Red Jacket and Tecumseh

 

            For me, one of the most interesting similarities between Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches was that they both focused on the fact that white men were not the original inhabitants of America.  They gave their speeches for different reasons - Red Jacket protesting the introduction of Christianity and Tecumseh arguing for war against the "white people" - but they both support their argument by pointing out that this land was originally theirs.

            They both give a narrative of the Americans (relatively short) history in the new world, pointing out the horrible conditions that the Americans first faced when they arrived here and clearly implying that this land was, and still is, not theirs.  Tecumseh states that "[w]hen the white men first set foot on our grounds, they were hungry; they had no place on which to spread their blankets, or to kindle their fires" (pg 516).  His referral to "our" grounds and his portrayal of the help that the Americans needed from the Native Americans just to survive shows that he still viewed the Americans as trespassers on what was their land.

            Even though Red Jacket tried to maintain a more ambivalent tone towards the Americans on the whole, his speech shows the same feelings that Tecumseh's does.  He also narrated the Americans history, talking of the "evil day" in which the white people arrived in America.  Like Tecumseh, he refers to America in terms of "our" land, but he goes even farther, saying that the Americans "fled from their own country" (pg 514).  This statement was his way of drawing a clear line between the two countries, implying that the Americans already have a home country, and emphasizing the fact that they are guests in this new country, which is the Native Americans home.

            Red Jacket and Tecumseh's speeches were given to different audiences, for different reasons, so it was really interesting to me to see that their views were so similar when talking about the Americans history and rights in the new world.        

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins. The American Tradition in Literature.   
        12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston. McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print.

The Federalist Papers

           Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, of the Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties, respectively, are both well renowned historical figures who are best remembered for their writings: in Jefferson's case, the Declaration of Independence - in Hamilton's, the Federalist Papers.  Even today, their opposite viewpoints on government provide the basis of our own political parties' viewpoints.

 
    

          Jefferson's view on the role of government was extremely similar to the modern Republican viewpoint.  He saw government as needing to have a laissez-faire approach, stating that "a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement" (pg. 381).  He believed that as long as government provided the freedom and opportunity in which to grow, the people would be able to pretty much govern themselves.

 

          On the other hand, Hamilton's ideas of government were what we would now term Democratic, as he believed that government should play more of an active role instead of just providing a few basic protections.  In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote that "the vigour of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government" (pg. 409).  He felt that a strong, more involved government was the only way to protect the people and insure freedom.

          The one thing that these two political enemies had in common was that they both wanted what they thought was best for the people.  They had no other working constitutional governments that they could use as a role model for their own.  This was still in many ways the "American Experiment."  They both wanted this to work, and realized that it would not if the government failed them.  I think their differences can be best summed by a quote that I found online: "Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom" ("Hamilton vs. Jefferson").  

Works Cited

"Hamilton vs. Jefferson."  United States History.  Country Studies.  Federal
     Research Division of the Library of Congress.  Online book.  Accessed October 4, 
     2012. 

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.   
     12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.

Crevecoeur vs. Knight

 

St. Jean de Crevecoeur

Sarah Kemble Knight

 

         
           Writing almost 50 years before the accredited start of the abolitionist movement, St. Jean de Crevecoeur is perhaps one of the earliest writers to argue in defense of the slaves.  His passionate argument for emancipation and belief in racial equality greatly contrasts him with the obvious disgust and inferiority with which Sarah Kemble Knight viewed the slaves.

            In Knight's journal, she talked about her journey through Connecticut, and she outlined a few examples of "too great familiarity" between the white slave owners and their slaves.  One of her stories, about a farmer that was ordered to pay some money to his slave in recompense for a broken promise, subtly illustrates her disapproval of it.  More overtly, she expresses her disapproval of their "Indulgent" habits of "permitting [the slaves] to sit at Table and eat with them" (195).  Her belief in the inferiority of the slaves is perhaps best shown by her expression of horror that "into the dish goes the black hoof as freely as the white hand" (195).

            In complete contrast to that, Crevecoeur is not afraid to express his abhorrence of slavery, and goes so far as to state that "I hope the time draws near when [the slaves] will be all emancipated" (231).  He argues against the unfounded belief that slavery is right simply because it has always been around, and cites the slaves similar emotions as reasons for proving them equal to their white counterparts, saying that "those hearts in which such noble dispositions can grow, are then like ours, they are susceptible of every generous sentiment, of every useful motive of action" (232).  

            Most importantly, Crevecoeur views the slaves as human, as a people equal to his own instead of as a subservient race.  In the end, the main difference between him and Knight is not whether slavery is actually right, but whether the slaves are capable of being more than that, of whether they are naturally inferior or equal.       

Works Cited

Perkins, George, and Barbara Perkins.  The American Tradition in Literature.  12th ed. Vol. 1. Boston.  McGraw-Hill, 2009.  Print.