I think it is very interesting when this new America is referred to as a "tiding empire." From what I have read in this class and on my own regarding the American revolution, I don't recall ever hearing new America as a "rising empire". I think this observation by Ord is very important. I think he consciously or subconsciously recognizes that the actions of the rebel soldiers and the actions of Congress and the committee are not as liberating as they intend to be and that they, the rebels, are trading one empire for another. I also think that Ord is being naive about the effects of trade, land monopoly, and prejudice because the American nation was practically founded because American's wanted those things.I find Ord to be quite naive.

The structure of this letter has me very interested, which I think is a first so far in the letters we have read. First there are the obvious quotation marks that occur on every line, which is very strange. Is this a style choice or does it actually have a grammatical or punctuative purpose? Secondly there is the case of the f's. I know earlier in the semester we talked about silent f's, but to my memory that was a double f and not a single. The use of these f's appear to me intentional and I am curious as to their significance grammatically and maybe even politically.

I found this particularly intriguing, because I wonder if it was the rebels idea for Elizabeth to pay rent or if she implanted or suggested the idea herself and proposed it as a win win situation. From what I have read so far Elizabeth isn't only smart but also well informed. I also found the concept of paying rent interesting, because I don't believe that she (or women) worked so where would she get the money to pay rent? Since she was paying rent on a house that now belonged to the rebel army I was surprised to find that she didn't Quarter as many soldiers as the other women we have read had.

I found this passage to be interesting because it put quartering and looting into perspective. For almost the whole class I had a huge issue with the looting and selling off of property by the rebels. I thought that it was cruel to rip families from their homes, for just the sake of doing it due to their loyalist ties. However, after reading this paragraph I have some perspective and don't think of the rebels as badly as I did before. The reasons that are given for looting and seizure make sense from a economic view and their actions no longer seem like unwarranted cruelty. There was a method to the madness.

I find that the biggest difference between Morris and the other women writers we have read, especially Galloway, is that Morris is exceedingly and oddly optimistic. Although she is surrounded on all side my battles, death, and plundering she still manages to be chipper and look on the bright side. I don't think this is attributed to her religion, because based on other Quaker literature I have read it is rather gloomy and at times pessimistic. This then makes me wonder why she is so positive in a time when Quakers were being persecuted and people that she knew were dying and being made homeless. I think Morris is a great example of a strong and independent woman who will do what she needs to, in order to protect her family and herself. I also believe that she is being so optimistic for her sisters sake, which only adds to her strength.

I think it is interesting that she has this strong desire to stay neutral yet has such detailed notes about the current state of the revolution. This makes me think that she either is untrue to her neutral claim and could actually be sneakily sending these letters under the disguise of her sister and it is actually the rebels that are receiving the letters, or she just has a deep interested in politics which would be very un-Quaker like. Even though the disguised letter theory is a bit far fetched I can't imagine that no woman during the revolution didn't do something like that. Has you come across any letters that were actually spy letters written by women?

Throughout the Dairy Morris is far more honest and direct with hoe she is feeling. When she is happy or sad there is almost always a given reason for her feeling a certain way. I wonder what is the difference between her and the other diary writers that causes such a different writing style. I mean these women had a lot in common especially Fisher, Drinker, and Morris, being Quakers. It is very interesting to see that these three women who experiences the American Revolution and were in similar situations and areas, practicing the same religion, have such different styles of writing as well as different approaches to describing the revolution.

Thus far it is clear that Morris is a descriptive writer and her long entries are full of flowery language and descriptions. That being said although she writes more I actually feel that she is saying less then Galloway or Fisher. Although their entries were brief and less detailed they said more by doing so. I think that there is power in word choice and choosing the right words can be far more empowering than filling pages upon pages with your thoughts. It also occurred to me that Morris may have had more time to commit to her diary than the others, seeing how detailed and long her entries are. This makes me wonder about why that is and what that could possibly mean.

I see here what you were saying in class about Morris being poetic. Although this is just a taste I fell that I may enjoy Morris' style the most. Although Galloway's bluntness was entertaining her wording wasn't very flowery or descriptive even when describing her ailments. With Morris I feel that she will not only give us detail with her any illness but she will really paint a clear picture of her life which I am looking forward to. I am also interested in the different way that Morris may end up targeting ones sympathy with her poetic phrasing. The comparison and contrast between Morris and the other writers we have read is going to be very interesting.

