+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

For all the assignments, the reading for the course, are “voices of freedom” and Give me liberty by Eric Foner.

Lesson 3:

Based on these three documents, the Foner readings (selections from Ch. 2-4, see syllabus!), and the study guide, how do you think the religious fervor of the Puritans differed from that of the Great Awakening? What ideas were central to these two different periods? What motivated their religious practices?

Lesson 4:

From this document, what can you glean about Pontiac’s (and Neolin’s) strategy for convincing other Native Americans to follow them in attacking the British? Why do you think they tried such a strategy? Make sure to use the study guide and Foner reading (Ch. 4) to inform your answers.

Lesson 5:

Pretend you are an historian with only these four documents to work with, and you must teach a class of eighth graders what the Revolution meant to ordinary Americans. What one insight could you draw from each document to explain the meaning of the American Revolution? Make sure to include context both from the Study Guide and the Foner reading (chs. 5-6) in your answer!

There is no requirement for the word count, but please answer all the questions in detail.

Thank you

OLD-TIME RELIGION: FROM THE PURITANS TO THE FIRST GREAT AWAKENING
As you reflect on the Foner readings for this module, please consider these two
questions:
1) What role did religious practice play in
the development of colonial society in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?
2) How did the Great Awakening alter
colonial society in the eighteenth century?
One thing you might notice from the outset: when we discussed the emergence
of slavery in the Atlantic world, we mostly discussed Southern colonies. When we
are discussing the emergence of religion, we are mainly discussing Northern
colonies. That is no accident. Northern colonies—though all allowed African
American slavery and indentured servitude—were not built around the
institutions of bound labor the way Southern colonies were. Southern colonies
were not structured around religious practice the way Northern colonies were. In
many Southern colonies, churches were a low priority (at least until the Great
Awakening) and certainly did not represent the impetus for colonization as they
did in New England.
Now, before we go any further, I want to point something out: The people who
lived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were not people who thought
they way we think…..they were not people just like us who simply did not yet have
cellphones!
Though we’ve discussed the emergence of the Enlightenment (and Foner points
out that it had begun to emerge in the Americas in the 1700s), popular belief was
still very much pre-modern.
The problem is that many pop-historical accounts of the Puritans frame them as
American revolutionaries waiting to emerge.
If you have three minutes and want to get a sense of this mythology running
throughout American history, check out this link:

