This poem is really depressing and she repeats a lot of things.Do you think the isolation added to her despair? if so doesn't that also reflect the nation?

This isolation kind of reminds me of the Grace Galloway had when she was losing her home and going through crisis. It says a lot about the exiled and how long sympathy lasts in an environment that is completely based on who is loyal and who is not. Again, I believe that family is destroyed through the war but it also messed up friendships because people were either too afraid or they were not really able to do much about the situation.

They automatically paint a picture to their rebel public that would see her as a British woman by saying that she wasn't born on American Soil. This puts out a negative view on her and says that it is possible that she is on the other side. Which again shows that the public space is dangerous and could be used in the slightest way to persuade their view.

I'm not sure if she is throwing her neighbor under the bus or if she's showing why she thought that she could trust Johnstone to begin with. Either way in the time where even she is a conversation in the public sphere the risk of putting someone else's name into a public paper is kind of selfish because this man told General Reed to throw the war. This also speaks about the importance of privacy while at the same time is similar to today where anything that is shared in privet can be shared by the public.

When looking at this to apply it to my essay I can only think of Facebook and Fergusson making a post to dismiss any lies that may have been told about her. She calls out names like she's tagging them in a post and basically throwing everyone into thee fire who made her seem like a traitor. The use of the public sphere here was to show that the men who claimed that she was a traitor didn't have a reason to call her a traitor and he is a coward for doing so. The fact that she was able to clear her name through this shows that her play on sympathy in the public sphere. She makes herself seem defenseless like she couldn't have said no to Johnstone.

This kind reminds me of more modern day "treaties" that never turn out to work the way it was expected. When America left Iraq we left the country falling apart.

I've always seen Thomas Whorton in everyones diaries and they've really only described him as a man who was rich or of good standing in the community but it's interesting the way that he's painted in this passage. He seems more involved as active in what is going on around him.

I know she doesn't outwardly say it but I think she separates herself from the townsmen in this part. She makes it seem as though she doesn't want anything to do with the support of anything. I think at the point she's actually just sick of everyone who is involved with this war especially when she's able to hear the war going on around her and is constantly afraid that her town will be taken over.

She really speaks openly about her desire to remain neutral. This makes me wonder when she sent the first part to her sister and why she wasn't afraid that someone would open her letters in the process of it being delivered. I kind of understood Galloway and Drinker's bluntness; they weren't going to send their diaries. But Morris was sending her letters to her sisters and knew her intention all along. Does this say something about her? Maybe she doesn't care. I mean I don't think I would write down anything that could incriminate me or even come close to allowing men to come to my home and hurt me in any way. I think this also reflect her use of the diary also. It shows the power she was able to have through this epistolary space. It gave her the chance to say things that she wouldn't otherwise say out loud to the Hassians or to the Tory hunters.

Is there any way to see how many towns were burned down during the revolution because they were being neutral? How common was it for people to be forced into a decision during the war through threatening to burn down homes?

I find it very interesting that a town was so up for grabs during this time. Yes, being that Burlington was a neutral space in the colonies I guess it makes sense but what happened if they tried to retaliate against the forced occupancy?

By the way I found some weird story like book on seamen and ships and stuff where there's a story about Captain Moore. There's the link: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_P6MYw3LTVoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Captain+Moore+revolutionary+war&ots=TmYA1ib1Xt&sig=q21p_hWq2jq4-a5lnG3Hoaxkdcg#v=onepage&q=Captain%20moore&f=false

I feel like everything in the journal should be considered important because we are studying the time but I guess it would be different to scholarly eyes.

This started off as a privet sphere because it was meant for her sisters eyes or rather her sister used it for her. So I wonder if she used this diary to write to her husband or to her sister or maybe to herself. I mean why else would her sister look at her diary?

This was kind of confusing to read. I wasn't sure if someone wrote the letter for her husband or if someone opened the letter. If it was the fact that someone wrote the letter for him, does this show that there could have been a chance of torture in Thomas' imprisonment? Or that he was sick or maybe too scared to write? Wild Guess: Someone probably had to send the letter in their own name for it to get safely to her?

