Jefferson's use of the elusive term "pursuit of happiness" has intrigued
scholars and readers since the Declaration was written in 1776. How did 18th
century North Americans define "happiness"? What did this term mean in its
original context? To answer this question, you should find a quote about
"happiness" in an 18th century primary source. Summarize and reflect on the
changing meanings of happiness you find in a blog post. Then, read through some
of your colleagues' posts and comment on at least one of them.
There are many terms that have changed meanings based on the times and ever-changing societal norms. One such term is happiness, and what creates this feeling that we all must have. Today, unfortunately, we associate happiness with more material comfort than spiritual well-being, and this has really hurt our society. Abigail Adams is well known for her sentimental but knowledge-filled letters to her husband ("Remember the ladies"), and in a March 20, 1780, letter to her husband, Abigail again visits a contentious issue. She calls into question the things that make people happy, and what it really means to be happy, especially during the turbulence of the American Revolution. "Suffer me to recommend to you one of the most useful lessons of life, the knowledge and study of yourself", Abigail states, and I believe that this statement really has some significance even today. Lockean philosophy teaches us that humans have an innate sense of self-love, and that this sense is a vice; the reason that we have governments implemented. So too does Abigail believe that "self-love and partiality cast a mist before the eyes", rendering us completely unable to mind those other people in our lives. This complete disregard for others cannot make people happy, for happiness is not those actions that please you, but that make others happy. When one examines themselves, and they find this selfishness and unchecked need for self-pleasure, it becomes necessary to understand why these feelings exist, for if they do not they will "render the possessor unhappy in himself". I believe that in this writing, Abigail is stating that personal happiness is achieved only when one can look upon themselves and truly be content with what they see. A sense of internal contentment and pleasure is important for the whole being to be pleased and happy, and these characteristics come only when one has come to terms with themselves. It also becomes necessary to occasionally check those emotions that lead us to pursue solely self-gain, for these passions lead to the "subversion of cities, the desolation of countries, the massacre of nations, etc." Abigail then compares these actions to those that are occurring in her own country, where, because the British did not check their greed, armies were battling for the liberty and well-being of not just one people, but many. I found these analogies very appropriate to what was happening during that time, for the Americans were fighting the British because they were unhappy. Because of the policies instituted by the British, the colonists were not able to create their own paths, and were therefore unable to realize their full potentials. Abigail Adams was correct in saying that happiness is derived from an internal sense of well-being, and this sense can only be had by making others happy, and by having the liberty to.
ReplyDeleteToday, happiness is defined mainly by people's possessions and the things that give a more superficial happiness. Rather than help others, we would rather help ourselves, mistakenly thinking that this will bring us some sense of nirvana, when in reality we are doing the opposite. Abigail's eighteenth century definition of happiness as the ability "to preserve dignity" so that even your aggressor respects you was spot on, and should be the philosophy followed today. Unfortunately, we have fallen off significantly with our ideologies, and this has had a serious effect on the state of the country and world. While Abigail certainly wanted liberty and freedom from British rule, she was willing to denounce this freedom if it meant the destruction of the morals she held dear (luckily the British were at fault here, so she didn't have to do any denouncing).
Adams, Abigail. "Letter from Abigail Adams to John Quincy Adams." Letters of Mrs. Adams. Little, Brown & Co. Accessed September 21, 2012. http://0-solomon.nwld.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/nwld/getdoc.pl?S23-D051
I have to say you do a lot of generalizing in this blog with regards to selfish people today. Even though our society is in a large part material centered, I believe that people are beginning to value "true happiness", which you claim Abigail Adams defines "as the ability to preserve dignity", more and more. However, I also believe happiness is relative to the individual. In my opinion, happiness is whatever gives a person true joy. I would like to think that everyone gains happiness from being a good person and giving of themselves to others. But we all know this is not true. I refuse to look down on someone just because they acquire happiness from material goods rather than helping others and giving of themselves. Even in the 18th century, there were wealthy plantation owners who weighed happiness with material wealth. When you state "Today, happiness is defined mainly by people's possessions and the things that give a more superficial happiness. Rather than help others, we would rather help ourselves, mistakenly thinking that this will bring us some sense of nirvana, when in reality we are doing the opposite", you impose a negative connotation to material happiness. However, if I can give an underprivileged child a book to aid in his schooling, I believe this material "superficial happiness" that the child experiences from receiving the book is wonderful.