Oddly enough I think that this first sentence is actually really important. I have done a lot of research about siblings, specifically about the birth order and how it affects personality and other aspects of ones life. The fact that Margaret Morris is the eight child but sixth daughter is going to be a factor and something I will keep in the back of my mind while reading her diary. There have been studies done about children who are from large families that suggest that birth order can significantly effect someone's personality and overall life, and those coming from large families are more likely to feel these effects. It will be very interesting reading the diary as a whole knowing this information.

I think this passage serves as a good example of Fisher's Quakerism and how she had not alliance with either side. I believe that she looked at her husband's capture and imprisonment as a deed done by bad men not as political. She is oddly well informed, which is both impressive and suspicious. How she comes across such specific information is unclear to me, but what information she does give is in regard to both sides. She uses sympathetic language when talking about wither side and their loses. I think it is admirable the way she can be so constant in her beliefs despite all the ways it has affected her so far both negatively and positively.

When Fisher is ailing she is very specific about the kind of ailment and what is is directly from, where as with Galloway it was a vague illness and never really clear what has caused it. I also find that Fisher's distress is more warranted than Galloway's, because the familiar letters between her and her husband are so strong that Fisher actually has a relationship with er husband making the separation difficult. With Galloway there never seemed to be the yearning for the husband or the husband wife relationship. Fisher is also seemingly optimistic. Although her husband was taken from her she finds solace in her husband's efforts for justice. I think Fisher will be just as fun to read as Galloway, but the fun stuff will be harder to find.

Based upon these few excerpts from Fisher I can already see a big difference in their approach to diary writing. Fisher strikes me as less sympathetic and more detail oriented, which contrasts with Galloway's heavy sympathetic style. I think the stylistic differences seen thus far could be attributed to the differing religions of these two women. Fisher being a Quaker could indeed heavily effect her writing style as well as the content of said letters, which I find very interesting. In Galloway's diaries we didn't see much of her connection to religion which offers up an interesting contrast. I am very interested by the possibility that a person's religion can shape how a person writes, not only the content that is recorded but the language that is used.

I love this description for some reason. I can already see the contrast in the style of Fisher verse Galloway. Although it is only the introduction the approaches to introducing the characters that are involved is very different. Where as Galloway's introduction felt more structured and biographical. Fisher's introduction feels more informal and more like a short story. There is a picture being painted for the reader with Fisher's characters where as in Galloway, to my knowledge, there were little to no descriptions of characters.

I wouldn't trust Debby as far as I could throw her. Lashaun and I were talking about Debby and her sketchiness and Lashaun said that she suspected Debby was poisoning Galloway, because after every meal with Debby Galloway would write about not feeling well. Genius! I totally think that is actually happening. I think that there is some hidden drama between Debby and Galloway that maybe Galloway isn't even aware of and Debby is out for revenge. Though Debby is turning out to be a shitty friend I don't hate her, I actually support her. I find it hard to like Galloway and feel sympathy for her, and I don't know why. Most likely it is because I know too much about her and how privileged and entitled she acts. I don't blame Debby for possibly wanting Galloway to be knocked down a few pegs. I feel like all that Debby wants to tell Grace is, 'Life is hard! This is many peoples reality and you've actually got it way better than a lot of other people, so sit down eat your dinner and shut up.'

So the mention of tea once again has me thinking that there is more to just tea time than originally thought. In Part 2 drinking tea is mentioned a total of 13 times, and Part 2 is definitely where Galloway must endure far more than Part 1. Despite her being sick and having financial issues she still has time for a causal cup of tea? I don't think so. I think that "drinking tea" has to be code for something, and I have a few theories. I think that it could be letter exchanges, because Galloway was starting to get paranoid with the committee possibly reading her letters. It could also be political talks, or another possibility could be black market dealings.

The mention of drinking tea in this diary has left me thinking very deeply and questioning whether or not it is a code. I do know that drinking tea is a cultural norm however instances of drinking tea are a constant throughout and even as things got harder it seemed there was always time for tea. I think that there maybe a hidden meaning behind 'having tea' and it might be code for talking about politics or things like that . I just find it hard to believe that the mention of drinking tea with others is a notable log in a diary such as hers. I reminds me a lot of the diary entry we looked at in the beginning of the semester about the death of a woman's child. The insignificant things were actually telling us that there is more there than meets the eye, or in this case the page.

