Having just read “Four Episodes in Re-creating a Life” by Martha Hodes, I can say that it is a fascinating piece. I see more of an episode of “This American Life” in it than I do a historical analysis. It is compelling to watch the author struggle though the historical documents and knowledge with which she can work. Hodes creates the historical story from letters that Eunice and others wrote, knowledge of the customs of the area with regard to churches and shipping, as well as a great deal of conjecture shaped by political and cultural knowledge. The story that Hodes wants to believe at the end is intriguing: a married woman, torn between her husband and a black, East Indies sea captain. Her husband joins the Confederate Army as she becomes more enamored of the captain and, fleeing the South and her husband (in fear of birthing a black child), moves to Lowell and then Vermont, where the charming captain courts her from a distance via correspondence after her husband has died. Her brother, a Union soldier frowns upon this and destroys some of the correspondence.<\/p>\n
This compelling narrative seems the stuff of historical fiction, and it might very well be. It may be the most likely narrative, and yet my desire for this interesting story to be true nurtures my skepticism and doubt that it actually is true. Most of all, I enjoyed the author’s use of cultural and contextual knowledge to try to draw conclusions about Eunice’s behavior or belief: information about the churches she might have attended, the culture of Mobile before the civil war and how it might have scared her as a Northerner, her brother’s possible desire to protect his own future and reputation in Lowell.<\/p>\n
In response to some of my fellows’ writings from last week, I must defend Daniel Webster. Many of you criticized Webster’s beliefs, while still acknowledging that he was a product of his own time, and perhaps not as radical then as we view him today. While I take issue with Webster’s conclusions, I agree with many of his perceptions. “Give the people the power, and they are all tyrants as much as Kings. They are even more tyrannical; as they are less restrained by a sense of propriety of by principles of honor; more under the control of violent passions, exasperated by envy and hatred of the rich; stimulated to action by numbers; and subject to no responsibility.” Not only do I agree with this statement, but I believe that the founders (dubious company though they may be) and many people today would agree with this. A fear of the so-called “tyranny of the majority” is, I believe, the reason that the Supreme court, the filibuster, the impediments to constitutional amendment, and the intentional gridlock of our political system are so important.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, I think that Webster had a prescient and historically accurate perception of the aristocracy’s role in governance: “If there ever was a government, which under the name of a republic or a democracy, was generally guided by eminent wisdom, virtue and talents, it was a government of mixed kind, in which an aristocratic branch existed independent of popular suffrage.” Now, you may argue, the United States is a glaring counter example. I disagree. Webster wanted to politically enshrine the aristocracy in our system, failing to realize that it is unecessary–the economic power of those aristocrats allows them to take their own political power and buy a government in which a top marginal income tax rate of 39% is socialism. I disagree with Webster’s belief that this has a positive effect, and yet I wholeheartedly echo his perception that aristocrats have always been the government.<\/p>\n
Regarding Thomas Jefferson and the story of the cheese delivered to him, I found the learning that I did regarding the politics of the time far more interesting than the anecdote itself. I had no idea that politics were so intensely local, without a national party but rather individual citizens working to advance their own ideologies. I was particularly intrigued by the role of newspapers, not as impartial sources of information, but as tools of ideological propaganda and, sometimes, tools of advancement for individuals in the community.<\/p>\n
I believe that that type of politics may have been better than the highly edited version we have today. A modern, top-down system of politics certainly seems efficient, and represents some citizens, but the partisan, messy politics of early America seem more bottom-up. In such a system, ideas of every individual are more thoughtful, and, if the product of their local newspaper, at least not the product of a media conglomerate corporation broadcasting from New York City.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Having just read “Four Episodes in Re-creating a Life” by Martha Hodes, I can say that it is a fascinating piece. I see more of an episode of “This American Life” in it than I do a historical analysis. It is compelling to watch the author struggle though the historical documents and knowledge with which … <\/p>\n