DeleteYou make a great point about the difference in the definition of happiness from the 18th century to today, however you have to take into account that there were many different definitions of happiness among the people in the 18th century alone. Also, Abigail Adams was married to a powerful man who could fully provide for her so that she had no basic need for food or shelter and thus could afford to view happiness in a larger sense outside of material happiness. But answer me this; if you offered a slave a warm bed to sleep in and hot food or "preserved dignity", which one do you think MOST slaves would choose?
I agree with your claims that happiness is a measure of one’s possessions currently. The world can be broken down into the have and the have-nots. Those that have are considered to be happy and those who have nothing are considered to be miserable. Some people lose sight of reality just because they have multiple houses and cars, which make them happy. Others have just the clothes on their backs and are happy to enjoy a new day. At least the have-nots can look at themselves and be happy for what they have while they have people look at themselves and see what they don’t have.
DeleteThis letter is from an anonymous English mal immigrant in Washington. He is primarily expressing his love for liberty in America and continues to describe everything he sees good about it: prices of certain goods and how they are better than England's prices. He also mentions (which surprised me) he fact that a slave in Amercia was better treated than a common laborer in England, "slaves do not work half so hard as a common laborer in Egland and are far better clothed." He mentions how people in America are "more intellectual and much better informed than in the old country."
ReplyDeleteI believe this is a truly "Americanized" immigrant who was overwhelmed with the liberty and freedom that America had to offer. Although I do believe he was blinded by this liberty because he does not mention any of the negative aspects of America, but this goes to show what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did to the immigrants that came to America.
Anonymous English Male Immigrant in Washington, fl. 1827-1828, Letter from Anonymous English Male Immigrant in Washington, November 25, 1827, in The Emigrant's Guide to the United States of America. Collins, S. H., Joseph Noble, New York, NY, 1829, pp. 134
http://0-solomon.imld.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/imld/getdoc.pl?S9819-D023
It's interesting to see that slaves have better living conditions than laborers in England. That even relates back to my post saying that some slaves would not choose freedom because they were content with their current living conditions. That is definitely a different view that we seem to overlook in history.
DeleteAs Americans, when we think of liberty, we think of those things that make us happy, and the freedom to do those things that we have always been accustomed to. Therefore, we often take many things for granted, and this really affects the ways in which we see certain things, especially liberty and happiness. In fact, we often complain about the prices of goods in this country, and I am sure that this happened hundreds of years ago as well. However, if we put things into perspective, then we would see that our lives are actually a lot more free than those of others, and that we should really be happy with the liberties that we do have, and stop complaining about those that we do not (which are not many). I found the comparison between the slave and common laborer interesting as well because of the image we often conjure when we think of slaves. Slavery was undoubtedly wrong and they were treated terribly, but it is interesting to think that they may have been better off than some of those in other countries that were laboring of their own accord, and not because they were enslaved.
DeleteIt is interesting to see that it was not just Americans who possessed this glorified view of America as a "land of plenty", "city on a hill", a "chosen people". This opinion has certainly permeated American society and affects the way in which immigrants view this country as a land of opportunity. I think this letter is as relevant then as it could be applied now, with so many immigrants coming here in the hope for a better life where anyone can be successful (i.e.: even the slaves are treated "better").
DeleteDuring the wake of the antebellum abolitionist movement, many antislavery advocates overlooked how slaves would feel about being granted freedom. The majority of whites adopted the assumption that all slaves would be ecstatic to finally exercise their right to freedom; however, this was not the case for most enslaved people. This is especially reflected in the account of a white New Yorker who decided to explore some plantations of the south. In his explorations, he came across an African slave and asked him what his thoughts on his bondage where, and whether he would exchange his current state for freedom. The slave simply replied: "I have wife and children; my massah takes care of them, and I have no care to provide anything; I have a good massah, who teach me to read; and I read good book, that makes me happy."
