Essay Questions:

1. Consider Samuel Seabury’s thought on American independence. How does Seabury feel about independence? Why does he think independence was or was not a good idea? (Bring clean copy of petition: Seabury’s thoughts)

Thesis Statement: Samuel Seabury strongly opposed American independence, arguing that it would lead to disorder, tyranny, and the breakdown of legitimate authority. He believed that the revolutionary movement was fueled by a small faction of radicals who undermined legal governance, and that independence would bring about oppressive rule and chaos, rather than liberty or peace.

In-Depth Outline:

I. Introduction

• Brief context of the American Revolution (1763-1783) and rising calls for independence.

• Introduction of Samuel Seabury as a Loyalist clergyman who vocally opposed the revolutionary movement.

• Thesis statement: Samuel Seabury viewed independence as a disastrous idea, believing it would replace legitimate British authority with unlawful, oppressive rule led by radicals. He feared that revolutionaries were introducing tyranny under the guise of liberty, which would ultimately harm the colonies.

II. Seabury’s View of Legitimate Authority

• Discuss Seabury’s belief in the British system of governance as legitimate and fair, where colonists had a role through elected representatives.

• Seabury saw colonial rights as protected under the British constitution, with grievances to be addressed legally.

• Emphasis on his critique of revolutionary leaders for bypassing the authority of elected representatives, thereby undermining legitimate governance.

  • Quote: "The people have a right to share in the legislature... But when they have chosen their representatives, that right, which was before diffused through the whole people, centers in their Representatives alone."

III. Critique of Revolutionary Tactics

• Examine Seabury’s disdain for the methods of the revolutionaries, whom he described as acting illegally and tyrannically.

• He accused them of forming committees and conventions without legal backing, usurping power from legitimate colonial assemblies.

• Argue that Seabury saw these actions as mob rule, leading to disorder and threatening the stability of the colonies.

  • Quote: "A Committee, chosen in a tumultuous, illegal manner, usurped the most despotic authority over the province."

IV. Fear of Tyranny and Mob Rule

• Analyze Seabury’s fear that independence would lead to internal tyranny and mob violence, not freedom.

• Seabury believed that the Continental Congress and local committees exercised despotic power, silencing dissent and encouraging riots to enforce their will.

• Contrast his view of British governance as measured and lawful with his portrayal of revolutionary leaders as tyrannical.

  • Quote: "The state to which the Grand Congress, and the subordinate Committees, have reduced the colonies, is really deplorable. They have introduced a system of the most oppressive tyranny."

V. Seabury’s Concerns About Economic and Social Consequences

• Discuss Seabury’s concerns that the revolution would not only destroy legitimate political authority but also disrupt colonial society and economy.

• He argued that levying taxes without the consent of colonial representatives (as the revolutionaries did) would lead to financial instability.

• Seabury feared that money raised for revolutionary purposes, under the guise of helping colonists, would be misused to wage war against the British crown.

  • Quote: "Money is levied upon us without the consent of our representatives: which very money, under color of relieving the poor people of Boston, it is too probable will be employed to raise an army against the King."

VI. Conclusion

• Summarize Seabury’s main arguments: his belief in the legitimacy of British authority, his view that the revolutionaries were tyrannical, and his fear of the social and economic consequences of independence.

• Restate thesis: Seabury’s opposition to independence was based on his conviction that it would lead to tyranny, chaos, and the collapse of legitimate governance, rather than achieving true liberty for the colonies.

Samuel Seabury’s Argument against Independence (1775)

Samuel Seabury:

• Background:

  • Native of Connecticut; graduated from Yale College.

  • Anglican minister and devoted Loyalist.

  • Published pamphlets against the revolutionary movement in 1774 and 1775.

  • Jailed briefly for his views; took refuge in British-occupied New York City during the War of Independence.

  • Became the first Episcopal bishop of the United States after the war.

Main Argument Against Independence:

• Seabury addressed the “confused and distressed state” of the colonies, criticizing the revolutionary movement against Great Britain.