But the reality is that the Puritans shared probably very few values that emerged
from, say, the American Revolution (which we’ll talk about).
They did not leave Europe to establish the kind of state most of us would
recognize today. They did not wish to ensure religious freedom and tolerance
The Puritans believed that other Englishmen and women were not sufficiently
religious, that the Church of England was too close to the vestiges of Catholicism,
and they wanted to establish a society that would be sufficiently “pure”
This is a good place for us to engage with the history of Protestantism.
About 500 years ago, in 1517, Martin Luther published his 95 Theses, which
condemned the Catholic Church for, among other things, allowing the wealthy to
purchase salvation through “indulgences.”
Martin Luther, 1483-1546
Indeed, the very root of “Protestantism” is “protest”
For Luther, God’s grace—not contributions to the church—represented the key to
salvation
The Puritans, who were Protestant, ascribed more specifically to the philosophy
of another Protestant, the Swiss John Calvin
John Calvin (1509-1564)
The core of Calvin’s theology was predestination, that God foreordained who
would be saved and who would not
The elect and non-elect were predetermined, but through one’s actions, s/he
could show they were part of the elect
As part of showing they belonged to the elect, Calvinists delayed personal
gratification
This part of the Calvinist worldview famously led the sociologist Max Weber to
argue that the “Protestant work ethic”—stemming from the desire to prove
oneself part of the elect—was responsible for the emergence of capitalism in the
Atlantic world. His basic argument is that delayed gratification led Protestants (in
America, in Europe) to want to invest their resources for future gain
Here is Weber’s seminal work on the matter:
“The elected Christian is in the world only to increase this
glory of God by fulfilling His commandments to the best
of his ability. Brotherly love, … is expressed in the first
place in the fulfilment of the daily tasks given. … This
makes labour in the service of impersonal social
usefulness appear to promote the glory of God and
hence to be willed by him…..
“On the one hand it is held to be an absolute duty to
consider oneself chosen, and to combat all doubts as
temptations of the devil, since lack of self confidence is
the result of insufficient faith, hence of imperfect grace.
… a duty to attain certainty of one’s own election and
justification in the daily struggle of life. On the other
hand, in order to attain that self-confidence intense
worldly activity is recommended as the most suitable
means. It and it alone disperses religious doubts and
gives the certainty of grace.”
–Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism (1905)
Scholars still debate the origins of capitalism, and others argue that actions by
elites to enclose land in England (as you read in Foner) or the emergence of the
slave trade (historian Sven Beckert calls this stage of Atlantic world history “war
capitalism”) were more important factors. (If you want to learn much more about
this debate, take my course “US Labor and the Working Class: Past and Present”
which I offer every spring at UWGB!) 
…The other thing we should remember about the worldview of the Puritans is
that they very much believed in magic and supernatural omens. Most of us would
have a very difficult time conversing with them for this reason. Here’s how
prominent historian of the Puritans David Hall describes their worldview:
“The people of seventeenth-century New England
lived in an enchanted universe. Theirs was a world
of wonders. Ghosts came to people in the night,
and trumpets blared, though no one saw the
trumpeters. Nor could people see the lines of force
that made a ‘long staff dance up and down in the
chimney’ of William Morse’s house in Newbury. In
this enchanted world, the sky on a ‘clear day’ could
fill with ‘many companies of armed men in the air,
clothed in light-colored garments, and the
commander in sad [somber].’ The townsfolk of
New Haven saw a phantom ship sail regally into the
harbor….Voices spoke from heaven and children
from their cradles.’”
–David Hall, “A World of Wonders”
The Puritans, indeed, spend a great deal of time trying to determine which signs
were signs from God and which were signs from the Devil
John Winthrop—the minister who coined the phrase “city upon a hill”—kept a
journal to record all of the various signs God gave him
A snake that came into a Cambridge meeting house in 1642 was interpreted as
Satan attempting a “disturbance and dissolution” of the meeting
The Puritans also believed that a comet had foretold the weakening of Native
Americans in Massachusetts during their first winter there
Perhaps this context will help you to understand one of the major reasons we
remember the Puritans today: the Salem Witch Trials.
Foner talks about them, but I would point out that these have also been
remembered as a very dark time in America’s history.
Some of you reading this have no doubt heard of Arthur Miller’s play (later made
into a film) The Crucible
Arthur Miller (1915-2005)
The play premiered in 1953, at the height of the Cold War, and Miller made a not
too veiled comparison between the actions of the religious authorities in
Massachusetts and Congressional authorities in the US in the 1940s and 50s who
persecuted people who were suspected of Communist subversion (If you want to
learn more about this development, take the sequel to this survey course!) 