ReplyDeleteThe New Yorker is taken aback as his idea of liberty and the slave’s took two entirely different meanings. To the freeman, liberty was a simple choice; a choice that we all can relate to today. Given the choice between freedom and slavery, all of us would pick freedom. We are all accustomed to the taken-for-granted privileges that freedom grants us, and we would never sacrifice that liberty, for fear of it never returning. However, to an enslaved man, freedom represents an unknown, and possibly unsettling, future. Right now, the slave has a roof over his head, food in his stomach, and a certainty that his family is taken care of. But grant a slave liberty and that certainty and stability is taken away.
Abolitionists of the time, as well as all of us today, seem to overlook this difference in meaning between different races and social classes. Liberty can be something to strive for, or something to easily pass up, depending on your perception of the word and all it entails.
Anonymous African-American Christian Man, fl. 1800, A True Account of a Pious Negro in The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861: A History of the Colored People of the United States from the Beginning of Slavery to the Civil War. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers, 1919, pp. 382-384 [Bibliographic Details] [1800] S8344-D043
http://0-solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/contextualize.pl?p.15.bltc.1459
This article is really interesting, especially because I came across it while looking for my own source. I see a parallel between the assuption of the abolitionists and modern American perceptions of democracy. Like the abolitonists and their view of liberty, many Americans seem to feel that democracy (a political form of liberty, I guess) is the answer to dictatorships in countries around the around the world. As people who already enjoy the stability of democracy, as it has existed in America for over 230 years, we think it can work anywhere. However, in a country without the context needed for democracy, it isn't as well received.
DeleteI found that this article was not representative of the black slave population as a whole, but found it really interesting to look at the variation in how masters treated their slaves. I have to assume that this was the smallest minority of slaves who would consider themselves "happy".
DeleteThis article seems quite interesting and it just goes to show that liberty can mean different things for different people. The slave's idea of liberty was the fact that he had support for his family and as non-enslaved people we take that for granted.
DeleteIn the early formative years of the United States, religion was still a strong influence upon contemporary thought and society. Because of this, religion often integrated itself with conceptions of the word "happiness." In a written portion of an 1800 act of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, it was concluded that bibles and essays on morality should be distributed among slaves. The elders of the church agreed that it was key to the future and eternal happiness of the slaves to understand morality and their God, and only when they took account of their "present welfare" (ie, salvation) could they acheive happiness. Happiness, to the Presbyterian of 1800, was a communion with God, and knowledge of the divine.
ReplyDeleteMy article came from the Black Thought and Culture database:
Anonymous American Presbyterian Man, fl. 1800, A Portion of an Act of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in 1800 in The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861: A History of the Colored People of the United States from the Beginning of Slavery to the Civil War. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers, 1919, pp. 371 [Bibliographic Details] [1800] S8344-D035
http://0-solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/contextualize.pl?p.17.bltc.982
I always find it interesting how predominant religion was in contemporary society. I think it's interesting that you found an article talking about how owners used to give their slaves bibles and essays about mortality, almost as if they were trying to help the slaves learn how to achieve happiness. Most people were normally so cruel to slaves so that fact that you found an article like this shows that not all people were as cruel as we have come to believe is really interesting. It is also neat to think about how happiness has changed from making a connection with God to owning material objects.
DeleteAnalyzing the word "happiness" in that specific 18th century context is completely different than my 21st century interpretation of "happiness". It is crazy to see how different time periods change the contexts of words in such great lengths. I would have never guessed that happiness meant a communion with God. Instead, i would interpret "happiness" as a positive feeling.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis source is an address given by Benjamin Fawcett (minister) given to the Christian black slaves in Virginia in 1755, during the French and Indian War. During this period, the French armies appealed to the black slaves who were treated as possessions of the British colonists. The French enticed the blacks with the prize of freedom, in order to expand the number of troops on their side. The slaves were ripe to revolt, being treated terribly by their masters and actively seeking an alternative lifestyle than that which they suffered.
