Reading, Writing and Knowing in Early America and the Digital Age

Category: Public (Page 6 of 8)

How much gin was Eli drinking?


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

In my paper I will discuss the effects the cotton will have on the amount of slaves in the south and the production of cotton. I will focus on how the cotton gin increased the output of cotton and the global demand for cotton. Prior to the invention of the cotton gin picking cotton was a slow painstaking process.[1] Due to the cotton gin production increased more than ten-fold. As the price to produce cotton decreased and the revenue increased there were more farmers willing to grow cotton.[2] Eli Whitney Patented his cotton gin in 1793 and within 20 years the amount of slaves in the south doubled.[3] The first question I will research will be whether the cotton gin was a major reason for the increase in the slave population, or whether there were other major contributions. The second question is, was the cotton gin both a positive and negative because it increased cotton production but also lead to an increase in the amount of slaves. For this paper it will be important to look into archives to determine how the slave population rose. There is a large difference whether the slaves came over through the slave trade or whether the population increased due to natural reproduction. To determine this I will try to find old contracts of slave dealings and letters. Communication detailing the amount of slaves being sold in the south will be imperative. It is crucial in my research to be able to distinguish between slaves coming through slave trade and those born to slaves. The slaves coming to America and sold show a direct correlation to an increase in demand for slave labor. Another primary source that is critical in the research for my paper will be to look at correspondence between slave owners in the south. I will pay particular attention to families that are noted to have large cotton plantations in the southern United States. For this research I plan to look into national archives specifically those that are heavily filled with antebellum letters and documents that show proof of slave trade as well as archives that have letters from prominent slave owning families. I will also rely on databases such as JSTOR and EBSCO to find population statistics and statistics detailing cotton production.

[1] “Dig Deeper: Why Did the Invention of the Cotton Gin Increase the Number of Slaves?” Tennessee 4 Me -. Accessed February 22, 2015. http://www.tn4me.org/sapage.cfm/sa_id/234/era_id/3.

[2] Imbed.

[3] Imbed.

      

PA #2: Pressing Questions on Colonial Printing


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Eleanor

For my final project, I plan on researching the arrival, use, and growth of the printing press in colonial America. I am particularly interested in the physical history of the press, and will search for the answers to questions like: Where did the parts to build a printing press come from? How much did presses cost to own and operate? How common was it to own a printing press? Were they more concentrated in certain areas of the colonies? How many people did it take to create a printed final product (pamphlet, newspaper, book, etc.) and what were their jobs? Did the printing press have a significant effect on the colonial economy? What materials were used to create the printed products (ink, paper, etc.), how much did they cost, and where did they come from? If someone wanted to print and distribute a piece, how would they go about making that happen? How were printed products distributed? Was there any sort of regulatory body controlling or censoring printed materials? Did any personal qualities like socioeconomic status, race, gender, class, profession, education, religion, etc. have a surprising effect on access to either printed materials or the ability to get their creations published? Were printing presses used privately as well as for the distribution of public materials? Did people use printing presses to create anything unconventional or artistic?

As far as primary sources, I plan to look at artifacts that were printed in colonial America to see what types of things were being printed. I would also like to see if I can find any instruction manuals to see how people were talking about how to use printing presses. Product advertisements or bills of sale could give insight into the monetary and material costs that went into creating printed documents. Government documents from the period could tell me if there were any regulations or restrictions on what was distributed via the printing press.

For the final product, I plan on using a subdomain of my Davidson Domain site to create an informational website about the printing press. I can use the multimedia abilities of a digital platform to enhance the presentation of my research. I can embed images and videos, and link to other web sources directly from the page. I can split up the text by subtopic over several pages, and can link from page to page on the site to create a nonlinear narrative for the reader to explore.