• Argued that the current contention with Great Britain would lead to numerous disadvantages and inconveniences, particularly due to the rejection of moderate and proper measures.

Critique of Revolutionary Actions:

• Accused the colonies of disregarding any attempts at peace, branding peaceful efforts as “slavery” and dissent as “sedition.”

• Highlighted that the colonial representatives had been ignored and their authority undermined.

• Criticized the formation of Committees that acted without legal authority, thus usurping power from the legislature.

Claims of Tyranny:

• Described the Grand Congress and local Committees as having established a system of oppressive tyranny over the colonies.

• Noted that people were threatened for supporting order, and printers were intimidated from publishing pro-government materials.

• Pointed out that radical pamphlets against the British were praised while moderate voices were silenced.

Conditions of Governance:

• Claimed that a foreign power (the Continental Congress) was governing the province without legitimate consent.

• Criticized the imposition of laws by factions from various colonies without representation.

• Expressed concerns about money being levied without consent, which could be used against the King.

Understanding of Freedom:

• Seabury differed from independence advocates in viewing freedom as rooted in law and representation rather than rebellion and sedition.

• Emphasized that true liberty is maintained through respect for established government and lawful authority, rather than through tumultuous actions.

2. Consider John Lawson’s discussion of household economy in Carolina. What was the division of labor in Carolina households? Do you think it was representative of households elsewhere in colonial America? (Draw upon the excerpt of Lawson’s journal)

Thesis Statement: In John Lawson’s account of household economy in colonial Carolina, women played a critical and industrious role in both domestic and agricultural labor, demonstrating a flexible division of labor that extended beyond traditional gender roles. While this division may have been unique to the particular environment of Carolina, it reflects broader trends in colonial America where women’s labor was essential to both the household and the local economy, though the extent and nature of their contributions varied by region.

In-Depth Outline:

I. Introduction

• Introduction to the colonial period, 1660-1750, focusing on the household as the center of economic production.

• Brief overview of John Lawson’s travels and his observations of daily life in colonial Carolina, particularly regarding the role of women.

• Thesis statement: The division of labor in Carolina households, as described by Lawson, shows women taking on both domestic and agricultural responsibilities, often working alongside men. This division of labor may have been shaped by Carolina’s unique environment, but it also highlights the broader importance of women’s contributions to the household economy throughout colonial America.

II. Division of Labor in Carolina Households

• Describe the specific roles women played in the Carolina household economy according to Lawson’s account.

  • Women were involved in making textiles (spinning, weaving, sewing) from cotton, wool, and flax, ensuring that their families were clothed without relying on merchants.

  • They also participated in agricultural work, helping their husbands with planting during busy seasons.

  • Women managed the household’s internal affairs, including the dairy and childcare, and even handled canoes when necessary.

  • Quote: "The women are very fruitful; most houses being full of little ones."

• Discuss how the environment of Carolina, being a “watery country,” may have influenced this flexible division of labor, making women more active in traditionally male tasks like navigating canoes.

  • Quote: "Many of the women are very handy in canoes, and will manage them with great dexterity and skill."

III. Comparison to Other Colonial Regions

• Analyze whether the division of labor in Carolina households was representative of other colonial regions.

  • In New England, for instance, women also played a crucial role in the household economy, spinning and weaving textiles and managing the household, but they were less likely to engage in outdoor agricultural labor compared to women in the South.

  • In the Middle Colonies and the South, women often helped with farm labor due to the region’s reliance on large-scale agriculture, especially in cash crops like tobacco, rice, and indigo.

• Argue that while the specific tasks women performed in Carolina, such as managing canoes, may have been unique, the general trend of women being integral to the household economy was widespread across colonial America.

  • Women were key contributors to subsistence farming and the production of goods within the home in all regions, though the specific duties varied based on local conditions.

IV. The Social and Cultural Expectations of Women’s Roles

• Discuss the cultural expectations for women’s work and family roles in Carolina and other colonies.