ReplyDeleteIn the minister’s speech, he advocates for the opposite. He tells the slaves that they will not find their “happiness” in the arms of a different master. Fawcett warns that to “renounce your Fidelity and Obedience to your Old Masters, in Hope of finding new ones, with whom you may live more happily…you have Nothing to expect but the most terrible Increase of your Sufferings.” He tells them that their happiness as “men and Christians” relies entirely on their support of the British government and their loyalty to their masters. He threatens that if they revolt and escape to the French, the slaves will submit not just their bodies, but their souls as well. The French were Catholic, which posed a threat to the colonist’s Protestant beliefs. The minister threatens the slaves that they would no longer be able to read their Bibles and their consciences would be plagued with guilt. Here, happiness is an ironic term for slaves who were captured and held in bondage. They were forced to live each day in misery, and they had very little happiness. Finally, he tells them to be patient and faithful, even “when some of your Masters are most unkind.” This deliberately denies them the right to happiness, a habit that the Founding Fathers would continue. Slaves were denied rights and would not be emancipated for over one hundred years after this address.
Fawcett, Benjamin, fl. 1755, Portions of Benjamin Fawcett's Address to the Christian Negroes in Virginia about 1755 in The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861: A History of the Colored People of the United States from the Beginning of Slavery to the Civil War. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers, 1919, pp. 351-353.
http://0-solomon.bltc.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.6:1.bltc.2001
i saw this article and found one part of it to be extremely interesting. The sentence that states that a man's happiness as a Christian depends on their support to England is ironic seeing as though two decades later independence, from England, would be declared. Fawcett's point on staying patient and faithful seems to go along with his Christian beliefs. If they acted on their anger (i.e. revolting and escaping to the French) they would not be considered pure Christians (this is how i interpreted it at least, im not sure if this is what Fawcett meant)
DeleteBruce Frohnen, The American Republic: Primary Sources, ed. Bruce Frohnen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002). Chapter: Farewell Address
ReplyDeleteAccessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/669/206099/3362060 on 2012-09-22
As time changes, so do words and thereby their very contexts. This is evident in George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address in which he seeks to make clear the reliance of public liberty on private virtue and the reliance of both on religious faith. As demonstrated in the Farewell Address, the 18th century context of the word liberty can be viewed as the rights of person and property. Washington addresses that Government should act as "Liberty's surest Guardian. It must prevent factions, confine each member of the society within all laws, and maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property." Washington also mentions "Liberty itself will find in such a Government." This use of personification demonstrates the significance of Liberty to Washington, and this significance is also depicted by his capitalization of the letter L. Liberty in this sense has more implications. Washington denotes that Liberty is only necessary when he or she recognizes its higher duty to worship God; thereby he is portraying liberty in a religious context, hence the capitalization and personification. In 18th century, liberty is more than just the rights of people. It is a privilege not a right, and to obtain this privilege, one must worship God.
Liberty was definitely a very significant word in the 18th century. Not only was it capitalized and used many times in Washington's Farewell Address but it also was the force that drove the colonist to rebel against the British. Washington felt that liberty was to be protected by the government and be practiced in all aspects of peoples lives. He warns the country that liberty can be harmed when the United States interacts with other countries, so it would be best for us to stay out of foreign affairs in order to preserve the liberty that we gained by breaking away from Great Britain. This shows how Washington felt that liberty should be cherished and the people should go to all different lengths to ensure that it stays protected.
DeleteThis Excerpt was written by Benjamin Franklin in 1850. He stated that "habeas corpus cannot be suspended by an Executive or Military authority and that the Legislative power is itself incapable of impairing the obligation of private contracts, this forms the very basis of constitutional freedom in a government of laws. Without this there would be no guard against arbitrary imprisonment, no safety for personal liberty and private rights would be at the mercy of arbitrary legislation." It is evident from Benjamin Franklin's words that the original meaning of liberty from the Declaration of Independence has changed. The term "liberty" first was not used for an individual but for the country as a whole. Liberty was used to proclaim justice for the United States of America not individual citizens. The Declaration of Independence did not emphasize individual liberties in comparison to the liberty of the new developing nation.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.4:1:6:0:21.eena.63865
The last line of your response really sums up what we have discussed during the past few classes- the Declaration of Independence was, first and foremost, a document that was meant for America to claim independence from Great Britain. As much as we like to think that the “liberty” that is written about in the document refers to the liberties of individuals, that is not the case; “liberty” that is referenced in the Declaration of Independence is in complete association with the nation as whole.
