaining at all. Lastly, the strongest point he made was that the Americans wanted liberty and freedom, but they had slaves themselves.
Lord North's argument was stronger than Sam Adam's. Sam Adam's argument was not as strong because he made it seem like the American colonies were protesting because they did not receive special treatment; they were treated like most other colonies and some other areas in Britain. Lord North argued how many of the things that Britain was doing were positive for the colonies, like by passing the Tea Act, which made tea cheaper for the colonists because it could be sold directly from India to the colonies, rather than through Britain first. Also, Britain repealed many acts that the colonists found displeasuring, such as the Townshend Acts, which taxed many valuable imports. Another strong point that Lord North made was that Britain's mainland population already were receiving higher taxes then the colonists were, which made the colonists' reason for rebelling seem quite foolish. Even though the colonists were being taxed without representation in British parliament, several areas of the British Empire and Britain itself were not represented. Lord North also talked about how the American colonies were part of a larger British Empire, and they needed to contribute their fair share in order to keep the empire going. Lastly, Lord North explained how many people in the colonies were rallying for liberty, yet it was a complete hypocrisy because many of them owned slaves.
-Scott Lord North made a much more compelling argument than Sam Adams. Lord North pointed out that when the colonists complained about taxes such as the Townshend Acts, they were repealed, except for tea which was made cheaper. He also accused Sam Adams and other liberty fighters of only fighting the small tea tax because it would hurt their smuggling business. He said the revolutionary leaders are bad people who break laws and owe a lot of debt. He also said that the colonists were paying fewer taxes than actual Englishmen were. Lord North talked about how the colonists felt that the empire was simply about them and they did not realize that England also needed money to run their entire empire. Lord North made it sound like the colonies were being treated with the same respect, equality, and representation as Englishmen or any other part of the British Empire, which was what Sam Adams was complaining about. I agree with George and Philip that one of Lord North’s strongest points was that while the revolutionary leaders wanted liberty and freedom for all, many of the leaders owned slaves which is completely hypocritical. I disagree with Philip about how Sam Adams argument was simply about how the colonies wanted special treatment. I think Sam Adams was trying to say that what England had been doing was actually hurting the colonies instead of helping them like their actions should have.
Scott, I agree with you that Lord North made a better argument, but a very important part of that argument was the point about slavery. Lord North calling out the smugglers was a very good point though.
In today's debate between Lord North and Samuel Adams, although both men made great points, Lord North's argument was superior in that he used the law, and real facts to support his claims, whereas Samuel Adam used some ideas that were not as sound. Lord North explained how not only was England the mother country, but they were also looking out for the colonists' best interests and giving them even more than what was agreed upon. For example, after the French and Indian War, when England really needed money to pay off war debts, England did not expect the colonists to pay those debts, even though much of the war's fault was the colonists'. England created the Stamp Act, not to pay off war debts, but to raise revenue to pay for the colonists' current expenses. England was being generous in not requiring the colonists to pay for the war. Lord North also mentioned how this relationship has been mutually beneficial for England and the colonies for over 100 years. In fact, America has grown prosperous under England's control, but only because England had enough money to set up all the guarantees to keep the colonies safe and secure. Now that America is refusing to pay taxes, and follow the new laws, they are mainly hurting themselves, since much of the money the spend in the taxes are to set up protection for the colonies, like the navy. Next, is the fact that the English citizens in England were actually paying twenty-five times the amount of taxes the colonists were at the time of the Stamp Act. And, many of these people are in the same boat as the colonists in terms of representation. This means that, no, they were not specifically represented, but technically, every member of Parliament was supposed to represent the entire empire, so the colonists really were represented. And even if the colonists still did not feel represented, the colonists themselves kept telling Parliament that there was no way of getting representatives over to England in person. England should not be expected to eliminate all taxes from the colonists simply because they cannot get people over to England to represent them. Samuel Adams' main argument was how they were not represented properly, and now that that has been shot down, Samuel has little more solid information to go on. Finally, as Lord North mentioned, England set up a tea tax that actually benefited the colonists to get better tea for a lower price, but the colonists did not appreciate England's generosity because this tea, event though cheaper, was still taxed in England's favor.
George- I agree with the fact that the colonists were being contradictory, whether they realized it or not, about owning slaves when they themselves wanted freedom. They are basically saying to the slaves that they are better people who are more deserving of freedom than them. This is the opposite of what the colonists were aiming for, which was that all people should be equal.
Philip- You have a good point about how England kept repealing all their acts even though they benefited the colonists. This shows how England cared about the colonists and were trying to help, but America kept shooting them down without good reason (at least in Lord North's point of view).
Scott- Good job remembering how Lord North said that Samuel Adams and other liberty fighters were angry about the tea tax only because it hurt their tries at smuggling. Therefore, Samuel Adams and his fellow smugglers decided to fall back on how they were not being represented in Parliament (which is a point that doesn't quite work).
Melanie: I think that Lord North made a more compelling argument. He pointed out that citizens in England paid 25 times more taxes in England which made the colonist's revolution look unecessary. He also mentioned that England was the mother country from the beginning which is a solid overarching argument that makes a revolution by the colonists look radical and not well put-together.
