He responded by saying, “our ministers are well paid, and by my consent should be better if they would pray more often and preach less. ” Governor Berkeley also believed that children ought to be taught religion by their parents. He said, “But, I thank God, there are neither free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning has brought disobedience, and heresy. ” I don’t agree with what Governor Berkeley believed. He contradicted his own beliefs. He talked about how he was against new ways of thinking or new ideas.
He wanted everyone to believe in the Christian religion. If Berkeley wanted everyone to stay with traditional ideas, why would he have wanted individual families to teach religion? Wouldn’t it be less likely to create free thinkers if one minister taught the children the religion instead of individual families? Berkeley wants to prevent any form of heresy, yet he is provoking it. Indentured servants were often lower class people in England who would work for a number of years and would then be set free.
In return for their work they would be given free passage to America by their owner. In 1635 a list of requirements were written for the servant and owner to follow. The form included orders for the owner to provide the servant with food, drink, clothing, shelter, free passage to the new world, and after their years of work are over to provide them with corn for a year and 0 acres of land, In my opinion, I think this contract is pretty fair.
The Essay on Are We Free To Make Our Own Choices
Are We Free to Make Our Own Choices? Pre-destination can often bring up the question as to whether we as humans control our own actions. Are we free to make our own choices, or is everything we do pre-determined by a supernatural being of some sort? Is it safe to say that we are responsible for our own choices? Do we own a free will that allows us to choose our life path, or are our actions pre- ...
The contract makes the indentured servants seem like employees for a job. The indentured servants aren’t being forced to work; they are making the ecision to. Also, in return for their work they’re being repaid by their owners. The contract seems to give both parties a reasonable payment which makes the contract fair. Although I agree with the methods and payments of indentured servants, I don’t agree with the punishments some servants received. I do think some of the servants behaviors should be looked down upon, but I also think the punishment they faced was a bit harsh. Charles City County Court in Virginia has a record that shows how harsh the punishments got.
Elizabeth Hatcher owned servant Anne Parke. When Anne Parke had a child her years of work were doubled. Every indentured servant and their owner had a contract for the amount of years they worked. Therefore, when Anne Parke’s contract was doubled, it was violating her rights. I personally think the system created for indentured servants was fair, but since the agreement was not always followed it wasn’t carried out equally. The system could have been successful if both the owners and servants had followed it properly.