DeleteLiberty, a word commonly associated with independence and freedom, has been explosively interpreted by many cultures leading to numerous revolutions all over the world. But what was the meaning of liberty to American women in the 18th century? It certainly was not one of personal freedom or individual rights. No, the writers of the Declaration of Independence took care to leave out that interpretation from the famous document. They didn't even want to leave in the anti-slavery segment for fear of African Americans trying to declare their freedom. Not only were women mainly confined to the household, with an exception of a few pioneers, but they were now being limited to a view of public freedom and "collective liberty" as Elise Marienstras explains in her essay on liberty(1). Elise explains how one of the main interpretations of liberty was the collective view and how it was superior to individual freedom(1). This collective view of liberty can be seen in Anna Green Winslow's diary, written in 1772, where she says "Boston was at that date pervaded by the spirit of Liberty. Sons of Liberty held meetings every day and every night. Daughters of Liberty held spinning and weaving bees, and gathered in bands pledging themselves to drink no tea till the obnoxious revenue act was repealed"(2). The Daughters of Liberty gathered together to form a united front in support of liberty and freedom for the collective whole of the American people, rather than for their individual liberty. Even Anna, a young Bostonian women, writes proudly of her support for the American cause. One can sense her excitement in this note when she describes the noble efforts of the Daughters of Liberty. Anna's diary is only one of the many sources that demonstrate this collective view of liberty.
ReplyDeleteA portrait published in 1775 does well to summarize the collective effort of women to support freedom for America as a whole. In the portrait, women from North Carolina are signing a contract to boycott tea in a united support of the American colonies' struggle with Britain(3). The title of the portrait describes the ladies as patriotic, however there is an element of satire in this portrait where the women seem more preoccupied with the social gathering rather than the main purpose of the meeting. This demonstrates how some women of the 18th century had little knowledge of the true impact the American Revolution would have on colonial life, and women's lives in particular. The revolution would open up numerous opportunities for women to become more independent and to play a larger role in society.
Overall, women of the 18th century interpreted liberty to have a collective meaning. They supported American freedom over their own rights, as did many of the colonists in the 18th century. Some did not even care for the whole revolution ordeal, and they only took part in it as a form of social entertainment (as seen in the portrait
)rather than a real cause. These woman had little idea of how quickly and greatly their lives were about to be affected.
Portrait: http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g04000/3g04600/3g04617r.jpg
1. Elise Marienstras, "Liberty," The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, 1991, in Coursepack.
2. Anna Green Winslow, "Diary of Anna Green Winslow," Diary of Anna Green Winslow: A Boston School Girl of 1771, February, 1772, in North American Women's Letters and Diaries, accessed September 22, 2012, http://www.solomon.nwld.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu.
3. "A society of patriotic ladies, at Edenton in North Carolina," March 25, 1775, in American Memory from the Library of Congress, accessed September 22, 2012, http://www.diigo.com.
The article I found is from The Falmouth Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, written on January 1, 1785, titled An Address on the New Year. It talks about the New Year, of course, and about the thoughts and feelings many people have during this time. The author begins the article comparing reflections around the New Year to those that people have when contemplating death. We think back on the good times and bad times in our past, specifically the past year. The author differentiates between children and adults explaining that children don’t examine their past, because the only happiness they think about is the happiness they are currently enjoying, where as adults think about their sorrows as well as their happiness.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting about the article is that happiness is described as something that is precarious; something that “was rather accidental than merited or laboured for.” The author goes on to explain that it is only sadness that can be controlled by a person, specifically from the failures one has. I had always believed that happiness, like all emotions, was something that one could create and something that one could control oneself, not an emotion that one unexpectedly has or doesn’t have.
