Changes

Textbooks written after 1970 began claiming that around A.D. 1000, the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] established a small colony at [[Vinland]], where the present [[Newfoundland]] is (north of Maine).  But there is very little evidence that such a colony existed, and no explanation for what happened to it.  It did not last long even if it did exist, and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

Textbooks written after 1970 began claiming that around A.D. 1000, the Scandinavian [[Leif Ericson]] established a small colony at [[Vinland]], where the present [[Newfoundland]] is (north of Maine).  But there is very little evidence that such a colony existed, and no explanation for what happened to it.  It did not last long even if it did exist, and there is no sign of any Viking colony in what is now the United States.<ref>"People have been looking hard for hundreds of years and there is no archaeological evidence in this part [New England]— it's certainly possible, the Vikings were incredible boat handlers — '''but there is no evidence'''," observed one university history professor.[http://farshores.org/a04viki.htm]</ref>.

''Exam note'': there are no more than one or two questions about the Pre-Columbian period on any American history exam.

''Exam note'': there are no more than one or two questions about the Pre-Columbian period on any American history exam.

Cracks in Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657.  It was an agreement at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners.  Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church.  The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] discussed in the next class, proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members.  All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church.  But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion.  This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue:  some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

Cracks in Puritan way became clear in the Halfway Covenant of 1657.  It was an agreement at an assembly of Puritans from Massachusetts and Connecticut to allow halfway church membership and baptism for sinners.  Second and third-generation Puritans seemed more interested in money than having the "born again" religious conversion necessary to become a full member of the Puritan Church and required in order to be allowed to baptize their children in the Church.  The Reverend Solomon Stoddard, whose grandson would be [[Jonathan Edwards]] discussed in the next class, proposed partial or "halfway" membership in the Church of children and grandchildren of Church members.  All the children and grandchildren need do was accept the Covenant and agree to the beliefs and rules of the Church, in order to participate in the sacraments of the Church.  But they would not be allowed to vote on any Church issues until they had a spiritual conversion.  This approach was adopted, but continued to be resisted by people on both sides of the issue:  some who thought it was too lenient, and others who found it too strict.

<br><br>

<br><br>

Debate:  were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?

'''Debate:  were the Puritans right to be strict and to expel people of other religions?'''

<br><br>

<br><br>

One prominent text claims, under “Rhode Island,” that “This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787.”  That is completely false.  Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.  Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights.  In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution.  But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government.  Rhode Island was the only colony that supported a "separation" of church and state.

One prominent text claims, under “Rhode Island,” that “This belief [by Roger Williams] in the separation of church and state became a cornerstone of the American Constitution in 1787.”  That is completely false.  Roger Williams was long dead by 1787, and there is no separation of church and state in the Constitution.  Rhode Island did not even send any representatives to draft the Constitution and it had no role in the drafting of the Bill of Rights.  In fact, Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until after George Washington was elected president, and even then it took much arm-twisting to compel Rhode Island to ratify the Constitution.  But some people want to keep religion out of government, and they refuse to admit that the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of a national church by the government.  Rhode Island was the only colony that supported a "separation" of church and state.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720.  At the time no one called it a triangle, but some historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again.  The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World.  After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe.  But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following:  what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa?  Nothing comes to mind, and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found.  Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa.  So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

Finally, College Board exams may ask about the "triangular trade" that supposedly dominated from 1640-1720.  At the time no one called it a triangle, but some historians have used the image of triangle to show trade routes from West Africa to the New World America (the West Indies or the colonies), from there to Europe (England or continental Europe), and from there the boats presumably traveled back to West Africa to begin again.  The harshest part of this route was the taking of slaves, bound in chains from West Africa to the New World.  After the slaves disembarked, the New World would load goods onto the ships (such as raw molasses if the West Indies, or tobacco if Virginia) for transport to Europe.  But what doesn't make sense about this theory is the following:  what would Europe send on the ships back to Africa?  Nothing comes to mind, and not a single instance of an actual triangle route has ever been found.  Perhaps finished product, like rum from the molasses, would be loaded onto the ships, but its intended destination would be the colonies, not Africa.  So in reality the only triangle could only be traversed by the boats, not by actual trade.

'''Debate''': Did "triangular trade" really exist?

'''Debate: Did "triangular trade" really exist?'''

== Topics for Discussion ==

== Topics for Discussion ==

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?

*What, if anything, was the significance of [[Bacon's Rebellion]]?

*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?

*What challenges would the [[Puritans]] face in maintaining their strongly religious culture in the 1600s and 1700s?

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

== A Word About College Board Exams ==

First, a word about College Board exams.  This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three):  the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].   

Finally, a word about College Board exams.  This course will give you the foundation -- if you like -- for taking three different College Board exams (usually a student takes only one of the three):  the [[CLEP]], the [[AP]], and the [[SAT II]].   

<br><br>

<br><br>

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit.  It costs about $50 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month.  It is the least biased of the three exams.   

The CLEP is a multiple-choice exam that is recognized by most (but not all) colleges as a way to earn college credit.  It costs about $50 and is administered on computers at local colleges, usually once a month.  It is the least biased of the three exams.