I'm wondering if she's implying that her husbands arrest had anything to do with the defeat? Also, I think its interesting how close she pays attention to the war. When reading Galloway it seemed as though her attention to the war only extended as far as her voicing her opinion. Meaning, that she only spoke about politics when she had something to say but Sarah seems to be actively keeping up with it and documenting everything she's told.

I can see her wealth influencing her views on the rebels but I can't see her breaking away from her religion through picking a side. The Quakers didn't have a side, which is why her family members were disaffected. They didn't want to take an oath and they didn't want to pledge allegiance to any side. Her husband also was kind of interesting when looking at what was supposed to be their religion and how devout they were supposed to be. He kind of moved away from it through his travels and exploring. Maybe some of it ideals fell into Sarah's mind.

While I was reading this a thought came into my mind. When families were affected by the head of the households running off, meaning that their homes were taken from them and they were left with nothing, how normal was it for an entire family to move into someones house? I know it worked for Galloway but I mean what happens when a woman had to bring her children with her? Was it the same thing? Did it make it difficult for other people to not sympathize with them despite their situations? I'm thinking that many people would be afraid because they would think that there was a chance that they could be called loyalist sympathizers.

"I told I though all was over & Indepenency wou'd be granted for the disposition of the Army was such that they betrayed their best friends their King & Country" (160)

Galloway begins to criticize the foundation that the colonies would be built on is, to her, lies and dishonesty. She clearly disagrees with the building of the nation through the betrayal of the king and this says a lot bout her own political views. On top of that, it pushes more towards her audience. Why would she need to go into details about her political views through her diary if she was not aiming for a public audience? She already knows her own views. Though, another question is why she would speak to her daughter or her husband about her political views? She would be directing her daughter in the direction in which she would be considered masculine if she took after her. She wouldn't write this to her husband mostly because she would probably have more things to say to him that did not involve politics.

For some reason the computer is not allowing me to highlight and annotate so that I can put the quote in so here is the quote: "I am very Uneasy about my child & JG" (153)

She changes her audience in the second part of the diary. It speaks on who she eventually expected to read it. Maybe she was thinking that it should be a public diary, or maybe she's still talking to herself. She speaks a lot about missing Betsy as if she isn't writing the diary to her anymore. The answer could be complex but the answer could be as simple as she just liked to switch it up sometimes. But personally, after reading the second part, think it was for more public eyes. The way that she lists all of the wrong done to her and her misfortune when coming to her house, its almost like she's pointing at everyone else and telling on them to the future generations. Furthermore, her diary acts as a mirror for the colonies to see the cruelty behind their actions against women who were not even given a choice in their situations most of the times.

Did the government ever attempt to stop all mail going to women who were left in the houses? I know that we spoke about people who would read letters outside or attempt to kill/strip spies or people they thought to be loyalists. But were there any cases where loyalists themselves were targeted and specifically had their letters stopped or thrown away?

She was able to have a good amount of visitors for a woman who was supposed to be friendless. Her visitors din't always benefit her but I was wondering how she could be seen as alone and isolated when she did have friends who helped her even in the slightest. Also I did not understand the part where she offered a ride by her friend Sucky. Why did she not get to see her Mr. Wharton? Also, does virtue have a limit? How much could you actually help someone before being suspected as a loyalist?

I really do not understand why the virtue of a woman is diminished when she speaks her opinion on an issue that would affect her and her family deeply. Especially when she is liable to be persecuted for practicing her religion. When Ann Lee was taken out of her, would the men who carried her out savagely be considered unvirtuous because they defiled a woman by carrying her out in a way that was inappropriate during that time? Where was their sympathy? Does their sympathy end where her virtue does? How could sympathy be considered a trait of a good, Christian when it was selective sympathy? Are the sympathizers still virtuous?

I know that Coverture stopped women from being control of her own belongings but if her husband died and she remarried would she still hand over her property to her new husband? Also, what if her husband died and her father was still alive and chose to flee the colonies instead of being in the war, would she counted as a loyalist also? Where is femme Covert leave the women who were single? Did they still have no voice?