As you read in Foner, a major religious revival occurred in the United States in the
1730s. This revival was important because of what it meant for American
religious beliefs, but some historians have even argued that we cannot
understand the upheavals that took place during the American Revolution unless
we begin with the First Great Awakening.
Allow me to explain why:
As you know from Foner, this religious revival revolved around the individual,
emotional conversion experience.
George Whitefield was the central figure, a veritable Atlantic World celebrity
George Whitefield, 1714-1770
Whitefield led revivals in England and in the American colonies (and you get a
great sense of how much people craved to see him speak with the document “The
Great Awakening Comes to Connecticut”)
One historian estimates that Whitefield preached more than 18,000 sermons in
his lifetime, averaging 500 per year, 10 a week.
Whitefield, as well as others such as Johnathan Edwards, focused on getting
individuals to awaken to God’s grace through emotionally charged sermons
Here’s one from Edwards that can give you a sense of this kind of emotion:
“So that thus it is, that natural men are held in the hand of God over
the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already
sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great
towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of
the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the
least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound
by any promise to hold ‘em up one moment; the devil is waiting for
them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them,
and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up
in their own hearts is struggling to break out; and they have no interest
in any mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any
security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of,
all that preserves them every moment is the meer arbitrary will, and
uncovenanted unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.
“The use may be of awakening to unconverted persons in this
congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you
that are out of Christ. That world of misery, that lake of burning
brimstone is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of
the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell’s wide gaping
mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take
hold of: there is nothing between you and hell but the air; ’tis only the
power and meer pleasure of God that holds you up.”
–Johnathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” 1741
What makes the phenomenon of the Great Awakening so significant, however, is
that its very premise (the emotional awakening of the individual) broke down
social hierarchies
Revivals gave ordinary people, including women, and in the south, slaves, the
ability to speak in public and even lead revivals if the Holy Spirit spoke to them.
New congregations like the Baptists and the Methodists—both of which, in their
American iterations, initially opposed slavery—were formed
As you read in Foner, some Southern planters even came to see slavery as
immoral
Only later—after the American Revolution—did Southern evangelical religions
comes to accommodate slavery
And so, keep this in mind as we move toward the American revolution: religious
awakening played at least some part—how large or small historians continue to
debate—in the challenges to social hierarchies in the eighteenth centuries that
would be even more deeply challenged during and immediately after the
Revolution
EMPIRE! Native Americans and the Origins of the American Revolution
In the last module we began to think a little about the American Revolution when
we examined how breaking down social hierarchies during the Great Awakening
might have set into motion developments that led Americans to be more willing
to do so later. In this module, we’re going to center our gaze even more firmly on
the origins of the American Revolution. But I want to caution you not to think it
was inevitable, even after the contest for empire on the American continent
concluded with the Seven Years War.
But as you reflect on the Foner reading, please consider the two following big
questions:
1) How do we define “empire” and what does
it mean to be an imperial subject?
2) How did contests between European powers
begin to lead to an “American” identity?
You read in Foner about the imperial rivalries between the French, Spanish, and
British, which culminated in the Seven Years War (though Foner doesn’t mention
it, the Seven Years War was actually a global war, with battles taking place in
Europe and in Asia, too).
Though the Seven Years War was a contest between two different empires, what I
would like to emphasize is that it was a war between two different imperial
models, and this fact had very serious consequences for Native Americans
First of all, let’s begin by defining empire:
You may be thinking of it as a group of political entities ruled by a single figure, as
in the Roman Empire
But I’d like to argue for a more expansive definition: one in which an outside
political entity exerts a significant amount of power over another political entity
The shape of European empires in North America in the first half of the
eighteenth century:
So, the British and French approaches to America were both imperial, but in
different ways
We’ve spent time discussing the British: they were basically a settler society
empire. The goal was for emigrants from the British Isles to live in America, and
to enhance British power and wealth