Sarah- You bring up a good point that Lord North mentioned that the colonists did not have to pay back for the Seven Years War. They were only required to pay for government expenses. This money would have needed to be spent weather the colonies were owned by Britain or not.
Scott- I agree with you bringing up the character of Sam Adams and some of the revolutionaries. They were a wild and reckless group which is not the type of leader one would want to head a revolution.
Sarah - I agree with you that Lord North's arguments were based in fact, while Sam Adam's arguments were a bit more outlandish. Sam Adam's arguments were based on opinion, since he felt that we was not represented, when everyone in parliament was actually appointed to represent the entire empire; the British Empire is far too large for every single colony to have a representative that is actually from that colony. I also agree with you about how people in mainland Britain already were paying much higher taxes, and just because they don't have a representative that is legitimately from the colonies doesn't mean that they can have all the benefits of other colonies (protection, etc.), and not pay taxes.
Scott - That's a good point you made about the colonists leading the rebellions being smugglers. One of the main reason why they were rebelling because Britain finally cracked down on their smuggling, and like Lord North said, the smugglers wanted to get away without paying their debt. All Britain was doing was trying to enforce its laws, which were overall very logical, since smuggling is illegal activity. One thing i don't understand though is that when you said that Britain's laws were hurting the colonies, most of these laws were repealed, except for the ones that apply to everyone in the empire, so isn't it fair that the colonies abide by them as well?
I believe that Lord Norths'debate was more compelling than Sam Adams. I believe this because he had more arguments that made the British look good. Rather than Sam Adams who was simply trying to make the British look bad. I think that supporting yourself is a stronger argument than trashing someone else. Lord North mainly argued that the British were trying to make life easier and better for the colonists. He used examples such as the stamp act. When the colonists had a stamp act put upon them they protested. But he argued that in England they have had a stamp act since 1694, also that the stamp act there is much more. This shows that the colonists were being irrational about the stamp act. This argument made me feel that all people in the British Empire had equal rights. Lord Norths Debate was the better argument in my opinion. I also agree with what George said. He believed that Lord Norths Argument was better because of how he said that the British cut the tea price in half. Another person I agree with is Philip. He said that Lord Norths argument was better because it was more positive. A positive argument is always more compelling than a negative argument. - Lily
I believe that Lord North's argument was much more compelling than Sam Adams's. Lord North gave countless examples as to how the British policies were actually helping the colonists instead of hurting them. He made sure to point out the fact that many of Sam Adams's friends in the Sons of Liberty were smugglers, so naturally they would be unhappy with the price of tea being cheaper. Sam Adams had no strong defense to this accusation. Colonists who did not smuggle should be content with paying cheaper prices for tea; why would people oppose paying less? Lord North made everything sound very logical, whereas Sam Adams's argument was more opinion-based. Lord North was able to clarify and explain Britain's actions, but Sam Adams just kept complaining about "taxation without representation". He also did not go into as much depth as Lord North did when answering questions. Lord North made Sam Adams look like an irrational rebel rouser with his strong argument.
Philip- I definitely agree when you say that one of Lord North's strongest points was bringing attention to the fact that the same people calling for liberty and freedom owned slaves. It definitely made the colonists look like hypocrites.
Scott- I forgot about how Lord North brought up the fact that the colonists were paying fewer taxes than most Englishmen. That point definitely enhanced his argument.
I think that Lord North held a stronger argument than Sam Adams because he used more factual evidence to back himself up. Lord North used various points to justify Great Britain's actions against the colonists, whereas Sam Adams simply kept repeating himself over and over again. North focused on the fact that Britain was indeed the mother country, and although she has been placing taxes upon the colonies in current times, the government has been very lenient with the behavior of the colonies. while Adams repeatedly grieved about no taxation without representation, North pointed out that Parliament holds virtual representation, and the colonies are not the only region with out a personal representative. Also, North used Adam's words against him by pointing out that the Stamp Act Congress claimed that the could not have representation in Parliament. Another aspect that made Lord North's argument more compelling was that he kept relating back to the point that the tax laws were not hurting the American economy, the colonist were simply complaining. North stated that British citizens on the mainland were taxed 25 times and much, and that some tax laws even lowered the prices of goods in the colonies such as the price on tea. All in all, Lord North prevailed because Sam Adams did not have an argument aside from no taxation without representation, while Lord North was equipped with multiple arguments backed up by solid facts.
I agree with Lily when she stated that Lord North's argument made the British look good. North did indeed point out the good intentions Britain had instead of dwelling on the poor behavior of the colonists. I also agree with what Melanie said about making the colonists look "radical and not well put together." This is true because Lord North points out how Adams and his friends were smugglers and simply did not the law being reinforced. Adams however did not have a counter argument for this, causing North to hold the upper hand.
In the debate between Lord North and Sam Adams, Lord North made a more convincing argument to defend Britain. He revealed that the colonies had been treated fairly, and given substantial time to acquire money to pay for their current expenses. After they were incapable of forming a successful system, Britain had no choice but to enforce taxation. Lord North continuously listed points that proved that Britain was acting in the colonies best interest, whereas Sam Adams merely stated that the colonists deserved separate treatment from every other British citizen. Adams was just amping up the colonies to rebel against a nation that initially meant no harm.