      

Information in Dixie


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Kurt Vidmer

For my research project, I will be exploring the roll of trading posts in communication in the Antebellum Southern United States. Doing this, I will pay particular attention to the location of trading posts along trading routes and waterways throughout the South. It is my assumption that these trading posts served as a strong communication network during this time periods, and this is a topic that I wish to further research and analyze. Throughout my research process, I will be looking to answer the following questions. What can the various products moving through these trading posts tell us about Antebellum communication? What role did the merchants and trading post workers play in the this communication exchange? Aside from economic and trading related information, what other areas of communication were spread throughout these trading posts and routes? Did Native Americans play a role in this communication network? What technological advances had to greatest impact on this communication network? What influence did trading post communication have on future communication developments in the United States?

A main source of primary sources that I will utilize will be maps of various trading routes throughout the Southern United States. I will analyze the location of these maps, and look to identify trends that exist in these maps, and particularly to the trends that impact the locations of trading posts along these routes. Maps will be very important and vital to locating the trading posts and supply centers that I will be analyzing throughout my research. Another form of primary sources that I will explore are records of products, materials, and supplies that passed through the various trading routes. I will will look to identify similarities and differences in the types of products that move through the different trading posts. Through these observations, I will look to identify impacts that the products had on the trading post based communication network. I will also use letters as a source for analysis of the possibilities of trading routed serving as a “Postal System” of sorts. These letters would give first hand insight into the process of which these trading posts facilitated communication.

My project will take the form as a collection of maps, inventory records, and letters that I will acquire through various sources, including the Davidson Archive and the library research resources. I will analyze these sources, and look to make connections between the various sources as they relate to communication exchange.

      

United States of Amourica: Romantic Letter-Writing in the Revolution and Early Republic


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Alec

United States of Amourica: Romantic Letter-Writing in the Revolution and Early Republic

For my final project, I want to research and analyze love letters written during the Revolutionary period and the Early Republic. I will place the initial criteria that either the sender or the recipient of each letter must have been an inhabitant of the colonies (or states, depending on the date), and that the two parties must be romantically involved in some way. Depending on the number of letters I am able to find that meet these two baseline requirements, I will add any additional restrictions for building a pool of documents. For example, I may need to be somewhat generous with my definition of a “love letter” – a note which makes it clear that the intended recipient is a romantic interest but mostly deals with other topics, like daily life or politics, will probably be just fine. Additionally, though I anticipate that letters between slaves will be harder to find than those between freed individuals, theirs would surely be an interesting and useful perspective to include, granted that I am able to locate any.

When reading these letters, I want to pay particular attention to two elements that I expect will guide my research questions for this project. First, I am curious how romantically involved individuals in North America wrote to one another. What does the tone, formality, and word choice of the letter lead us to concluded about accepted social behaviors between lovers, and whether or not letter-writing presented an escape from public norms? How does a letter from a husband to his wife (or vice versa) differ from one between two unmarried lovers? How do additional factors such as the gender, class, religion, ethnicity, and geographic location and distance also affect these considerations?

Secondly, I am interested in precisely what these eighteenth century lovebirds wrote about. Were couples concerned more with updating each other on more personal details, like health or local happenings, or did they also include information about politics and national news? How did the content of these letters vary depending on the geographical distance between the lovers? Finally, what can these documents tell us about the public perception of the Revolution and of the Early Republic, and what sort of unique perspective do love letters provide for answering these questions that may not be present in correspondence between, say, friends or family members? I expect that in additional to a more formal writeup, my project will incorporate some quantitative method of answering these questions (counting occurrence of certain words, calculating geographical distance, etc.), as well as some sort of visualization of my findings.

      

All Aboard: Tracing the Tracks of 19th Century Railroads in East Tennessee and North Georgia


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Sherwood

19th Century Railroads of East TN, VA and GA

My distant relative, Thomas Howard Callaway, was involved in the consolidation of the East Tennessee & Georgia and East Tennessee & Virginia railroads. His story has made me aware of the significance of railroads during the 19th century, especially those that connected inland America to the Atlantic. The construction of one key link in the chain, the railroads of east Tennessee and north Georgia, was a confusing process that involved numerous parties and encountered frequent setbacks. For my final project, I will endeavor to illustrate the complex narrative of these railroads through an easily accessible, visual learning tool. I hope to discover why the process of coordinating and constructing railroads was so difficult, learn about the coexistence of privately and publicly owned lines and determine what made the railroads of east Tennessee and north Georgia so vital to the region.