The French Empire, in contrast to the British settler society or the Spanish model
of directly exploiting indigenous labor through coercive relationships, was built on
two groups of people:
Merchants, who could trade with Native Americans, and missionaries, who hoped
to convert Native Americans to Catholicism
The French did attempt to establish permanent agriculture-based settlements—
around St. Louis, for example, but France’s agricultural population, in contrast to
England, was largely sedentary, so the large populations of landless people that
existed in London were not there in Paris.
The French efforts in North America, then, largely revolved around the fur-trade,
with a few male explorers seeking out trading relationships with (and often
intermarrying into) Native American communities. This facilitated the growth of a
substantial mixed-race (in French, métis) population
There was serious demand for beaver fur in Europe for several centuries, as it was
considered a durable and stylish fabric for hats and coats. Some styles:
Green Bay, in fact, as some of you probably know, began as a trading outpost,
original called by French explorers La Baye or La Baie des Pouets
Jean Nicolet (1598-1642) on the
banks of Green Bay
The French imperial system in the Great Lakes region was very different from the
British
Foner uses the term “middle ground” to describe it, a term he gets from the
historian Richard White
It was an area in which the French were in control and exerted influence, but one
in which both sides forged a commonality and Native Americans were able to
have a greater influence on power than in the English colonies
Because the French did not represent a settler society, they desperately needed
French allies
For their part, Native American tribes in the region had been decimated by
diseases and by powerful Eastern tribes like the Iroquois, who sought new beaver
hunting grounds to fulfill the insatiable demands for the fur from Europe and to
enhance their own wealth
(Again, think about how America represented part of a much larger “Atlantic
world”)
Survivors from decimated tribes in the Great Lakes region banded together with
each other, and as White argues in his book The Middle Ground, the French
represented the “imperial glue” that brought these people together to forge a
new polyglot culture
The French Empire represented “Onontio”, the “Great Father,” who served a
paternal function
The “father” provided necessary French goods to Native American people in a
ceremony called the “calumet” in order to convince polyglot villages to ally with
the French, giving them access to trading networks and political protection
In turn, the French could ask Native American warriors to attack their enemies,
and vice versa
From The Middle Ground…White argues that the French thought quite highly of
Indian warriors:
Now you read about how the Seven Years War began when English Americans
began pressing land claims in this area and the French felt compelled to respond
You also read about how the British victory reshaped the contours of empire on
the continent. That’s worth reiterating here:
You also read about Pontiac’s Revolt (and you’ll consider the Native American
perspective when you discuss the primary source, Pontiac’s “Two Speeches”)
But the last point I would like to emphasize is how the war led colonists to begin
to resent certain aspects of the British Empire.
Though they were certainly proud to be part of the Empire that won the war, the
actual waging of the war proved to be problematic for several reasons:
Colonists disliked being forced to “quarter” British soldiers in their homes and on
their land
If you ever wondered why the following was added as the third amendment to
the Bill of Rights, colonists’ experience during the Seven Years War is a major part
of the explanation:
“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be
quartered in any house, without the
consent of the Owner, nor in time of war,
but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
The British officers in America also clearly looked down on colonial soldiers,
believing they were less effective and should defer to soldiers trained in Britain.
Many American militiamen resented this characterization, as they often fought
with distinction in the battles of the war
Second, the Proclamation Line of 1763, which Foner refers to, convinced many
colonists that the British Empire was holding back their desires for more land (in
this sense, Pontiac was certainly right to fear the expansion of the British Empire)
In fact, many elite colonists already had land claims in the new area (which was
why the war began in the first place!)
These grievances began to convince some colonists that British Parliament
represented part of a determined effort to ensure the colonies served British
interests at their expense
So, while most colonists in British America continued to view themselves as
proud, loyal British subjects, we have the first glimmer here of a growing, new
identity after the colonial experience during the Seven Years War
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
The two chapters in Foner for this module do a very nice job of
overviewing the key developments of the American Revolution era. As
you reflect on the reading, please think about the following questions:
1) WHY DID THE COLONISTS CAST OFF SUCH STRONG
BRITISH IDENTITIES AND REMAKE THEMSELVES INTO
“AMERICANS”?
2) WAS THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION A “RADICAL”
REVOLUTION?
As several chapters of Give Me Liberty! (and previous study guides!) makes clear,