  • Marriage occurred early, with women typically marrying in their early teens, which was not uncommon in other colonies but particularly emphasized in the South.

  • Women were expected to be fruitful and have large families, and this reproductive role was seen as part of their contribution to the economy.

  • Quote: "They marry very young; some at thirteen or fourteen; and she that stays till twenty, is reckoned a stale maid."

• Argue that despite these expectations, women were valued for their labor beyond childbirth and child-rearing, which was critical to the survival and success of colonial households.

  • The early marriage and emphasis on family did not negate women’s significant economic contributions, particularly in the Southern and rural colonies, where manual labor was essential.

V. The Broader Importance of Women’s Labor in Colonial America

• Connect Lawson’s observations to the broader significance of women’s labor in colonial America.

  • Women’s labor was not just limited to the household but contributed to the overall economy, particularly in self-sustaining agricultural communities.

  • In many regions, women’s ability to produce goods like textiles and food ensured economic independence for their families, reducing reliance on outside markets and fostering a degree of self-sufficiency.

• Highlight that the colonial economy relied on the contributions of all family members, and Lawson’s account reinforces the idea that women were not passive, but active participants in the economic life of the colonies.

  • Quote: "The girls are not bred up to the [spinning] wheel and sewing only; but the dairy and affairs of the house they are very well acquainted withal."

VI. Conclusion

• Summarize the key points about the division of labor in Carolina households as observed by Lawson.

• Restate thesis: While Carolina women’s involvement in both household and agricultural work may have been influenced by the specific conditions of the region, it reflects a broader trend across colonial America where women were indispensable to the functioning of the household economy.

• Emphasize the critical role of women in shaping the economic and social landscape of colonial America.

John Lawson, Women in the Household Economy (1709)

Context of the Household Economy:

• In eighteenth-century America, the family was the center of economic life.

• All family members—men, women, and children—contributed to the family’s livelihood.

John Lawson’s Observations:

• Lawson was an English naturalist who traveled extensively in Carolina, offering a favorable description of life in the colony.

• His work, A New Voyage to Carolina, details the labor of free Carolina women and their role in family economics.

Key Types of Work Performed by Carolina Women:

• Textile Production:

  • Women made cloth from cotton, wool, and flax, ensuring families were well-clothed without incurring debt.

• Childcare:

  • High fertility rates; women often married young (as early as thirteen or fourteen).

  • Women experienced easy childbirth with low miscarriage rates.

• Canoeing and Labor Support:

  • Women skilled in managing canoes, aiding husbands in various agricultural tasks.

• Household Management:

  • Girls trained in various household skills beyond spinning and sewing, including dairy management.

• Education and Learning:

  • Children of both sexes were docile and learned tasks efficiently, with some receiving formal education in writing and accounting.

Observations on Gender Roles:

• Gender roles appeared to be flexible, with women taking on multiple tasks beyond traditional domestic duties.

• Women actively participated in economic activities alongside men, showing collaboration rather than strict segregation of roles.

• Pride in domestic work was noted, suggesting a blend of traditional roles with active involvement in economic survival.

3. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin offered his assessment of the German-speaking immigrants who arrived in large numbers in Pennsylvania. What did Franklin think of these immigrants? What does his opinion reveal about race and tolerance? (A section of Franklin’s “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind)

Thesis Statement: In his 1751 essay "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind," Benjamin Franklin expressed concern about the large number of German-speaking immigrants settling in Pennsylvania, fearing that they would resist assimilation into English language and customs. His critique reveals underlying anxieties about cultural dominance, race, and tolerance in colonial America, highlighting the tensions between ideals of pluralism and the reality of ethnocentrism in an emerging Anglo-American identity.

In-Depth Outline:

I. Introduction

• Introduction to Benjamin Franklin and the context of colonial immigration, specifically the influx of German-speaking settlers in Pennsylvania.