It took a considerable amount of detective work, but by carefully reading the summaries provided by RailGa.com and investigating primary sources, including maps and timetables, I was able to construct a timeline that illustrates the construction of various railroads in east Tennessee and north Georgia region the region during the mid 19th century. Specifically, I targeted those lines that helped form a direct route to the Atlantic, thereby making the East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia railroad (est. 1869) a valuable and practical means of transport. These lines included the East Tennessee & Virginia (Bristol, VA to Knoxville, TN), the perpetually unfinished Hiwassee connection (Knoxville, TN to Dayton, GA), the government-owned Western & Atlantic (Dayton, GA to Atlanta, GA) and the Georgia Railroad (Atlanta, GA to Augusta, GA). Together, they form a route from north Georgia, through east Tennessee and into Virginia.

My final project will be a web application that illustrates the construction of these railroads, the setbacks they encountered (such as the Panic of 1837 and the Civil War) and their frequent changes in ownership (for example, the consolidation of the ET&V and ET&G). If the confusion I encountered while researching this topic is any indication, a visual learning tool will better tell the story of these railroads than plain text.

      

Founding Elders: the Concord Presbytery’s involvement in founding Davidson College


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Avery

For my final paper, I will be looking at the founding of Davidson College through an examination of the Concord Presbytery’s meeting minutes from 1835 to 1843. I propose applying a similar approach to Kieran Healy’s analysis of Revolutionary America. Healy uses committee affiliations to map a network of the Revolution’s central figures. Similarly, I will use social network analysis tools to map a network of people related to the college founding via their committee affiliations, as cited in the Presbytery minutes. Here are some of the questions I’ll be trying to answer:

  1. Who were the central figures in Davidson’s founding?
  2. How was the founding of the College structured? As in, what type of committees were organized and what does that say about how the Presbytery envisioned post-secondary education and Davidson College?
  3. How did the fact that Davidson grew out of a Presbyterian group affect the College’s founding and mission?

For the second question, I will delving into some of the central figures lives and relating their ideals and experiences to the College’s original mission. I would also like to relate Davidson’s founding story to the historical trends of the Presbyterian Church’s involvement in post-secondary education in antebellum America.

I think this project will also provide insights into the structure of decision-making and communication within the Presbytery. Who are the decision-makers? How do they make decisions? This piece will also require some background research into typical Presbytery structures in the South at the time.

      

From Behind the Easel: Stuart’s Portraits of Washington


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Sherwood

Having commanded the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, served as the first President of the United States and presided over the Constitutional Convention, George Washington earned his fame. However, painter Gilbert Stuart was largely responsible for the stoic qualities popularly associated with Washington today. Stuart produced three main variations of Washington during his brief stay in Philadelphia. Named for the parties who purchased them, the Vaughan (1795), Athenaeum (1796) and Lansdowne (1797) portraits first imparted the solemnity and modesty for which Washington eventually became renowned. Stuart’s portraits of Washington were once wildly popular and remain relevant today; even the unfinished Athenaeum has been quietly but extensively proliferated as the centerpiece of the United States’ one-dollar bill. These paintings, especially the Lansdowne, represent the views of both Stuart and Washington on how arguably the most significant and diverse figure in American history ought to be presented. Additionally, they demonstrate how early Americans appropriated high culture to serve the principles of their new nation.