I agree with Melanie when she points out how the colonies were being taxed much lighter than the people living in Great Britain. It shows that they were exaggerating a tax that was in fact very reasonable.
I also agree with Philip when he mentions that the colonists were part of the British Empire and need to stay with it. They originally started out there, and have no right in rebelling against the nation that supported their colonization in the beginning.
Katie I think that Lord North’s argument was more compelling. He was used good examples as to how Britain was helping the colonies and had a good argument for every accusation Sam Adams made against him. For example, he brought up the point that the colonists complained that they are being taxed without being represented in Parliament, yet they say that they cannot be represented in Parliament. He reinforced this argument by reminding Sam Adams that the people living in England have had to pay the Stamp Act since 1694. He also made the point that many of the radicals were promoting liberty, but refuse to free their slaves. This made the radicals seem hypocritical, a point that was only made stronger when he mentioned that the reason the radicals complained about the lower taxes on tea was because they were afraid of how it would affect their smuggling. Another compelling point that Lord North made was that under the British rule, the colonies have only grown stronger. He made the empire sound appealing to the colonists by saying that after the French and Indian war, the British Empire had become the greatest in the world. Overall, Lord North was able to make stronger arguments to defend Britain and make the radicals seem as if they were misrepresenting the way Britain was really treating them. Philip – I agree with your point that Lord North brought up the argument about the colonies being a part of the British Empire and therefore having to help keep the empire going. That made Lord North’s argument much more compelling. Allie – I agree with you about Sam Adams argument being more opinion based. I think that definitely hurt him because he was not able to point to as many specific ways in which Britain was hurting the colonies.
In yesterday’s debate, Lord North made a more compelling argument than Sam Adams due to his extensive honesty and ability to manipulate the reasons why hardships were placed on the colonies. Lord North displayed a genuine honesty in his argument when he acknowledged the fact that before the French and Indian War, Britain gave the American colonies more independence than they should have. However, now that the colonies have taken advantage of the temporary dismal from Britain’s constant reign, they must begin to pay their fair share for protection and participation in the mother country. Lord North’s compelling argument continued when he displayed his ability to manipulate the reasons why the hardships were placed on the colonies. Lord North explained, with a convincing persistence, that the purpose of the Tea Act was to lower the price of tea for the benefit of the common colonist. In truth, the Act enabled the East India Tea Company to import directly to the colonies and the import taxes were collected and used for the benefit of the mother country.
Allie- I agreed with you when you said, “Sam Adams's argument was more opinion-based. Lord North was able to clarify and explain Britain's actions”. I also believe that throughout the debate Sam Adams’s conclusions and grievances were based more on emotional reactions than factual evidence, which then weakened his argument and enabled the views of Lord North to prosper.
Lily- I agreed with you when you said, “I think that supporting yourself is a stronger argument than trashing someone else. Lord North mainly argued that the British were trying to make life easier and better for the colonists.” I also noticed that due to Lord North’s focus maintaining on his country and its actions as opposed to his grievances with the colonies he allowed his case to have more honest and well thought out evidence to support his claims.
During the debate between Samuel Adams and Lord North, Lord North made a much more compelling argument on Britain’s behalf. He supported his ideas with concrete facts and statistics, whereas Adams mostly relied on public opinion. For example, in his opening, Lord North explained that Englishmen in Britain had been paying much higher taxes in the mother land than in those in the colonies; in fact, they were paying twenty-five times more money in taxes than American colonists. Also, Britain had attempted to allow the colonies to find a way to pay a fair tax to the mother country for an entire year before it was necessary for Britain to employ the Stamp Act in the colonies. Even in this Stamp Act, Americans would only have to pay approximately one shilling per person per year to the British government, a great deal smaller than the Englishmen in Britain paid. One of his most compelling arguments though, was not based on true fact: it was more of an emotion. Lord North both opened and closed his argument stating that Britain recognized that most colonists were loyal subjects and did not want to rebel against the mother country, and that most of the rebel rousers were directly from Boston. This tactic help solidify his argument against Sam Adams, a resident of Boston himself.
Allie and Phoebe: I agree when you say that the majority of Adams’s arguments were opinion-based and relied more on emotion than factual evidence. However, I feel it is important to note that during the Q&A section, Samuel Adams was able to step up his game and contradict some of Lord North’s answers. After Lord North explained the idea of virtual representation (all members of Parliament act in all of the empire’s best interests), Adams was able to refute this point by saying that it is human nature for people to act in their self interest, hinting that maybe North’s claims of Parliament acting in the colonies’ best interests were not entirely true. He was also able to call out Lord North’s claims of care and cooperation with the colonies after all Acts had been repealed by saying that these repeals were acts of political ploy to try to regain the colonists’ trust before employing another.
Katie: I had not heard Lord North say that the Stamp Act had previously been employed in Britain itself since 1694. This basis of fact and knowledge again solidifies his argument against Sam Adams. Good memory!
To those calling Americans hypocrites for owning slaves: Didn’t Englishmen in Britain also own slaves? I thought it was quite common for most wealthy men to own them at that period of time, regardless of where they lived… Am I mistaken?