• Brief overview of Franklin's concerns about these immigrants and how his views reflect broader attitudes about cultural assimilation and race in the colonies.

• Thesis statement: Franklin’s negative assessment of German immigrants reveals his fear that they would not assimilate into Anglo-American society, which exposes underlying issues of cultural dominance, race, and limited tolerance for diversity in colonial America.

II. Franklin’s Critique of German-Speaking Immigrants

• Discuss Franklin’s specific concerns about the growing German population in Pennsylvania.

  • He worried that the Germans would "swarm" into settlements and, by living separately, preserve their language and customs, thereby threatening the English-speaking majority.

  • Franklin feared that German culture would overshadow English culture, reversing the intended "Anglifying" process of assimilation.

  • Quote: "Why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements and, by herding together, establish their Language and Manners, to the Exclusion of ours?"

• Explain how Franklin viewed this influx of immigrants as a demographic threat, believing that their numbers would soon outpace the English settlers.

  • Quote: "[They] will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them."

III. Franklin’s Views on Race and “Otherness”

• Analyze Franklin’s reference to race and his categorization of the Germans as racially and culturally distinct from the English.

  • Franklin refers to the Germans as "aliens," suggesting that he did not view them as fully belonging to the emerging Anglo-American identity.

  • His mention of complexion and the inability of Germans to "acquire our Complexion" implies that he saw physical and racial differences as a significant barrier to their assimilation.

  • Quote: "[They] will never adopt our Language or Customs any more than they can acquire our Complexion."

• Discuss how Franklin’s concern about the German immigrants reflects a broader colonial anxiety about maintaining Anglo-Saxon racial and cultural superiority. This attitude demonstrates the limited tolerance for ethnic and linguistic diversity in what was theoretically a pluralist society.

IV. Tensions Between Pluralism and Ethnocentrism

• Explore the tension between the ideal of religious and cultural tolerance in Pennsylvania, which was founded on principles of pluralism, and Franklin’s ethnocentric attitude.

  • Pennsylvania was known for its tolerance of various religious and ethnic groups, including Quakers, Germans, and other non-English settlers.

  • Franklin’s critique of the Germans shows that even in a colony that prided itself on tolerance, there were limits to the acceptance of cultural diversity when it threatened the dominance of the English identity.

• Argue that Franklin’s views reflect an anxiety about losing English cultural dominance in the face of increasing immigration from non-English groups, showing the fragility of colonial pluralism.

V. The Broader Context of Franklin’s Views

• Place Franklin’s views in the broader context of colonial debates about immigration, race, and cultural assimilation.

  • Similar concerns were expressed about other immigrant groups, such as the Scots-Irish, who were also viewed with suspicion by English settlers.

  • Franklin’s views on the Germans mirror broader concerns in the colonies about the challenges of integrating diverse populations into a cohesive Anglo-American society.

• Discuss how these views influenced later discussions about immigration and assimilation in American history, with echoes of Franklin’s concerns reappearing in future debates about who can be considered "American."

VI. Conclusion

• Summarize Franklin’s critique of German immigrants and how it reflects deeper concerns about race, culture, and tolerance in colonial America.

• Restate thesis: Benjamin Franklin’s assessment of German immigrants in Pennsylvania reveals his anxiety about cultural and racial "otherness," demonstrating the limits of tolerance in an ostensibly pluralistic society that prioritized Anglo-American dominance.

• Conclude with a reflection on how Franklin’s views on immigration and assimilation foreshadowed later American debates on cultural identity and diversity.

Benjamin Franklin, “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind” (1751)

Benjamin Franklin's Concerns (1751):

• Noted that a minority of immigrants to British North America were from the British Isles.

• Found the growing diversity of the population, especially from Germany, concerning.

• Advocated for increasing the number of English immigrants to maintain English culture.

Key Arguments in Franklin's Essay:

• Metaphor of the Polypus:

  • A well-regulated nation can grow and adapt, similar to how a polypus regenerates limbs.