Gilbert Stuart himself was hardly a patriot. Born in Rhode Island in 1755, he set sail for England on the eve of the American Revolutionary War and spent almost two decades abroad before returning.[1] Stuart’s depictions of Washington were accordingly dispassionate. The Vaughan depicts Washington from the torso up, facing slightly towards his right. Its simple, maroon background lightens near the edges of the subject but is otherwise dark, as if illuminated solely by his grandeur. Washington foregoes the familiar adornment of a military uniform for a plain white shirt under a black coat. Stuart positions the subject’s head in the upper third of the painting to preserve the height discrepancy that occurred between Washington, who was abnormally tall, and most other men. His disapproving countenance, the expression of a common man compelled into civil servitude by dire circumstances, captures the entirety of the viewer’s attention. Or, perhaps it was only discomfort— Washington apparently hated the experience of “sitting” for a portraitist.[2] Though incomplete, the Athenaeum exhibits many of the same qualities as the Vaughan. The background and clothing are again unremarkable and subject remains disinterested. Both portraits illustrate the austerity with which we associate Washington today.

An eight-foot-tall canvas, the Lansdowne better captures Washington’s imposing stature. The subject strikes a pose that simultaneously acknowledges both his civilian and military leadership roles, with one palm extended outwards, opened invitingly, and the other grasping a sword by his side. Stuart also replicated Washington’s signature downturn expression. A more substantial setting afforded Stuart the opportunity to imbue the scene with symbolism. The rainbow in the background bestows divine approval upon the United States, but unlike a European monarch, Washington does not bask in the blessing. Rather, he offers the viewer a stake in the new nation. In the foreground, a golden desk stands with two eagles carved into its exposed leg. The eagle had symbolized the Roman republic long before becoming the national bird of the United States. Similarly, the Grecian columns represent Athenian democracy. Both of these civilizations inspired the founding fathers to emulate classical ideals and customs. Two books stacked beneath the golden desk have legible titles: “American Revolution” and “Constitution and Laws of the United States.” Gilbert indulges in a bit of revisionist history here by omitting hardships endured and mistakes made while under the Articles of Confederation. These laws encumbered the United States for twelve years before being replaced by the Constitution. The federal government’s inabilities to tax and regulate commerce called into question the durability of the new nation. Gilbert ignores the Articles entirely and emphasizes Washington’s accomplishments as a general and legislator instead, thereby misrepresenting him.

Stuart knew that portraits of Washington would attract considerable attention because of the president’s popularity. Having incurred some debt while overseas, the painter’s primary intention was to generate a profit.[3] However, that did not deter Stuart from representing Washington deliberately; the Vaughan, Athenaeum and Lansdowne depict Washington with solemnity and modesty. They diverged dramatically in terms of both style and substance from the more ostentatious, luxurious and overtly celebratory way in which European leaders— especially monarchs— were depicted. Though certainly more elaborate than either the Vaughan or Athenaeum, the Lansdowne was still remarkably humble relative to contemporaneous portraiture. All three paintings played an important role in the process of national mythmaking not only by immortalizing the nation’s first president, but also by culturally legitimizing the ideals of republicanism that he had fought for.

[1] Howard, Hugh. The Painter’s Chair: George Washington and the Making of American Art. London, UK: Bloomsbury Press, 2009. 164.

[2] Howard, Hugh. The Painter’s Chair: George Washington and the Making of American Art. London, UK: Bloomsbury Press, 2009. 183.

[3] Howard, Hugh. The Painter’s Chair: George Washington and the Making of American Art. London, UK: Bloomsbury Press, 2009. 157.

Bibliography

Gilbert Stuart, George Washington (Lansdowne Portrait), 1797. Oil on canvas, 243.8×60.5cm. The White House.

Gilbert Stuart, George Washington (Vaughan Portrait), 1795. Oil on canvas, 73×60.5cm. The National Gallery of Art.

Gilbert Stuart, George Washington (Athenaeum Portrait), 1796. Oil on canvas, 76.8×64.1cm. The Smithsonian Institution.

Howard, Hugh. The Painter’s Chair: George Washington and the Making of American Art. London, UK: Bloomsbury Press, 2009.