I believe that Lord North made a more compelling argument. I feel that some parts of his argument, like Britain repealing taxes that colonists boycotted, could be manipulated to support either side of the argument; he also made points that would only support the British argument. First of all, he did not attack the colonists as a whole. He kept repeating the fact that he believed most of the people in America were still loyal to the crown. This made his argument stronger because his faith in a majority of the colonists would make them feel less attacked and more open to listening to him. Second, Lord North made it seem as though the colonists had forced the British to put their foot down. The way he rationalized the rebellions in the colonies during the debate made it seem as though the rebels were acting irrationally. The way he worked his argument made it seem that the harsh rules set in place by the British government was for the safety and greater good of the colonies until the rebels were under control. Lastly, he kept repeating the fact that England only wanted the colonists to pay their fair share of the expense it took to run the American government. He insisted that the British weren’t going to make the colonists pay for the war, they just wanted their support in paying for their own government. Melanie – I agree when you point out that Lord North’s argument was much stronger because he pointed out that the colonists were being taxed much lighter than many British citizens. This point could not be twisted to benefit Sam Adam’s argument in any way, therefore making Lord North’s argument much more compelling. Holly – I agree with your point about England giving the colonies a year to figure out how to pay back the mother country before they instated the Stamp Acts. Britain gave the colonies a chance, they just did not take it, therefore how can they argue when they had an opportunity to solve this problem before the mother country had to take it into their own hands?
I think that in the Lord North vs. Sam Adams debate Lord North had the more compelling argument. I think Sam Adams had a disadvantage in talking first in the debate because Lord North was then able to deliberately contest each of his arguments. A strong point that Lord North pointed out was how the colonists were contradictory of their word. They stood for "No taxation without representation," but then in their grievances said that they didn't even want to be represented. Lord North described how they treated the colonists with respect and that they only wanted the colonists to pay "their fair share." He kept repeating this, which made his argument more persuasive because he made it seem as though Britain was spoiling the colonies, and they deserved just a little in return. Sam Adams views weren't heard enough in the debate. He made great points about the tax on tea and how the colonists knew it was a trick so that in the future they could enforce more taxes. He didn't discuss some major points that could've been in his favor, such as the tyranny of the Britain soldiers who were allowed to live in the colonists homes and the colonists were ordered to serve. Overall Lord North made stronger arguments, and even if his points were less significant than the points Sam Adams made, he sold and embellished his arguments more.
Victoria- I agree with your points about Lord North. I especially agree with the point that he used more factual evidence, which helped him sound more prepared and accurate. I also agree with the point you made on how the tax laws were not hurting the American economy and how the colonist were just complaining.
Katie- I also agree with your thoughts about Lord North and how through Britain the colonies have only grown stronger. That helped North's argument because it showed that Britain was the reason they prospered, so why shouldn't they have trusted England?
In my opinion, Lord North made a more compelling argument that Sam Adams. One key argument he made was that the people who were living in the colonies were British citizens. He pointed out that the majority of the colonists were loyal to the mother country, Britain. Lord North named Sam Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson as the people who were making trouble. This was a good argument because it appealed to the majority and did not focus on the handful of rebellious men. Another good argument made by Lord North was that people living in the mother country, Britain, were paying more taxes than the colonists. Along with that argument he also reminded the people that part of being from a large and powerful empire was contributing in the form of taxes. This was a solid argument because he was telling them that all members of the empire pay taxes, not just the colonies. A third argument was that it was important to stop smuggling in the colonies because it downgraded the value of goods and ultimately hurt the loyal British citizens. This was a strong argument because smuggling was illegal and they had decided to enforce these laws and they were not inventing new laws or taxes. Sam Adams not only presented a poor argument, but did not have any good counteractions for the arguments made by Lord North.
McKayla- I had forgot about Lord North's point that the colonists were contradicting themselves. I like and agree with this point.
Holly- I agree with your point about how Lord North said that the colonies were given a fair chance to pay their taxes, but failed to do so.
I believe that Lord North's argument was more compelling due to the fact that he used real facts while Sam Adams just seemed like a little kid saying that it was not fair. One of his most important points is when he says how the colonists want freedom, yet some of them have slaves. I think this is a big contradiction because if you want freedom for yourself you should not be keeping people like objects and forcing them to do things. Another key point that Lord North made was that the British had done many nice things for the colonists. They had repealed the taxes that the colonists really did not like and the only tax that stayed was the tea on tax. The colonists though were still getting the tea at a cheaper price though. The only people who had problem with this would be the smugglers who were losing money off of it, such as John Hancock and Sam Adams himself. Another important point that was made by Lord North is that the colonists are a part of the British empire and get as much protection as the rest of the empire, but yet they pay twenty five times less taxes than the British citizens.
McKayla- I had not thought about how going first would be a disadvantage for Sam Adams, but now that I agree because Lord North was able to explain how all his points were wrong, and then make his own points.
Inez- I agree that Sam Adams was saying that the colonists should have separate treatment from the British citizens. They get the same protection, but Sam Adams thinks that they should not have to pay taxes, which is unfair.