  • Emphasized that a nation could increase its numbers and strength by dividing and expanding.

• Critique of German Immigration:

  • Warned against allowing German immigrants (Palatine boors) to establish themselves in Pennsylvania.

  • Expressed fear that Germans would Germanize the colony rather than adopt English language and customs.

• Racial Perceptions:

  • Noted the small proportion of "purely white" people globally, characterizing various groups by their complexions.

  • Suggested that Africa, Asia, and parts of Europe have predominantly non-white populations.

  • Advocated for exclusivity in settlement to increase the population of white and red peoples, specifically English settlers.

Implications of Franklin's Views:

• Objection to German Presence:

  • Concerned about cultural dilution and potential loss of English identity in Pennsylvania.

• Reliability of Perceptions:

  • Franklin's characterization indicates a biased perception of non-English peoples based on complexion.

  • Reflects a racial prejudice that may distort his understanding of the value and contributions of diverse groups in America.

4. Many Antifederalists felt that the Constitution represented a repudiation of the principles of the American Revolution. Do you agree or disagree? Why? In your answer you should consider some of the concerns raised by statesman James WInthrop to the 1787 federal Constitution. (excerpt of Winthrop’s speech, clean copy of passenger lists)

Thesis Statement: Many Anti-Federalists, including James Winthrop, believed that the proposed 1787 Constitution violated the principles of the American Revolution by centralizing too much power in a national government, thus undermining the liberty and local governance that had been the Revolution's core objectives. Winthrop’s argument, which emphasized the dangers of a large, consolidated republic and the necessity of a bill of rights, reflects the Anti-Federalists' concerns that the new Constitution would lead to despotism and erode the autonomy of individual states, thereby betraying the Revolution's ideals of self-government and liberty.

In-Depth Outline:

I. Introduction

• Brief overview of the context surrounding the debate over the ratification of the 1787 Constitution.

• Explanation of the Anti-Federalists’ opposition to the Constitution, particularly their belief that it represented a betrayal of the principles of the American Revolution.

• Introduction to James Winthrop as an Anti-Federalist thinker who voiced concerns about the dangers of a consolidated federal government.

• Thesis statement: The Anti-Federalists, including James Winthrop, argued that the proposed Constitution undermined the principles of the Revolution by concentrating power in a centralized national government, threatening local autonomy and individual liberties.

II. Winthrop’s Argument Against a Large Republic

• Discussion of Winthrop’s main point that no large empire could be successfully governed by republican principles, as republican governments only worked in smaller states.

  • He argues that large republics inevitably degenerate into despotism due to the diversity of regions and interests, making it impossible to govern fairly from a distant, centralized authority.

  • Quote: “No extensive empire can be governed upon republican principles...unless it be made up of a confederacy of smaller states, each having the full powers of internal regulation.”

• Winthrop emphasizes the differences in geography, climate, and culture across the states, arguing that a single national legislature cannot create laws that are fair for all regions.

  • Example: The same laws cannot suit both Georgia and Massachusetts, given the differences in climate and local economies.

• Anti-Federalist fear that the Constitution would consolidate all states into “one large mass” and erase their unique characteristics.

  • Quote: “This new system is, therefore, a consolidation of all the states into one large mass.”

III. Concerns Over Loss of Local Control and Autonomy

• Winthrop and other Anti-Federalists argued that the Revolution was fought for the right to self-government, with power residing in local legislatures closest to the people.

  • They saw the centralized authority of the proposed Constitution as a direct challenge to this principle, fearing that local autonomy would be lost under a national government that did not understand or represent the unique needs of each state.

• Discussion of Winthrop’s concern that the Constitution gave the national legislature the ability to control matters of property, criminal justice, and other state affairs, which should remain under state jurisdiction.

  • The proposed federal courts would have the authority to make decisions on local matters, which Anti-Federalists believed would erode the states’ ability to govern themselves.

• The Anti-Federalists also feared the loss of local laws tailored to the specific needs of regions, as these would be overridden by national laws.