American colonists believed themselves to be attached to the British empire.
Still, their connection to the empire was contradictory: they very much saw
themselves as part of a tradition of British subjecthood that came with certain
rights and privileges, but as the eighteenth century wore on, it became clear to
many colonists that they were what we might call “subaltern” citizens: looked
down on by the British (especially Parliament) and treated with fewer rights than
those who lived in Great Britain
To understand the colonists’ perspective, let’s talk a little more specifically about
what being British meant to them.
First, American colonists were emotionally attached to the institution of the
monarchy….a tradition strongly rooted in English culture
The allegiance the English subject owed his monarch was a personal and
individual matter
The king was the Pater familias (or father) of the nation
[This is one reason Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was so important, since it
helped to tear down the emotional connection between Americans and the King.
It is also why, if you have ever read the Declaration of Independence, Thomas
Jefferson spent so much effort blaming the King specifically for the colonists’
grievances rather than Parliament]
Also, colonial society was built around hierarchy: most elite colonists obsessed
over who counted as a “gentlemen” though there were few nobles of actual rank
in America
And many elites looked down on commoners
George Washington, for example, called ordinary farmers the “grazing multitude”
John Adams early in his career called ordinary people “the common Herd of
mankind”
So this was an extremely hierarchical society built around the categories of
commoner, nobleman, and king
Second, consumer products tied colonists firmly into English Empire—even
more firmly by mid 1700s
In the words of an historian named T.H. Breen, the colonists lived in a developing
“empire of goods”
Breen’s book arguing for the importance of consumer goods in the
Revolution!
At the beginning of the 1700s, there were few consumer items around as most
colonists lived on self-sufficient farms with limited trading opportunities (the one
exception would be elite slaveholding landowners in the South)
Advances in British manufacturing and better transportation networks in the
1700s brought more manufactured goods into colonists’ homes by mid-century
By 1774, Governor William Tyron of New York remarked that:
“more than 11/12 of the inhabitants of this province both in the necessary and
ornamental parts of their Dress are cloathed in British manufacures, except for
Linen from Ireland and hat and shoes manufactured here.”
By 1773, the colonists purchased almost 26% of all domestically produced goods
that were exported out of Britain (this number, according to Breen, was only
around 5.7% at beginning of century)
The largest import item was tea that came from India through Britain
It should not surprise us, then, that American protests against the British took the
form of consumer boycotts, and that the single protest we remember the most is
the Boston Tea Party
Third, colonists believed they were part of a long tradition of the rights of
Englishmen
This has been well-covered in Foner, but I’d like to add one more component: the
right of revolution that John Locke outlines in “Two Treatises of Government”
This was a text that most colonists of any amount of significant education would
have read:
“AND THUS THE COMMUNITY PERPETUALLY RETAINS A SUPREAM
POWER OF SAVING THEMSELVES FROM THE ATTEMPTS AND DESIGNS
OF ANY BODY, EVEN OF THEIR LEGISLATORS, WHENEVER THEY SHALL BE
SO FOOLISH, OR SO WICKED, AS TO LAY AND CARRY ON DESIGNS
AGAINST THE LIBERTIES AND PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT. FOR NO
MAN, OR SOCIETY OF MEN, HAVING A POWER TO DELIVER UP THEIR
PRESERVATION, OR CONSEQUENTLY THE MEANS OF IT, TO THE
ABSOLUTE WILL AND ARBITRARY DOMINION OF ANOTHER; WHENEVER
ANY ONE SHALL GO ABOUT TO BRING THEM INTO SUCH A SLAVISH
CONDITION, THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE A RIGHT TO PRESERVE WHAT
THEY HAVE NOT A POWER TO PART WITH; AND TO RID THEMSELVES
OF THOSE WHO INVADE THIS FUNDAMENTAL, SACRED, AND
UNALTERABLE LAW OF SELF-PRESERVATION, FOR WHICH THEY
ENTER’D INTO SOCIETY.”
JOHN LOCKE, TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT (1689)
So, when you combine what it meant to be British with the actions of Parliament,
one can understand why colonists’ sense of Britishness would push them to
declare their independence from the British. Believing they had the right to revolt
when their traditional rights had been stamped on (and Foner outlines this
chronology so I won’t repeat it here), all that remained of their connection to
Great Britain by 1775 was their relationship with King George. Thomas Paine and
Thomas Jefferson (and the others in the Continental Congress who helped him
draft it) helped to eradicate that with their widely read and circulated statements
in Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence, respectively.
If you have the time, it would be beneficial for you to read the full text of the
Declaratoin here:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
Now we hear the term “revolution” all the time, but what does it really mean to
be “revolutionary”?
Some historians have argued that the American Revolution initiated what we
might call the “Age of Revolution” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries
We can probably agree that some of these other “revolutions” were clearly