In the debate, Lord North made a much more compelling argument than Sam Adams. He pointed out many ways in which Britain was being nice, like cutting the price of tea in half, and repealing the Stamp and Townshend Acts. He also added that the people in England were paying taxes much higher than the people in America and were not complaining at all. Lastly, the strongest point he made was that the Americans wanted liberty and freedom, but they had slaves themselves.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLord North's argument was stronger than Sam Adam's. Sam Adam's argument was not as strong because he made it seem like the American colonies were protesting because they did not receive special treatment; they were treated like most other colonies and some other areas in Britain. Lord North argued how many of the things that Britain was doing were positive for the colonies, like by passing the Tea Act, which made tea cheaper for the colonists because it could be sold directly from India to the colonies, rather than through Britain first. Also, Britain repealed many acts that the colonists found displeasuring, such as the Townshend Acts, which taxed many valuable imports. Another strong point that Lord North made was that Britain's mainland population already were receiving higher taxes then the colonists were, which made the colonists' reason for rebelling seem quite foolish. Even though the colonists were being taxed without representation in British parliament, several areas of the British Empire and Britain itself were not represented. Lord North also talked about how the American colonies were part of a larger British Empire, and they needed to contribute their fair share in order to keep the empire going. Lastly, Lord North explained how many people in the colonies were rallying for liberty, yet it was a complete hypocrisy because many of them owned slaves.
ReplyDeletePT, I completely agree with your statement, especially the part about areas in Britain not being represented in Parliament either.
ReplyDelete-Scott
ReplyDeleteLord North made a much more compelling argument than Sam Adams. Lord North pointed out that when the colonists complained about taxes such as the Townshend Acts, they were repealed, except for tea which was made cheaper. He also accused Sam Adams and other liberty fighters of only fighting the small tea tax because it would hurt their smuggling business. He said the revolutionary leaders are bad people who break laws and owe a lot of debt. He also said that the colonists were paying fewer taxes than actual Englishmen were. Lord North talked about how the colonists felt that the empire was simply about them and they did not realize that England also needed money to run their entire empire. Lord North made it sound like the colonies were being treated with the same respect, equality, and representation as Englishmen or any other part of the British Empire, which was what Sam Adams was complaining about.
I agree with George and Philip that one of Lord North’s strongest points was that while the revolutionary leaders wanted liberty and freedom for all, many of the leaders owned slaves which is completely hypocritical. I disagree with Philip about how Sam Adams argument was simply about how the colonies wanted special treatment. I think Sam Adams was trying to say that what England had been doing was actually hurting the colonies instead of helping them like their actions should have.
Scott, I agree with you that Lord North made a better argument, but a very important part of that argument was the point about slavery. Lord North calling out the smugglers was a very good point though.
ReplyDeleteIn today's debate between Lord North and Samuel Adams, although both men made great points, Lord North's argument was superior in that he used the law, and real facts to support his claims, whereas Samuel Adam used some ideas that were not as sound. Lord North explained how not only was England the mother country, but they were also looking out for the colonists' best interests and giving them even more than what was agreed upon. For example, after the French and Indian War, when England really needed money to pay off war debts, England did not expect the colonists to pay those debts, even though much of the war's fault was the colonists'. England created the Stamp Act, not to pay off war debts, but to raise revenue to pay for the colonists' current expenses. England was being generous in not requiring the colonists to pay for the war. Lord North also mentioned how this relationship has been mutually beneficial for England and the colonies for over 100 years. In fact, America has grown prosperous under England's control, but only because England had enough money to set up all the guarantees to keep the colonies safe and secure. Now that America is refusing to pay taxes, and follow the new laws, they are mainly hurting themselves, since much of the money the spend in the taxes are to set up protection for the colonies, like the navy. Next, is the fact that the English citizens in England were actually paying twenty-five times the amount of taxes the colonists were at the time of the Stamp Act. And, many of these people are in the same boat as the colonists in terms of representation. This means that, no, they were not specifically represented, but technically, every member of Parliament was supposed to represent the entire empire, so the colonists really were represented. And even if the colonists still did not feel represented, the colonists themselves kept telling Parliament that there was no way of getting representatives over to England in person. England should not be expected to eliminate all taxes from the colonists simply because they cannot get people over to England to represent them. Samuel Adams' main argument was how they were not represented properly, and now that that has been shot down, Samuel has little more solid information to go on. Finally, as Lord North mentioned, England set up a tea tax that actually benefited the colonists to get better tea for a lower price, but the colonists did not appreciate England's generosity because this tea, event though cheaper, was still taxed in England's favor.
ReplyDeleteGeorge- I agree with the fact that the colonists were being contradictory, whether they realized it or not, about owning slaves when they themselves wanted freedom. They are basically saying to the slaves that they are better people who are more deserving of freedom than them. This is the opposite of what the colonists were aiming for, which was that all people should be equal.
Philip- You have a good point about how England kept repealing all their acts even though they benefited the colonists. This shows how England cared about the colonists and were trying to help, but America kept shooting them down without good reason (at least in Lord North's point of view).
Scott- Good job remembering how Lord North said that Samuel Adams and other liberty fighters were angry about the tea tax only because it hurt their tries at smuggling. Therefore, Samuel Adams and his fellow smugglers decided to fall back on how they were not being represented in Parliament (which is a point that doesn't quite work).
Melanie: I think that Lord North made a more compelling argument. He pointed out that citizens in England paid 25 times more taxes in England which made the colonist's revolution look unecessary. He also mentioned that England was the mother country from the beginning which is a solid overarching argument that makes a revolution by the colonists look radical and not well put-together.
