I find that I do not agree with this sentiment, at least at first or at least as a complete and inarguable truth. What we think in our own mind can sometimes (and can often be) faulty. Other times, our own thoughts are very true for our own sense of self and beliefs, but not for someone else, or even the majority. My experience is shaped as someone who has lived with OCD for my whole life, and the thoughts I have cannot always be trusted or true for myself, let alone for everyone else. I do think there is some truth to this idea, mostly that we can be most vulnerable with ourselves and understand what is true at a very deep level that others can then agree with once they hear it.

Why are we, as people, so burdened by what we are not?

I believe Emerson is saying that the past, the process of growth and nurturing our thoughts and selves, is not something to look back on with envy or pride. Perhaps it is a burden that we once were not enlightened, and we should see the present and the future as excellence and beyond. Let me know what you think (anyone)!

It must have been easier to feel this way considering the life Emerson was able to live, meanwhile others were not able to live such a life.

This reminds me of a discussion that has been happening in leftist spaces, essentially the question of: is it our job to educate those around us out of their bigotry, or can we cast them off because they may not or will not learn? I believe Emerson does not want to have to allow every person into his space, especially if he feels that the other person has not truly thought through their positions in a critical way the way he has. He has put in the work, therefore if he decides not to spend time with someone who has not nurtured or harvested their own thoughts, then he is under no obligation to open his doors to them.

This must have been controversial at the time. Even now (as someone who was raised as a fundamentalist christian) this idea that our own thoughts can be trusted to guide us in the right direction without sometimes needing to be challenged would probably be frightening to some.

Profits are best secured when you do not present yourself as controversial, and everyone within the company keeps things conformed to the expectation so that no one will be turned away and/or find something disagreeable. The more you identify as an individual, perhaps the less easy it is to advertise yourself and/or make money.

I wonder if Emerson is saying that while a boy can participate in critical analysis and criticism without much consequence (or fear of consequence), meanwhile once you have revealed yourself as an intellectual man you cannot go on pretending you are ignorant to the world around you, and each statement you make will be judged and recorded as an extension of yourself.

Emerson might be saying that as younger folk, we are far more likely to engage and criticize and not worry so much about the consequences that might become of us, especially were we to criticize our equals or those above us. A boy will judge without thought of reputation or other influences or motivations.

Nurturing and harvesting our thoughts, which are somewhat divine, will lead humanity into the light and away from the dark. This is in collaboration with what God has requested of us.

Engage with your thoughts, engage with the culture around you, the past and the present and the future.

It's almost like Emerson thinks of the mind as a garden which must be nurtured and harvested, requiring effort on our end within our own minds, otherwise we are essentially wasting bountiful harvests.

If you are to forward the agenda that God has asked of you, you cannot be passive with your own thoughts and pursuits.

Jealousy can come from a lack of understanding as to how one can achieve what others seem to have achieved.

Perhaps this is talking about how one might passively engage with art without criticism or analysis and assume it is meant to be received well or taken on good faith, and how the criticisms and analyses we suppress will inevitably be shared by others more willing to engage, and how that is in some ways a lost opportunity for our own development of thought.

This feels like a 'mindfulness' practice, something that is more and more encouraged nowadays in the public domain and in various therapies. Emerson is suggesting that we should not just passively think, but engage with, analyze, and build upon thought.

My interpretation of this is that when we truly accept how we are deep within, it will carry over into the way we outwardly live our lives and take action.

This school and reformer seemed particularly interested in 'gradual' abolition which would not cost the white farmers as they lost their free labor. This can be seen as a great way to keep white farmers on board with the eventual needed solution (ending slavery) or it could be seen as unfairly beneficial to those who had already used human labor to their benefit for some time with significant horrific consequences on the black people who were subjected to these systems.

This probably influenced how people felt about various political opinions, and how 'fair' they were. When the president is not seen as fairly elected, its easier to go against what they do.

This will influence how much writing we are able to see from white women in the upcoming years.

I didn't know this!

The era we are in will deal heavily with the constant debate over how much slavery the US 'should' have, a constant back and forth that takes a significant amount of time to swing in the right direction. I wonder how effective certain writings are at influencing public opinion towards an understanding of slavery being wrong.