      

The British Are Coming: An Exploration of Unification


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By Cordelia

Communication in the colonial era of what would become the United States of America primarily consisted of written documents and oral exchanges. Mapping these communications requires an analysis of both types, however the face-to-face exchanges conducted by individuals cannot necessarily be mapped with one hundred percent accuracy. However, metadata use, as showcased by Kieran Healy in his article entitled, “Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere,” can predict the interactions of historical figures to a certain degree by outlining the recorded social commitments of their lives. Yet, analysis of printed materials such as commonplace books and maps could predict these communications to a greater degree, generally. However, all authors on the topic, Bruckner, Wulf, and Healy, explore the question relating to the extent to which the information collected from these communication documents is accurate and conclude that the communication methods of the time leading to the revolution were unifying in a way that mirrored the colonies’ impending unification against the British.

The geographical revolution of the Americas had to happen early in the process of colonization, as the new residents relied upon maps for their own survival. Yet, as Martin Bruckner points out in his work entitled, “The Geographic Revolution in Early America: Maps, Literacy, and National Identity,” “the early American land survey is part of a much-overlooked literary movement.” Maps did not simply communicate land distinctions but served as further communication for many reasons. The land survey provided information to the mother country of England to communicate their political stance in the new world as defined by distinctive land boundaries. This was, after all, the overarching purpose of government funding for the mapping of land as the monarchy could only enforce power over a colony if there was official documentation of the extent to which their rule was valid. However, as Bruckner argues, mapping the land resulted in much more than a reiteration of political prowess. Plotting land required a numeracy of citizens that might otherwise have not been quite as prevalent. The colonists had to become geographically literate and this united them as they learned about their new surroundings. It was a unification that was necessary for continued survival in a foreign land. Therefore, the simple communication tool of a map effectively created a standard by which all colonists would align their lives. In further context, this sort of colonial standard made by the colonists for the colonists is the exact ideal promoted by the American Revolution less than a century later – something not addressed by Bruckner’s article.[1]

Karin Wulf further explores the principle of unification through communication in her discussion of commonplace books and specifically that of Milcah Martha Moore. Commonplace books served as informal scrapbooks that women would use to document pieces of communication in their lives, including literature, quotes, and news pieces, and then proceed to share with others, forming a network of sorts. From a historical standpoint, these are extremely valuable pieces to deconstruct as they clearly form a trail of communication from person to person and can track the priorities of the time period. More importantly, however, Wulf discusses how commonplace books led to friendships and connections between women in a way that mirrored those of the men in their lives who were busy making political decisions in regards to the impending revolution. Women were not expected nor encouraged to participate in intellectual pursuits of any sort but commonplace books allowed for them to still have an understanding of the political and social events that were transpiring in front of them. Just as the men began to organize in preparation to establish change, so did the women, just in a quieter, more discrete way through commonplace books. Wulf mentions this parallelism but fails to establish a broader image of the meaning of the books. For instance, in order to understand the political drama that was transpiring, men were almost certainly required to be literate. Though there were other ways to hear about events without the ability to read, the participatory aspect of the revolution with the societies that were formed for discussion purposes required certain skills. Women were not allowed in these societies but the commonplace books proved they had the skills required to be. As Milcah Moore shared the contents of her commonplace book, so were pamphlets and newspaper clippings and quotations that all told of the impending revolution, and therefore united women in a way that the societies of the time would not allow them to be. This communication, like the maps on which Bruckner focuses, united colonists through a common need for information.[2]

Comparable to the research done on commonplace books, Kieran Healy’s discussion of the use of metadata tracks the main players of the revolution through information on the organizations to which they belonged. What goes unmentioned, however, is the blatant fact that a name listed on a membership list for a society of sorts does not guarantee the person’s active participation or contribution to said society, nor could it successfully predict the conversations that were held. Though there are other methods of verifying such relationships such as letters, testimonies, or other forms of documentation, Healy does not mention these and relies strictly upon the metadata approach. He proceeds to prove that Paul Revere lay at the center of the revolution due to the connections he had and those he helped to facilitate. Though he does not mention it explicitly, Healy’s work visualizes the unification of the colonies through the smaller-scale interactions between men. This is something that is difficult to capture with Bruckner’s article, but is present nonetheless. It also exists within Wulf’s piece but, once again, goes unmentioned. This reveals much on the state of the field of communication research in the colonial era.[3]