ReplyDeleteSarah- You bring up a good point that Lord North mentioned that the colonists did not have to pay back for the Seven Years War. They were only required to pay for government expenses. This money would have needed to be spent weather the colonies were owned by Britain or not.
Scott- I agree with you bringing up the character of Sam Adams and some of the revolutionaries. They were a wild and reckless group which is not the type of leader one would want to head a revolution.
Sarah - I agree with you that Lord North's arguments were based in fact, while Sam Adam's arguments were a bit more outlandish. Sam Adam's arguments were based on opinion, since he felt that we was not represented, when everyone in parliament was actually appointed to represent the entire empire; the British Empire is far too large for every single colony to have a representative that is actually from that colony. I also agree with you about how people in mainland Britain already were paying much higher taxes, and just because they don't have a representative that is legitimately from the colonies doesn't mean that they can have all the benefits of other colonies (protection, etc.), and not pay taxes.
ReplyDeleteScott - That's a good point you made about the colonists leading the rebellions being smugglers. One of the main reason why they were rebelling because Britain finally cracked down on their smuggling, and like Lord North said, the smugglers wanted to get away without paying their debt. All Britain was doing was trying to enforce its laws, which were overall very logical, since smuggling is illegal activity. One thing i don't understand though is that when you said that Britain's laws were hurting the colonies, most of these laws were repealed, except for the ones that apply to everyone in the empire, so isn't it fair that the colonies abide by them as well?
I believe that Lord Norths'debate was more compelling than Sam Adams. I believe this because he had more arguments that made the British look good. Rather than Sam Adams who was simply trying to make the British look bad. I think that supporting yourself is a stronger argument than trashing someone else. Lord North mainly argued that the British were trying to make life easier and better for the colonists. He used examples such as the stamp act. When the colonists had a stamp act put upon them they protested. But he argued that in England they have had a stamp act since 1694, also that the stamp act there is much more. This shows that the colonists were being irrational about the stamp act. This argument made me feel that all people in the British Empire had equal rights. Lord Norths Debate was the better argument in my opinion. I also agree with what George said. He believed that Lord Norths Argument was better because of how he said that the British cut the tea price in half. Another person I agree with is Philip. He said that Lord Norths argument was better because it was more positive. A positive argument is always more compelling than a negative argument. - Lily
ReplyDeleteI believe that Lord North's argument was much more compelling than Sam Adams's. Lord North gave countless examples as to how the British policies were actually helping the colonists instead of hurting them. He made sure to point out the fact that many of Sam Adams's friends in the Sons of Liberty were smugglers, so naturally they would be unhappy with the price of tea being cheaper. Sam Adams had no strong defense to this accusation. Colonists who did not smuggle should be content with paying cheaper prices for tea; why would people oppose paying less? Lord North made everything sound very logical, whereas Sam Adams's argument was more opinion-based. Lord North was able to clarify and explain Britain's actions, but Sam Adams just kept complaining about "taxation without representation". He also did not go into as much depth as Lord North did when answering questions. Lord North made Sam Adams look like an irrational rebel rouser with his strong argument.
ReplyDeletePhilip- I definitely agree when you say that one of Lord North's strongest points was bringing attention to the fact that the same people calling for liberty and freedom owned slaves. It definitely made the colonists look like hypocrites.
Scott- I forgot about how Lord North brought up the fact that the colonists were paying fewer taxes than most Englishmen. That point definitely enhanced his argument.
I think that Lord North held a stronger argument than Sam Adams because he used more factual evidence to back himself up. Lord North used various points to justify Great Britain's actions against the colonists, whereas Sam Adams simply kept repeating himself over and over again. North focused on the fact that Britain was indeed the mother country, and although she has been placing taxes upon the colonies in current times, the government has been very lenient with the behavior of the colonies. while Adams repeatedly grieved about no taxation without representation, North pointed out that Parliament holds virtual representation, and the colonies are not the only region with out a personal representative. Also, North used Adam's words against him by pointing out that the Stamp Act Congress claimed that the could not have representation in Parliament. Another aspect that made Lord North's argument more compelling was that he kept relating back to the point that the tax laws were not hurting the American economy, the colonist were simply complaining. North stated that British citizens on the mainland were taxed 25 times and much, and that some tax laws even lowered the prices of goods in the colonies such as the price on tea. All in all, Lord North prevailed because Sam Adams did not have an argument aside from no taxation without representation, while Lord North was equipped with multiple arguments backed up by solid facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lily when she stated that Lord North's argument made the British look good. North did indeed point out the good intentions Britain had instead of dwelling on the poor behavior of the colonists. I also agree with what Melanie said about making the colonists look "radical and not well put together." This is true because Lord North points out how Adams and his friends were smugglers and simply did not the law being reinforced. Adams however did not have a counter argument for this, causing North to hold the upper hand.
In the debate between Lord North and Sam Adams, Lord North made a more convincing argument to defend Britain. He revealed that the colonies had been treated fairly, and given substantial time to acquire money to pay for their current expenses. After they were incapable of forming a successful system, Britain had no choice but to enforce taxation. Lord North continuously listed points that proved that Britain was acting in the colonies best interest, whereas Sam Adams merely stated that the colonists deserved separate treatment from every other British citizen. Adams was just amping up the colonies to rebel against a nation that initially meant no harm.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Melanie when she points out how the colonies were being taxed much lighter than the people living in Great Britain. It shows that they were exaggerating a tax that was in fact very reasonable.