After explaining the sadness one normally feels around this time of year, the author continues to explain how to maintain happiness next year. He first explains that one cannot look at the future year and worry about the anxieties one may face. Instead, one must act with justice and treat others justly, and think religiously and treat oneself respectfully, because with this thought process one will be happier more often. In the end, the influence of religion will help to maintain happiness in the year to come.
I felt this article not only showed constant traditions in society, but also the changes in society when it comes to happiness. Most people today around New Years still reflect on the happiness and the sorrows in their past year, and are hopeful that the new year will bring happier moments, just as the author is describing. Historically, religion was a large influence on people’s lives, helping people receive happiness, now a days, people believe in happiness as more of an object, which we can manipulate ourselves.
I found this article in America’s Historical Newspapers:
“From the Westminster Magazine, An Address on the New Year,” The Falmouth Gazette and Weekly Advertiser, January 1, 1785, accessed September 24, 2012, http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=W62O53EJMTM0Nzg0Njk3Ny4xODk2MjE6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=11&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=11&p_docnum=1&p_docref=v2:107D4BB29A6B88D8@EANX-108205A289E60308@2373019-108205A29B9E9268@0-108205A35A1D9F88@From+the+Westminster+Magazine
This is a great article for describing the way some people in the 18th century viewed happiness. I find it interesting that the new year was so similar as it is today. Today we use it as almost a new beginning, and back then it seems to be the same thing. We swear to ourselves on January 1st that we are going to change things to make ourselves happier. I think this is a good example of something that started off at the beginning of America and still continue on today.
DeleteAt the time of the American Revolution, the topic of liberty could be heard in many conversations across the colonies. Liberty to the colonists was the driving force for the American Revolution. They were tired of having the British encroach on their freedom to govern themselves. The colonists wanted to have their own liberty by creating their own body of laws to abide by instead of submitting to the British. When the colonists believed that the British had gone too far in constricting their liberty, they took action with the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The colonists did not want to pay a tax on British tea because they believed that the British were encroaching on their liberty by taxing a daily drink for many colonists. So a group of colonists dressed up in Native American war paint and feathers raided a British cargo ship, which was carrying tea, and destroyed the vast majority of tea crates on board the ship. The colonists performed these rebellious actions because their liberty of freedom was being infringed upon. The British were taxing what the colonists believed to be a fundamental freedom. The colonists were not taxed for tea in the past, and they were not about to be taxed for such a personal luxury. As Sam Adam’s said in the meeting prior to the Tea Party “This meeting can do no more to save the country.” The colonists reacted in that way because they believed that if the government was too strong that they had a right to rebel, which was what they did. The meaning of the word liberty has changed considerably overtime. Nowadays, liberty is viewed as a constitutional right that is guaranteed to all United States citizens. Our nation has a constitution that guarantees the liberty of all its citizens. Unlike the colonists, people do not need to fight for their liberty now, so liberty has a more finite definition in American history and the minds of United States citizens.
ReplyDeleteMassachusetts Gazette and Boston Weekly News-Letter, accessed September 23, 2012, http://research.history.org/pf/declaring/bostonTeaParty.cfm
The article I found was written on May 23, 1769 for the the Essex Gazette. The article quotes a man who was describing a quilting marathon that the Daughters of Liberty had done a few days before in Newport, Rhode Island. The Daughters of Liberty was a group of women who came together to support the American Revolution. Since the Colonies could no longer get supplies from England, they could not get clothes. The Daughters of Liberty solved this problem by making clothing for the revolutionists. This group of women was fighting for freedom, for a new country without an oppressive leader. It says it in their name, but can clearly be seen in their actions. They were providing an invaluable service to the colonists, who needed clothing to survive. The Daughters of Liberty are a perfect example of what certain people thought of liberty in the late 18th century. They believed in freedom and they were not afraid to fight for it.