I thought this particular passage to be interesting because of the strong representation of the male dominated society during the American revolution. When the council was explaining to Mrs. Galloway the position she is in, in terms of her estate, they say that exceptions would/could be made if 'children be born'. This would be good news however they go on to say, "then for his life", which basically says, yeah you can keep all of your stuff but, your husband has to either magically reappear or you have to have a son. Either way there must be a male, but later during a meeting with the community they offer Mrs. Galloway a choice, via swearing an oath. This made me kind of laugh because I thought to myself briefly, so does that mean she can pass for a man?

This section hit me really hard due to the word choice to describe a woman's position in society. This outlines the harsh reality of women and underlines men's position while at the same poking fun at it, which I love. I like the playful terminology that is often used by the author, like "creative fertility". It is a crazy idea that women are only revered and acknowledge for the success that her offspring achieve. However they are also shamed and criticized when their child turns out disfigured or just end up being a bad apple. The responsibility is not shared between parents, it seems blame always befalls a wife.

I honestly laughed out loud when I read this. I thought her word choice of fortunate, to describe the blacklist of a husband, was a moment where one could really see the authors voice. I also found that there is a common theme thus far in the readings, which is contradiction. There are many contradictions within the American Revolution, and all were not between men and women. An example would be Rebel soldiers who fight for freedom from tyranny are themselves tyrants to the loyalists who were in the country. This kind of contradiction is seen in this passage with the wives who were men's property but once the husbands worth goes down oddly her's goes up.

I really did not like this certain line in the piece. I know that they are fighting for their freedom and are being oppressed by the British but they call themselves "civil society" but are going to resort to violence and borderline torture. How can justice be born from more wrong doing? And the last phrase "O rare American Freedom", Is that what they are fighting for? To be able to openly condemn whom ever they choose? This however is a vicious cycle for all of humanity, and continually repeats itself. Here is is the colonists and the British/loyalists, then is was the blacks and whites, and now we have grudge matches with several nations. I think that this attitude is poison and will only spread more aggression and intolerance.

I am always interested with authors word choice, whether it is conscious or unconscious decision. The word "force" to describe how the Non-consumption Agreement will be put in place shows a lack of objectivity and connecting to what Noah said about appealing to a particular audience, in this instance the farmers. This passage is interesting to me because the author turned a general fact into more of a informed opinion by changing a single word. This for me is a good example of the power words can have, which was very important during this time. What you called yourself defined your allegiance and it was words on parchment that solidified the nation.

Here in these lines I love how the author takes a minuet and basically tells the reader, 'Listen. I'm not going to write a bunch of slander but I am going to write something that may stray from convention and may have the potential to piss someone off... so sorry in advance.' So amazing! I love this kind of direct contact with the reader, especially in pieces like this because it makes me feel more apart of the argument by making it feel like a conversation. Alot of the time it is encouraged not to break the fourth wall, but in instances like this when you are trying to have a constructive argument addressing the reader pulls the reader in far better and engages a person making them feel apart of the conversation.

In this passage I think it is really interesting how this opinion has carried it's way over the years. This to me shows that the the world has not changed as much as the past generations had hoped. There are still places that struggle with freedoms and those who have said freedoms are either abuse it or don't apply it. The abuse can be seen in the media and the hate group organizations that are both free to say what they please and people must listen. The same can be said for those who do not vote, because they feel that their vote doesn't matter. It is interesting to see that the country has kind of plateaued in certain areas.

After reading the entirty of this essay this opening sentence left a deep impression on me. When first learning about writing critical essays and even up until now teachers and professors alike urge students to use these rules and blueprints for formulating openings to papers. Here Paine doesn't use an anecdote, concession, quotation, or paradox; he is simple honest and says straightforward, saying that I will give you what you want and it will be hard for you to find fault in it because I will be giving you facts and common sense in my argument.

I found this passage extremely compelling. The scorned lover comparison really paints a picture while also depicting the ever challenging road of criticism and how arguments are never so simple and conclusions and compromises are not always reached. I also loved his comment on humanity and how he used that to create a potential unity between opposing sides of arguments and discussions.