General Jackson Slaying the Many Headed Monster

This political cartoon depicts a pro-Jackson viewpoint of the "Bank War" which was president Andrew Jackson's campaign to bring an end the the second national bank. The cartoon shows Jackson raising a cane saying veto, representing his actions in congress when they handed him a bill to recharter the bank. Jackson is also talking to his vice president at the time, Martin Van Buren, telling him to support his destruction of the national bank, or be killed by the monster in the cartoon. The biggest head on the monster is Nicholas Biddle, the president of the 2nd national bank and obviously Jackson's biggest opponent in the "Bank War", with the other heads being people of power  in states which supported the national bank. Due to the fact that the bank is represented by an evil and grotesque monster, the artist was clearly in favor of Jackson's stance on the national bank and wanted it's destruction.

Primary Source: French and Indian War

       The primary source I chose was a letter from the then governor of Virginia Robert Dinwiddie, to the Native American tribes of the Sachems, Cherokees and the Catawbas. The letter was written to the various tribes as a plea for their warriors to fight on Dinwiddie's side (the English) of the Seven Years War against the French. The letter was written in 1754, well after "King Phillip's War" which led to the slaughter of many Native Americans by the British colonists, and led to the permanent sour of the relationship between colonists and the natives, and i'm sure countless other trespasses against the natives happened previous to this date as well. 

       Throughout the process of reading the letter, I thought the whole time that it was sort of an ironic affair. Dinwiddie claims that the French "unjustly invaded lands on the Ohio," but did Dinwiddie's ancestors if not he himself "unjustly" invade the land the Native Americans were living on and force them off of it? Then Dinwiddie, representing the British, who less than 100 years previous had an outright war with the natives, referred to them as "brethren" and Dinwiddie continues by saying the natives "can be assured of our sincere friendship."  Since we as living people know the events that happened even after the letter was written regarding the Native Americans and the British, the letter almost has a sarcastic tone to it, and made me wonder if there was even an ounce of sincerity and authenticity behind Dinwiddie's claims of alliance after the war would end. However the lack of clarity is a good segway into what could make the primary source even more enlightening.
       Despite letting the readers have an in depth look at the rhetoric of a colonial governor, the letter would be so much simpler and interesting if we had the response to it, if the Native Americans ever even bothered to respond that is.But further research has shown me that a year later, Dinwiddie sent another letter to different Native American tribes asking for their help in the war as well.
       Overall, this letter was straight forward and was clearly a call to arms/request for an alliance with the Native Americans, and was written as innocently and politetly as possible by a British governor as could be at the time, and it did did serve as a direct view into the British mindset of their relations with the natives, and how easily they think history can just blow over. However, the letter could be made much more insightful with the attainment of its response. (if one)

Roanoake Practice Post

For this assignment, we read a primary source about John White's search for the Roanoake colony