Overall, all three authors understand that their respective communication methods unified the colonists, but they fail to see the parallelism with the impending revolution and the importance that this small-scale unification dictates. Metadata analysis, commonplace books, and plotting the surrounding land are all symbolic of the overall ideal that the revolution lies within the people, themselves, in their day-to-day lives. Paul Revere and Milcah Martha Moore never fought on the front-lines and would not be normally considered to be key aspects to the revolution, but their communications within their respective communities allowed them to each play a role, nonetheless, and an important one, as pointed out by Healy. Even maps, as Brucker states, played a substantial literary role during the age of colonization and united colonists in a way that is paralleled and potentially solely rivaled by the unification of the colonies for their fight against Great Britain.

[1] See Bruckner, 16-50

[2] See Wulf, 1-55

[3] See Healy

Bibliography

Bruckner, Martin. “The Surveyed Self.” Chap. 1 in The Geographic Revolution in Early America: Maps, Literacy, and National Identity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006.

Healy, Kieran. “Using Metadata to Find Paul Revere.” Kieran Healy. June 9, 2013. Accessed February 17, 2015. http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-find-paul-revere/.

Wulf, Karin. “Introduction.” In Milcah Martha Moore’s Book: Documenting Culture and Connection in the Revolutionary Era. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.

      

Primary Source Analysis


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

Carolyn Raihala

HIS 245

Primary Source Analysis

Abigail Adams: Lobbyist and Political Advisor

Abigail and John Adams carried out an extensive written correspondence from their pre-marriage days of courtship in 1762 up through John’s presidency from 1796 to 1801. In their letters, they write not only of their mutual affection and the day-to-day undertakings of their lives, but of politics and philosophy, exchanging ideas as intellectual equals. In this letter, known as the “remember the ladies letter” for her farsighted lobbying on behalf of women, Abigail Adams leaves the contemporary gender role for women far behind as she critiques her husband’s co-revolutionaries and demands that John include protections for women in the Constitution.

When I first read this letter, I was curious to know about Dunmore and the situation to which Abigail refers when she criticizes the colony for having been “shamefully duped by a Dunmore.” The man in question refers to John Murray, the Fourth Earl of Dunmore and the Royal Governor of Virginia. He is infamous (if seen from Adams’s perspective) for issuing a proclamation on November 14, 1775 in which he offered freedom to slaves who would leave their patriot masters and join the loyalist forces.

Consequently, colonists previously focused on waging war against the British put their energies into protecting their families and property against this growing threat. And though relatively few slaves actually joined the British army as a result of this proclamation, it inspired 100,000 slaves to risk everything in an effort to be free.[1]

Perhaps the word “dupe” has taken on a different meaning over time, but Abigail’s accusation that the colony allowed themselves to be deceived or tricked—and shamefully so—seems exaggerated to me. I do not see how the patriots could have prevented this strategic act by Dunmore; however, I do not know the full story.

Next, in a polite yet outspoken paragraph, Abigail calls out the hypocrisy of the slave-owning leaders of the revolution, her husband’s compatriots. When she notes that perhaps “the passion for Liberty cannot be Eaquelly [sic.] Strong in the Breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow Creatures of theirs,” she almost certainly is criticizing those fourteen of the twenty-one most prominent founding fathers who depended on slave labor for their financial success, yet publicly espoused the virtue of liberty as the central cause for revolution.[2]

More noteworthy is Abigail’s remark that “I am certain that [the passion for Liberty] is not founded upon that generous and christian principal [sic.] of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us.” As a modern reader, it seems only reasonable that Abigail note the hypocrisy at play here; it seems ironic that men struggling to cast off the yoke of tyranny hold other humans in captivity, and it is satisfying to see someone call this into question.