I had the question of what Seabury's personal motivation was for remaining under the British rule. He seems to be more afraid that America would have to, in a way, start new without British and that not a plan in his eyes. He believes that the values of America are twisted and in a way influenced by greedy and vain merchants when it comes to all of the acts put in place to stop trading.

When doing some research I found that Seabury comes from a poor family in England and moved to New York to be an apprentice to a furniture maker. According to Jennifer L. Goloboy in her article, "The Early American Middle Class" Seabury did not use economic status to define the middle class. He believed that, "'middle class'" primarily describes a culture," (Goloboy 2) meaning that the culture that he worked hard for coming from a poor family could be stripped from him. He uses the term slave in this sentence as if he wants to show that either way he would work hard but he would work hard under a king that shares the same values and culture as he does. He clearly believed that the congress of America is not out to for Americas best interest. Maybe this is because of the status that he puts himself under. He could be seeing the acts in a very jaded view because he knows that he could suffer if he had being depending on himself for the production of goods instead of trading.

Seabury seems more afraid to part from the country than anything else. He make strong arguments about the prices of products such as tea and clothing being raised but he speaks out of fear. Niccolo Machiavelli, in The Prince said that, "If your subjects have no dread of punishment they will take every chance to deceive you for their own profit. or injure you," (Machiavelli, 62). There were loyalist who clearly only wanted to stay under the British rule because they were afraid of the outcome of separation. It seems as though in this letter Seabury is trying to put fear into the readers mind (Which shows the power that literature had over citizens in the 18 century). The image I get is the only guy in the room who could see the plan crashing and burning. There is no apparent love for the King nor does it seem like he generally doesn't want to part from the British because he loves the country but because he finds the wrong in doing that.

"European Christian's" the emphasis on Christianity is shows that there was a sort of superiority of Christians. This idea led a lot of Christians believing ludicrous ideals such as Native Americans being savage even though the real explanation was that they simply did not understand their life style because it was different. Religion always played a part in the way that America chose to build itself. For example, America was afraid of its virtue being stolen by the loyalist, sinners, sexual deviance and the through the seduction of ideals not liek theirs during the Revolution. Their ideals according to America were what could lead to the downfall of the nation. The paranoia mostly derived from this christian thought of superiority.

To think about this, there were many instances in American history where the constitution did not apply to anyone who was not supporting America. So that leaves me with the question of who really has the right to assemble. I'm pretty sure if all of the slaves, "assembled" the white slave masters would have seen it as a revolt. Where do race, grander and religion stand in the constitution during this time?

This line particularly stands out to me because I can only think of the mos recent views of on constitution and how it was never made for anyone other than white men. The Constitution is meant to protect the undeniable rights of all people but we see through media throughout history that it is not the case. There is the example of Tamar Rice or even to go as far back to Rodney King. The destruction of the Constitution isn't something that I agree with, or that anyone should necessarily agree with but to break it down for everyone especially our justice system to make sure that everyone is being treat equally.

The word "Sanctuary" when referring to America has always had a jaded definition in which only the white christian Americans men were protected as long as they have the same beliefs as the general public. For example, Quakers were persecuted for not wanting to participate in the war and were seen as loyalist because of their religious beliefs. Where was the sanctuary for them? In war the Quakers, "begged for an end to persecution and for laws which would exempt them from paying taxes for war" ( Sydney V. James, "The Impact of the American Revolution on Quakers' Ideas about Their Sect." The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 1962) pp. 360-382) Accessed 30 Aug. 2016. In a place where someone has to beg for their people to not be persecuted the because they are following their religious values, there is not sanctuary.

The word "Sanctuary" is still misused today in America and everyone knows that the line, "For the land of the free" in the national is supposed to be alluding to the "Sanctity" that anyone could find in America no matter what race, religion or sex. Sadly, that is an illusion that has been put into the minds of Americans since they first set sail away from the British. Today the word "Sanctuary" only applies to white American, christian men who mainly are of an upper class. Black, Hispanic, Native American, and any other non white races are not considered equal to a white American Christian men. It can't be missed in today's society where there are the shootings of black Americans and things such as rape culture. There is no sanctuary and it sadly has always been an illusion in America.