I also agree with Philip when he mentions that the colonists were part of the British Empire and need to stay with it. They originally started out there, and have no right in rebelling against the nation that supported their colonization in the beginning.
Katie
ReplyDeleteI think that Lord North’s argument was more compelling. He was used good examples as to how Britain was helping the colonies and had a good argument for every accusation Sam Adams made against him. For example, he brought up the point that the colonists complained that they are being taxed without being represented in Parliament, yet they say that they cannot be represented in Parliament. He reinforced this argument by reminding Sam Adams that the people living in England have had to pay the Stamp Act since 1694. He also made the point that many of the radicals were promoting liberty, but refuse to free their slaves. This made the radicals seem hypocritical, a point that was only made stronger when he mentioned that the reason the radicals complained about the lower taxes on tea was because they were afraid of how it would affect their smuggling. Another compelling point that Lord North made was that under the British rule, the colonies have only grown stronger. He made the empire sound appealing to the colonists by saying that after the French and Indian war, the British Empire had become the greatest in the world. Overall, Lord North was able to make stronger arguments to defend Britain and make the radicals seem as if they were misrepresenting the way Britain was really treating them.
Philip – I agree with your point that Lord North brought up the argument about the colonies being a part of the British Empire and therefore having to help keep the empire going. That made Lord North’s argument much more compelling.
Allie – I agree with you about Sam Adams argument being more opinion based. I think that definitely hurt him because he was not able to point to as many specific ways in which Britain was hurting the colonies.
Phoebe
ReplyDeleteIn yesterday’s debate, Lord North made a more compelling argument than Sam Adams due to his extensive honesty and ability to manipulate the reasons why hardships were placed on the colonies. Lord North displayed a genuine honesty in his argument when he acknowledged the fact that before the French and Indian War, Britain gave the American colonies more independence than they should have. However, now that the colonies have taken advantage of the temporary dismal from Britain’s constant reign, they must begin to pay their fair share for protection and participation in the mother country. Lord North’s compelling argument continued when he displayed his ability to manipulate the reasons why the hardships were placed on the colonies. Lord North explained, with a convincing persistence, that the purpose of the Tea Act was to lower the price of tea for the benefit of the common colonist. In truth, the Act enabled the East India Tea Company to import directly to the colonies and the import taxes were collected and used for the benefit of the mother country.
Allie- I agreed with you when you said, “Sam Adams's argument was more opinion-based. Lord North was able to clarify and explain Britain's actions”. I also believe that throughout the debate Sam Adams’s conclusions and grievances were based more on emotional reactions than factual evidence, which then weakened his argument and enabled the views of Lord North to prosper.
Lily- I agreed with you when you said, “I think that supporting yourself is a stronger argument than trashing someone else. Lord North mainly argued that the British were trying to make life easier and better for the colonists.” I also noticed that due to Lord North’s focus maintaining on his country and its actions as opposed to his grievances with the colonies he allowed his case to have more honest and well thought out evidence to support his claims.
Lilly- I agree with your point that Lord North pointed out that the British were attempting to make the colonists' life easier.
ReplyDelete--Holly
ReplyDeleteDuring the debate between Samuel Adams and Lord North, Lord North made a much more compelling argument on Britain’s behalf. He supported his ideas with concrete facts and statistics, whereas Adams mostly relied on public opinion. For example, in his opening, Lord North explained that Englishmen in Britain had been paying much higher taxes in the mother land than in those in the colonies; in fact, they were paying twenty-five times more money in taxes than American colonists. Also, Britain had attempted to allow the colonies to find a way to pay a fair tax to the mother country for an entire year before it was necessary for Britain to employ the Stamp Act in the colonies. Even in this Stamp Act, Americans would only have to pay approximately one shilling per person per year to the British government, a great deal smaller than the Englishmen in Britain paid. One of his most compelling arguments though, was not based on true fact: it was more of an emotion. Lord North both opened and closed his argument stating that Britain recognized that most colonists were loyal subjects and did not want to rebel against the mother country, and that most of the rebel rousers were directly from Boston. This tactic help solidify his argument against Sam Adams, a resident of Boston himself.
Allie and Phoebe: I agree when you say that the majority of Adams’s arguments were opinion-based and relied more on emotion than factual evidence. However, I feel it is important to note that during the Q&A section, Samuel Adams was able to step up his game and contradict some of Lord North’s answers. After Lord North explained the idea of virtual representation (all members of Parliament act in all of the empire’s best interests), Adams was able to refute this point by saying that it is human nature for people to act in their self interest, hinting that maybe North’s claims of Parliament acting in the colonies’ best interests were not entirely true. He was also able to call out Lord North’s claims of care and cooperation with the colonies after all Acts had been repealed by saying that these repeals were acts of political ploy to try to regain the colonists’ trust before employing another.
Katie: I had not heard Lord North say that the Stamp Act had previously been employed in Britain itself since 1694. This basis of fact and knowledge again solidifies his argument against Sam Adams. Good memory!