“revolutions” in the sense that they overturned political authorities as well as the
social order:
The French Revolution, 1789-1799:
Haitian Revolution, 1791-1804:
But what about the American Revolution? Most of its leaders were colonial elites.
There was not a radical overturning of social relationships or social hierarchies.
The Haitian Revolution, for example, overturned slavery, while the French
Revolution seized the lands of wealthy landowners and the church and
redistributed them. Landowners weren’t killed (as in Haiti) and monarchs were
not guillotined (as in France)
The case of the American Revolution is a bit more cloudy. Some historians have
argued (and still do) that the American Revolution was a more-or-less
conservative revolution. Others have pointed to the following changes to argue
that the revolution was actually more radical than we often think:
First, for working men—especially in mid-Atlantic states like Delaware,
Pennsylvania, and New York—revolutionary rhetoric raised new expectations and
offered new opportunities to remake government and democratize citizenship.
Certainly this was the case in Pennsylvania (as Foner points out)
Getting rid of property requirements to vote (even it was only in a few states like
PA) made a real difference in who could participate in politics
Second, the institution of slavery: Obviously, the rhetoric about equality and
liberty contradicted the institution of slavery. It’s in the very first sentence of the
Declaration that a “self-evident” “truth” is that “all men are created equal.”
Still very few white Americans believed black Americans—free or slave—were
equal. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson had to say about African Americans in 1781:
“Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to
me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one
[black] could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations
of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.”
On the other hand, the revolutionary generation (including Jefferson) recognized
the contradiction of slavery, and Jefferson had attempted to blame King George III
for the institution in a clause that was taken out of the final draft of the
Declaration of Independence:
• “HE [KING GEORGE III] HAS WAGED CRUEL WAR AGAINST HUMAN
NATURE ITSELF, VIOLATING ITS MOST SACRED RIGHT OF LIFE & LIBERTY
IN THE PERSONS OF A DISTANT PEOPLE WHO NEVER OFFENDED HIM,
CAPTIVATING & CARRYING THEM INTO SLAVERY IN ANOTHER
HEMISPHERE, OR TO INCUR MISERABLE DEATH IN THEIR
TRANSPORTATION THITHER…”
And so, as you read in Foner, this led many states to begin outlawing slavery after
the Revolution
Massachusetts, in fact, outlawed slavery after the courts ruled in favor of a legal
challenge by a slave named Quok Walker whose petition for freedom argued that
slavery violated the state’s constitution that had said “all men are born free and
equal.”
Many slaves also had new opportunities to push for freedom on the individual
level:
Lord Dunmore, Virginia’s last royal governor, promised freedom to those who
rallied to the king. Many slaves—including several belonging to George
Washington!—escaped to serve in British units, getting freedom after the war
either in Canada or in the British isles.
Between 12,000 slaves escaped South Carolina alone between 1779 and 1781
Third, women: Women were obviously highly involved in the war effort—their
responsibility for the domestic sphere meant that, by necessity, they had been
very involved in non-importation and boycotts
They also took the place of their husbands and fathers when they left for war-running farms, businesses, and shops
This reality combined with revolutionary rhetoric to lead some women to
question their supposed inferiority:
“YES, YE LORDLY, YE HAUGHTY SEX, OUR SOULS
ARE BY NATURE EQUAL TO YOURS; THE SAME
BREATH OF GOD ANIMATES, ENLIVENS, AND
INVIGORATES US; AND THAT WE ARE NOT FALLEN
LOWER THAN YOURSELVES, LET THOSE WITNESS
WHO HAVE GREATLY TOWERED ABOVE THE
VARIOUS DISCOURAGEMENTS BY WHICH THEY
HAVE BEEN SO HEAVILY OPPRESSED….”
JUDITH SARGENT MURRAY, “ON THE EQUALITY OF
THE SEXES,” 1790
In New Jersey women could even vote for a time—the state’s constitution of 1776
did not specify male or female, and a law in 1797 tacitly admitted that women
(who owned the modern day equivalent of about $10,000 in property) were
voting
There were serious limits to these advances, however:
In terms of voting, some states had pretty conservative constitutions—like
Massachusetts, which still had substantial property requirements well into the
nineteenth century
[In fact, more states had property requirements than didn’t by 1800]
Slavery continued to flourish in the southern states (even though a substantial
number of Virginia owners, including George Washington, did free their slaves on
principle): as we’ll talk about very soon, slavery expanded dramatically, in fact, in
the early 1800s. Even in the North, though slavery fell from its high in the
Northern states of around 50,000 slaves in 1775, by 1810, there were still 27,000
slaves in the North
New Jersey was the only state in which women could vote, and women and men
continued in the early Republic to be restricted to “separate spheres” of public
and private life (this will be evident in the Benjamin Rush document)
Even New Jersey changed its law in 1807, and the new law took away rights
women had to vote.
And so, the question I leave you with is: was the revolution revolutionary?

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

  
error: Content is protected !!