ReplyDeleteLiberty is not as much at the forefront of our minds today in America, but during the Revolution it was all that mattered. Today, freedom is everywhere in American, but not so much in the whole world. There are still many countries whose governments are not based on liberty. Although we might not think of freedom that much, many places in the world are still fighting for freedom just as the Daughters of Liberty were back in 18th century.
http://0-asp6new.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/wam2/wam2.object.details.aspx?dorpid=1000673136
This article is a great example of women’s roles in the Revolution. They helped serve their country by supporting their families at home and providing clothing for the soldiers. I found it interesting that they fought for liberty and justice but they did not receive this from the Revolution. Women would not receive their independence until the Women’s Rights Movement. They supported their husbands and other American citizens even though they knew they would not receive the same rights to liberties and justice as the men in their community. This demonstrated that these 18th century women wanted independence and had great patriotism for their country.
DeleteLiberty was a very important idea in the 18th century. Many American citizens during the 18th century were striving for independence with the hope of gaining the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. After reading a newspaper article called “Concerning Liberty”, I was able to see how American citizens viewed liberty during that time. The article explains that liberty is a “grand characteristic of freedom in intelligent moral beings”. Liberty is only obtained once citizens use their reason to lead them to be free of “prejudice”, stop swaying towards their “interests”, and avoid “lustful” thoughts. By choosing what is “right and fit” for a situation, shows that liberty is understood. To live a life of liberty, slavery must no longer exist, cheating and fraud cannot be acceptable, and everyone must be treated equally. This liberty applied to “all men”, and the liberty they follow must not affect the “order of nature”. These citizens saw that in order to obtain happiness, they had to understand the idea of liberty. Liberty during this time was believed to create happier lives and it was a sign of hope for the search for independence for all men in America.
ReplyDelete“Concerning Liberty,” The Boston Evening-Post and the General Advertiser, August 9, 1783, accessed September 24, 2012,
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=R6BM5FUVMTM0ODI0MzcwMS41MDU4MTM6MToxMjoyMDQuMTQ0LjE0Ljg&p_action=doc&s_lastnonissuequeryname=2&d_viewref=search&p_queryname=2&p_docnum=1&p_docref=v2:12F65DDD363B1F66@EANX-10B6011828E2F6F8@2372508-10B6011833B69DF0@0-10B601189A3B1298@Concerning+Liberty
Just for everyone's information, my article was the same one as Taylor Campbell's....i swear that i found without looking on this blogfirst, and my analysis (although shortened) is my comment that i posted on Taylor's article
ReplyDeleteI found an article from 1733 that discusses the freedom of the press. The author felt that this basic liberty was the basis for all other liberties including religious and civil liberties. He states that by taking away this liberty by any means causes people to become "as despicable as slaves", meaning that they had virtually no power and were under complete control of the monarchy. The author claims that people need their right to freely express themselves in order to experience joy and happiness. People are unable to fully enjoy liberty while under a monarchy because they do not feel that they can freely criticize politics, so they tend to avoid the truth. People should not only be free to say nice things about the rulers of their country, but they should be able to state their opinion.
ReplyDeleteDuring this time it is clear that people felt that liberty and freedom were synonymous and worth fighting for. Liberty was a very powerful word because it was used to describe freedoms that people deserve and have a right to practice. If these freedoms were not given, then the people had to join together and fight. Liberty was a symbol for the power of the people. It motivated them to make a change and fight for what they believed in, because without liberty they could not be happy.
http://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=S64Y55BLMTE3MzExMzYzMy42OTMyNTQ6MToxMTo2NC44MC44OS4yMA&p_docref=v2:1036CD36DBC06A78@EANX-1062A4778F1FCF4F@2354348-1062A477920B8A58-1062A477CFE89C38
This article reminds me of the various texts we have been looking at in class in regards to the DOI. A democracy was so appealing to the people because their voices had not been heard in Parliament back in GB. Individuals cannot be happy if their thoughts and actions are continually oppressed. The founders of the DOI focused on creating a simple, moral society where people try to do what is right; the people must be honest and have relationships with their leaders. This cannot work if people are avoiding the truth under a monarchy. I agree with your statements about liberty being a symbol of power. It means that power can be shared between the governed and the governing. Liberty was a uniting cause and a justification for initiating the Revolutionary War against GB.