To those calling Americans hypocrites for owning slaves: Didn’t Englishmen in Britain also own slaves? I thought it was quite common for most wealthy men to own them at that period of time, regardless of where they lived… Am I mistaken?
I believe that Lord North made a more compelling argument. I feel that some parts of his argument, like Britain repealing taxes that colonists boycotted, could be manipulated to support either side of the argument; he also made points that would only support the British argument. First of all, he did not attack the colonists as a whole. He kept repeating the fact that he believed most of the people in America were still loyal to the crown. This made his argument stronger because his faith in a majority of the colonists would make them feel less attacked and more open to listening to him. Second, Lord North made it seem as though the colonists had forced the British to put their foot down. The way he rationalized the rebellions in the colonies during the debate made it seem as though the rebels were acting irrationally. The way he worked his argument made it seem that the harsh rules set in place by the British government was for the safety and greater good of the colonies until the rebels were under control. Lastly, he kept repeating the fact that England only wanted the colonists to pay their fair share of the expense it took to run the American government. He insisted that the British weren’t going to make the colonists pay for the war, they just wanted their support in paying for their own government.
ReplyDeleteMelanie – I agree when you point out that Lord North’s argument was much stronger because he pointed out that the colonists were being taxed much lighter than many British citizens. This point could not be twisted to benefit Sam Adam’s argument in any way, therefore making Lord North’s argument much more compelling.
Holly – I agree with your point about England giving the colonies a year to figure out how to pay back the mother country before they instated the Stamp Acts. Britain gave the colonies a chance, they just did not take it, therefore how can they argue when they had an opportunity to solve this problem before the mother country had to take it into their own hands?
I think that in the Lord North vs. Sam Adams debate Lord North had the more compelling argument. I think Sam Adams had a disadvantage in talking first in the debate because Lord North was then able to deliberately contest each of his arguments. A strong point that Lord North pointed out was how the colonists were contradictory of their word. They stood for "No taxation without representation," but then in their grievances said that they didn't even want to be represented. Lord North described how they treated the colonists with respect and that they only wanted the colonists to pay "their fair share." He kept repeating this, which made his argument more persuasive because he made it seem as though Britain was spoiling the colonies, and they deserved just a little in return. Sam Adams views weren't heard enough in the debate. He made great points about the tax on tea and how the colonists knew it was a trick so that in the future they could enforce more taxes. He didn't discuss some major points that could've been in his favor, such as the tyranny of the Britain soldiers who were allowed to live in the colonists homes and the colonists were ordered to serve. Overall Lord North made stronger arguments, and even if his points were less significant than the points Sam Adams made, he sold and embellished his arguments more.
ReplyDeleteVictoria- I agree with your points about Lord North. I especially agree with the point that he used more factual evidence, which helped him sound more prepared and accurate. I also agree with the point you made on how the tax laws were not hurting the American economy and how the colonist were just complaining.
Katie- I also agree with your thoughts about Lord North and how through Britain the colonies have only grown stronger. That helped North's argument because it showed that Britain was the reason they prospered, so why shouldn't they have trusted England?
Meredith
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Lord North made a more compelling argument that Sam Adams. One key argument he made was that the people who were living in the colonies were British citizens. He pointed out that the majority of the colonists were loyal to the mother country, Britain. Lord North named Sam Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson as the people who were making trouble. This was a good argument because it appealed to the majority and did not focus on the handful of rebellious men. Another good argument made by Lord North was that people living in the mother country, Britain, were paying more taxes than the colonists. Along with that argument he also reminded the people that part of being from a large and powerful empire was contributing in the form of taxes. This was a solid argument because he was telling them that all members of the empire pay taxes, not just the colonies. A third argument was that it was important to stop smuggling in the colonies because it downgraded the value of goods and ultimately hurt the loyal British citizens. This was a strong argument because smuggling was illegal and they had decided to enforce these laws and they were not inventing new laws or taxes. Sam Adams not only presented a poor argument, but did not have any good counteractions for the arguments made by Lord North.
McKayla- I had forgot about Lord North's point that the colonists were contradicting themselves. I like and agree with this point.
Holly- I agree with your point about how Lord North said that the colonies were given a fair chance to pay their taxes, but failed to do so.
I believe that Lord North's argument was more compelling due to the fact that he used real facts while Sam Adams just seemed like a little kid saying that it was not fair. One of his most important points is when he says how the colonists want freedom, yet some of them have slaves. I think this is a big contradiction because if you want freedom for yourself you should not be keeping people like objects and forcing them to do things. Another key point that Lord North made was that the British had done many nice things for the colonists. They had repealed the taxes that the colonists really did not like and the only tax that stayed was the tea on tax. The colonists though were still getting the tea at a cheaper price though. The only people who had problem with this would be the smugglers who were losing money off of it, such as John Hancock and Sam Adams himself. Another important point that was made by Lord North is that the colonists are a part of the British empire and get as much protection as the rest of the empire, but yet they pay twenty five times less taxes than the British citizens.
ReplyDeleteMcKayla- I had not thought about how going first would be a disadvantage for Sam Adams, but now that I agree because Lord North was able to explain how all his points were wrong, and then make his own points.
Inez- I agree that Sam Adams was saying that the colonists should have separate treatment from the British citizens. They get the same protection, but Sam Adams thinks that they should not have to pay taxes, which is unfair.