However, this questioning becomes quite extraordinary when put into context. That Abigail felt safe to question the motivations of her husband’s co-founders is evidence for the equality and freedom of speech she shared with John in their relationship. It also shows her independence as a thinker—in a time when men were expected to be the intellectuals and women to be the manual laborers of the home, Abigail displays little regard for prescribed gender roles and speaks her beliefs with backbone.

What follows is a sudden reminder that despite the casual, businesslike mood of Abigail’s letter, she and her children are in the midst of a military war and are actually living in the warzone. While reading the document, Abigail’s now-antiquated, well-educated prose and gently urging tone conjures up a romanticized version of events that ignores the gritty reality of the Revolutionary War. Abigail’s descriptions of the “abominable ravages” of marauding parties and implications that her family has evacuated its house are a startling reality check; the reader is reminded that her life has become dangerous and difficult.

If Abigail’s earlier admonition of the slaveholding founding fathers seemed radical, her proceeding writing is possibly even more revolutionary. Perhaps John had already told Abigail that a Code of Laws would be necessary to establish, should the colonists declare independence, and they had previously discussed the matter. Even so, the casual, offhand diction Abigail uses to introduce the subject of the soon-to-be Constitution seems odd, and even humorous. “By the way,” Abigail writes, “in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies.” This flippant use of language, when preceding a request as momentous as this, may be a calculated decision. When responding to her request, John cannot point to Abigail’s admission that to “Remember the Ladies” is asking much of him, and therefore proclaim it inappropriate or impossible.

Abigail finally takes a straightforward and pointed tone when she entreats her husband to “put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use [women] with cruelty and indignity with impunity.” She even uses the words of the revolutionaries against him, showing echoes of the unborn Declaration of Independence when she says, “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” and furthermore that women “will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” This clever redirection of words is particularly effective because this comes after earlier criticism of hypocrisy. She reminds her husband that while he is struggling to end an unjust relationship with Great Britain, women throughout the colonies are straining under a similarly unequal relationship with men imposed by a patriarchal society.

Despite her drive for lobbying and political advising, Abigail’s primary role is that of the wife and leader of the Adams household. She finished the letter with news of family, friends, and neighbors, serving as her husband’s eyes and ears when he cannot be in town. Yet the way she signs the letter, “Your ever faithful Friend,” once again hints at the unusual equality of their relationship that allowed her to criticize revolutionaries for hypocrisy and to passionately advocate for women’s rights.

[1] “Proclamation of Earl of Dunmore.” PBS. WGBH Educational Foundation, 1998. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. .

[2] “The Founding Fathers and Slavery”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015
.

      

Primary Source Analysis


Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

By admin

Carolyn Raihala

HIS 245

Primary Source Analysis

Abigail Adams: Lobbyist and Political Advisor

Abigail and John Adams carried out an extensive written correspondence from their pre-marriage days of courtship in 1762 up through John’s presidency from 1796 to 1801. In their letters, they write not only of their mutual affection and the day-to-day undertakings of their lives, but of politics and philosophy, exchanging ideas as intellectual equals. In this letter, known as the “remember the ladies letter” for her farsighted lobbying on behalf of women, Abigail Adams leaves the contemporary gender role for women far behind as she critiques her husband’s co-revolutionaries and demands that John include protections for women in the Constitution.

When I first read this letter, I was curious to know about Dunmore and the situation to which Abigail refers when she criticizes the colony for having been “shamefully duped by a Dunmore.” The man in question refers to John Murray, the Fourth Earl of Dunmore and the Royal Governor of Virginia. He is infamous (if seen from Adams’s perspective) for issuing a proclamation on November 14, 1775 in which he offered freedom to slaves who would leave their patriot masters and join the loyalist forces.