DeleteWhen I think of the time period of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, I always direct my attention to white male colonists; I rarely consider the Indian population in America at the time. However, Jonathon Carver exposes truths about the Indian lifestyle, specifically their religion, and refers to that which “contributes to the happiness” of the Indian population. Carver writes, “They hold also that there are good spirits of a lesser degree, who have their particular departments, in which they are constantly contributing to the happiness of mortals. These they suppose to preside over all the extraordinary productions of nature […]”.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this is only a very brief mention of the word happiness, I find it significant in that it talks about the happiness of a different population of the 18th century, one that does not receive a lot of attention and that is not often associated with the word happiness. We often talk about 18th century happiness and liberty in reference to colonists. When I think of 18th century America, I, like maybe some of you, do not direct my attention and focus on the Indian population; that population is overshadowed by the opinions and beliefs of white colonists.
With this in mind, when I was looking for sources, I intended on finding one about a colonist talking about what happiness means to him/her. However, I chose this source because when I searched “happiness” from 1770-1785, this source, surprisingly, was the fourth article to appear. It is interesting to think of “happiness” associated with a different population of people, a population that gets very little attention in a typical history-class lesson.
http://0-solomon.eena.alexanderstreet.com.library.stonehill.edu/cgi-bin/asp/philo/getobject.pl?c.194:3:12.eena.466030
I found this very interesting in that you found a completely different viewpoint than anything I had ever thought about before. Like you said, I also really only thought about the happiness of the colonists and not of anyone else. There are many people living in America at this time aside from a white male colonist, yet not many people take the time to think about the Indian or women's side of the story, or even what their definition of happiness was. When finding my article, it took me a little while to find an article that was actually relevant to happiness or liberty, however when I did it was about two white male leaders of the revolution and their takes on happiness. This differing view point gave me a snippet of another side of life at this time and really interested me.
DeleteAs it has been found, and will continue to be found, people seek happiness and express their liberty in various venues. In the early 1800s, women had few rights; some were content with this, others, such as Abigail Adams, were not. Dolley Madison shared some similar experiences with Abigail Adams in that she was often left behind as her president husband went off to duty in the office or in the war. In a letter she wrote to her sister in 1814, Dolley Madison tells of her unhappiness and lack of freedom. It begins when she is left in the President's house alone after her husband goes off to join General Winder in the war. She was left in fear that the British could potentially invade her city, and she would have to fend for herself because women were not allowed to serve in the military. Her husband arranged for a wagon to pick her up, but she had to sacrifice some of her valuable material items. The one item she did bring with her was a portrait of George Washington. These valuables brought happiness and strength to her in a time of need. Living in a time and place of war left Dolley Madison and others in a constant state of fear and worry for their husbands. Dolley closes her letter with "When I shall again write you, or where I shall be tomorrow, I cannot tell!!"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ourwhitehouse.org/primarydolleyletter.html#dmadison%20letter
As I was deciding on which article to choose to write about, I kept thinking about what the meaning of liberty and happiness meant to me. I realized that my definition of liberty and happiness was essentially the same as the people I kept reading about in the articles from the 18th century. I believe that for someone to be happy they must do whatever makes them happy and also have whatever makes them happy. These things differ for every person, which is why there are differences between liberty and happiness today and the same terms in the 18th century. The article that I finally picked to write about was one written by John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin and published in the New York Gazette. This article basically sums up the points that happiness is very important to the people of America, and then they go into talking about how in order to be happy they need more things from the British. I feel like happiness doesn't neccessarily mean that one has to have material items, however in the case of the erarly americans they did need alot of things that could have made their lives much easier. I found this article very interesting because it gave me a new perspective on what happiness is. My definition of happiness is not the only one and this article opened my eyes to this fact.
ReplyDeletehttp://0-infoweb.newsbank.com.library.stonehill.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/?p_product=EANX&p_theme=ahnp&p_nbid=V6ET5EVUMTE3MzExMzYzMy42OTMyNTQ6MToxMTo2NC44MC44OS4yMA&p_docref=v2:10DBEBC4F3862B98@EANX-10DF7A9E40878368@2369367-10DF7A9E55E525F8-10DF7A9F685E51F0