  • Quote: “It is impossible for one code of laws to suit Georgia and Massachusetts.”

IV. The Need for a Bill of Rights

• One of the central Anti-Federalist critiques of the Constitution was the lack of a bill of rights to protect individual liberties and prevent the potential abuse of power by a centralized government.

  • Winthrop argues that even in a republic, it is necessary to have protections against the tyranny of the majority, as the concentration of power can lead to abuses just as much as a monarchy.

  • Quote: “It is as necessary to defend an individual against the majority in a republic as against the king in a monarchy.”

• Winthrop's belief that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard the liberties of individuals and protect against the overreach of the federal government.

  • He suggests that without a bill of rights, the new Constitution could result in unchecked federal power and the erosion of the freedoms fought for during the Revolution.

V. The Anti-Federalists' Connection to Revolutionary Principles

• The Anti-Federalists, including Winthrop, believed that the Revolution had been fought to secure liberty, self-government, and protection from tyranny, all of which were threatened by the proposed Constitution.

  • They viewed the Revolution as a struggle against centralized, unchecked power, and saw the Constitution as reintroducing similar dangers in the form of a strong national government.

• Discussion of how Winthrop's views align with the Revolution’s core ideals of local self-rule and protection from distant, overbearing authorities.

  • The Anti-Federalists wanted to preserve the confederation of independent states, each with the power to govern itself, in line with the Revolutionary spirit.

VI. Conclusion

• Restate the thesis: The Anti-Federalists, including James Winthrop, believed that the proposed Constitution undermined the principles of the American Revolution by concentrating too much power in a national government and threatening local autonomy and individual liberties.

• Summarize Winthrop’s main concerns about the dangers of a large republic, the loss of local control, and the absence of a bill of rights.

• Conclude with a reflection on how the Anti-Federalists’ concerns contributed to the eventual adoption of the Bill of Rights, which addressed some of their fears about centralized power.

James Winthrop, The Anti-Federalist Argument (1787)

James Winthrop, The Anti-Federalist Argument (1787)

• Overview of Anti-Federalist Concerns:

  • Anti-Federalists opposed the ratification of the Constitution, arguing it shifted the balance toward power at the expense of liberty.

  • Predicted the new government would favor merchants and creditors, neglecting the interests of ordinary Americans.

  • Advocated that popular self-government thrives best in small communities where daily interactions occur.

• Key Arguments by James Winthrop (pen name: Agrippa):

  • Critique of Madison: Winthrop disagreed with the belief that an "extensive republic" secures liberty, claiming it contradicts historical experience.

  • Uniformity vs. Local Differences: Large states enforce uniform laws that disregard local needs and conditions.

  • Importance of a Bill of Rights: Essential to protect individuals against tyranny, akin to protecting against a monarchy.

• Main Points Against an Extensive Empire:

  • Impracticality of a Large Republic:

    • Historically, large republics lead to despotism unless made of confederated smaller states.

    • Local regulations are necessary to address the distinct needs of diverse populations.

  • Legislative Issues:

    • Proposed plan would surrender local legislative power to a continental court and Congress, creating a supreme law overriding state constitutions.

    • Winthrop argued that different states (e.g., Georgia and Massachusetts) cannot be governed by a single set of laws.

• Consolidation of States:

  • The new Constitution creates a large mass of states with diverse interests treated uniformly, which is historically problematic.

  • The revolution's leading principle was opposition to such a centralized system, which ignored local governance.

• Government Structure and Checks:

  • Advocated for a division of powers to prevent abuse and ensure representation of diverse interests.

  • Emphasized that local laws are necessary to accommodate various national and state concerns.

  • Suggested that a Bill of Rights is necessary to protect the minority from the majority, akin to safeguarding against a monarch.

• Human Nature and Power:

  • Highlighted that power tends to be abused regardless of who wields it—be it a king or the majority.

  • Emphasized that the experience of mankind shows the need for protections against the tyranny of the majority.