Consequently, colonists previously focused on waging war against the British put their energies into protecting their families and property against this growing threat. And though relatively few slaves actually joined the British army as a result of this proclamation, it inspired 100,000 slaves to risk everything in an effort to be free.[1]

Perhaps the word “dupe” has taken on a different meaning over time, but Abigail’s accusation that the colony allowed themselves to be deceived or tricked—and shamefully so—seems exaggerated to me. I do not see how the patriots could have prevented this strategic act by Dunmore; however, I do not know the full story.

Next, in a polite yet outspoken paragraph, Abigail calls out the hypocrisy of the slave-owning leaders of the revolution, her husband’s compatriots. When she notes that perhaps “the passion for Liberty cannot be Eaquelly [sic.] Strong in the Breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow Creatures of theirs,” she almost certainly is criticizing those fourteen of the twenty-one most prominent founding fathers who depended on slave labor for their financial success, yet publicly espoused the virtue of liberty as the central cause for revolution.[2]

More noteworthy is Abigail’s remark that “I am certain that [the passion for Liberty] is not founded upon that generous and christian principal [sic.] of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us.” As a modern reader, it seems only reasonable that Abigail note the hypocrisy at play here; it seems ironic that men struggling to cast off the yoke of tyranny hold other humans in captivity, and it is satisfying to see someone call this into question.

However, this questioning becomes quite extraordinary when put into context. That Abigail felt safe to question the motivations of her husband’s co-founders is evidence for the equality and freedom of speech she shared with John in their relationship. It also shows her independence as a thinker—in a time when men were expected to be the intellectuals and women to be the manual laborers of the home, Abigail displays little regard for prescribed gender roles and speaks her beliefs with backbone.

What follows is a sudden reminder that despite the casual, businesslike mood of Abigail’s letter, she and her children are in the midst of a military war and are actually living in the warzone. While reading the document, Abigail’s now-antiquated, well-educated prose and gently urging tone conjures up a romanticized version of events that ignores the gritty reality of the Revolutionary War. Abigail’s descriptions of the “abominable ravages” of marauding parties and implications that her family has evacuated its house are a startling reality check; the reader is reminded that her life has become dangerous and difficult.

If Abigail’s earlier admonition of the slaveholding founding fathers seemed radical, her proceeding writing is possibly even more revolutionary. Perhaps John had already told Abigail that a Code of Laws would be necessary to establish, should the colonists declare independence, and they had previously discussed the matter. Even so, the casual, offhand diction Abigail uses to introduce the subject of the soon-to-be Constitution seems odd, and even humorous. “By the way,” Abigail writes, “in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies.” This flippant use of language, when preceding a request as momentous as this, may be a calculated decision. When responding to her request, John cannot point to Abigail’s admission that to “Remember the Ladies” is asking much of him, and therefore proclaim it inappropriate or impossible.

Abigail finally takes a straightforward and pointed tone when she entreats her husband to “put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use [women] with cruelty and indignity with impunity.” She even uses the words of the revolutionaries against him, showing echoes of the unborn Declaration of Independence when she says, “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” and furthermore that women “will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” This clever redirection of words is particularly effective because this comes after earlier criticism of hypocrisy. She reminds her husband that while he is struggling to end an unjust relationship with Great Britain, women throughout the colonies are straining under a similarly unequal relationship with men imposed by a patriarchal society.

Despite her drive for lobbying and political advising, Abigail’s primary role is that of the wife and leader of the Adams household. She finished the letter with news of family, friends, and neighbors, serving as her husband’s eyes and ears when he cannot be in town. Yet the way she signs the letter, “Your ever faithful Friend,” once again hints at the unusual equality of their relationship that allowed her to criticize revolutionaries for hypocrisy and to passionately advocate for women’s rights.

[1] “Proclamation of Earl of Dunmore.” PBS. WGBH Educational Foundation, 1998. Web. 17 Feb. 2015. .

[2] “The Founding Fathers and Slavery”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2015. Web. 16 Feb. 2015
.

      

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 History 245

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