1) Who were the parties,
2) What was the final outcome,
3) What were the alternatives to a negotiated settlement?
Were the parties aware of these alternatives? Remember to evaluate this questions on a historical basis as well as based on our debate.
The questions need to be answered based from the debate between Adams and Randolph (attached spreadsheet), and also based on historical personality between the two men. I hope this clarifies the post.
Please see response attached, which is also presented below. I hope this helps and take care.
Let's take a look at these questions. You might want to read over the negotiation to jot your memory first, though: Negotiations - ramifications of independence of the colonies from Great Britain.
1) Who were the parties (e.g., Adams - Boston patriots; Randolph, who is an American lawyer in colonial Williamsburg, Virginia., who also was the acting attorney for the king, which divided his loyalties).
2) What was the final outcome (e.g., in the negotiation attached, the two men disagreed on several major points, and the negotiation ended with neither moving much from their initial position. The final outcome was about leaving things as are, and ponder the alternatives discussed in the negotiation, and to meet again. Some of the alternatives discussed were such as open conflict, finding allies (Adam's position), or communicate with the king while the colonists try to build up their own resources to get a stronger position to be self-sufficient before attempting to break free from Britain (Randolph's position), and left the meeting saying that they would consider the potential ideas discussed e.g., Adams seemed more concerned about independence and liberty - which was perhaps a bias (anchoring) from seeing other alternatives other than open combat to gain independence from Britain; and Reynolds seemed less concerned about liberty, and more concerned about the financial power and prestige that Britain offered, and seem willing to give up his liberty and independence for the "greater" life, which perhaps biased his conclusions about conflict not being the best alternative. ...
Based on the attached debate between Adams and Randolph, this solution identifies the parties involved and the final outcome, as well as the alternatives to a negotiated settlement and whether or not the parties aware of these alternatives. Specifically, it evaluates the questions on a historical basis.