These lines remind me of Fergusson's pleading for pardon in her letter to the public and in her petition to get her house back. It seems like she is constantly apologizing, and blaming her gender for her mistakes. We have seen her use this same tactic in previous readings we have done. In her letter to the public and petition for her house, it seems to me that she has a clear goal in mind, to regain her estate and clear her name. In that instance I feel like she is using the notion of the day, that women are weak and stupid, to her advantage and saying that she's just a women and she knows she has no place in politics in order to win over her audience by telling them what they want to hear. Its a little different here because this piece wasn't written in the attempts of achieving a specific goal, so it feels like a more authentic look into what Fergusson was thinking and feeling. It makes me wonder if she felt herself to be the cause of all of her problems. I feel like she blamed herself for her husband leaving her as well as for almost losing her family's estate. She lived through some very difficult times and I think they definitely had a major impression on who she was as a person.

It does not surprise me at all that The Deserted Wife would be described this way. The events which inspired this poem, mainly Fergusson's husband abandoning her, but also all of the occurrences that lead up to that moment, seem to be reflected in the manner in which the poem is written. Fergusson's husband's frequent absences and eventual infidelity, the seizure of her home and belongings followed by her battle to regain her estate, her entanglement in charges of misprision of treason, her loss of her prominent status and also most of her friends, and all of the back and forth of blaming and letters and published letters and finger-pointing that went on as she tried to fix her tarnished reputation certainly made this time in Fergusson's own life very rambling and difficult to follow. I have difficulty following along just with the timeline of when all of these events occurred and when which letters where sent to whom or published in what newspapers. It seems very fitting that the poem she writes after all of this madness has turned her life upside down would be written in a manner just as chaotic as the events themselves.

Fergusson uses similar tactics in all her letters. Over and over again she attempts to gain the sympathies of those she is appealing to in the hopes they will see that she was placed in a bad situation and feel for her. Since she doesn't have any real power as a woman, I think it is smart for her to play one of the only cards she has and go after their sympathy. I also think it was interesting how she uses the words "exhibited" and "common news paper." It seems like she is trying to liken what has been done to her to the actions of prostitutes. She says she was exhibited, which has a sexual undertone, as if she was stripped of her honor and social status the same way a prostitute would be stripped of her clothes. She also says "common news paper" reminding them that she is not a common woman, she is a woman of great social standing and status. Her rhetoric shows that Fergusson was an intelligent woman and she knew what she was doing when writing these letters.

Fergusson uses a very specific and powerful metaphor here. Knowing that it is a time of war and war like images will be fresh in many people's minds, she choses to liken her situation to that of a solider stuck in an open field while his enemy is able to fire on him easily. It was a very smart choice of rhetoric for Fergusson to use during this time because so many people would be able to relate to the image she has created whether they themselves have been involved in the war or their family members or friends have been; it would be very likely that anyone reading this would at least know someone who was fighting in the war. I think it is smart of her to try to get people to view her in a similar light as a defenseless solider because it may give people a better understanding of what she is going through by comparing it to something they could easily relate to.

"It therefore became natural for a woman, not exempted from the timidity of her sex..."

I think it is interesting that we have seen arguments similar to this one in multiple readings that we have done. More than once have we seen women argue that they have acted in certain ways or need to be granted certain sympathies because of the weakness of their sex. I know that women in this time period truly believed that they were of a less powerful gender and that being a women was limiting. However it seems to me that perhaps some of the women using this argument were fully aware of what they were doing. They knew that men, especially men in power, would be more likely to agree with their requests if they based their arguments in the fact that they were weak women who needed their husbands to support them. I feel like it is definitely possible that Fergusson knew exactly what she was doing by appealing to the beliefs of the time period and using the ideas society had about women to her own advantage, which proves that women were a lot smarter than people gave them credit for.

Morris's diary is making me laugh more that any of the other ones we have read so far. She just seems to put so much of her personality into her writing. I wonder if this is because she is writing to her sister, and so she writes as if she is speaking directly to her, jokes and all. The way she talks with so much playfulness is a real indication of how close she was with her sister. Morris comments on the war very openly when, being a women, this would have been frowned upon. That indicates to me that she really trusts her sister and feels comfortable being totally unguarded when writing to her. I think its also worth nothing here that she says she "[hopes] privately that he will not escape." The use of the word private here is kind of interesting because she is hoping privately but writing in a semi public space, her diary which will be sent to her sister and possibly even intercepted and read but unintended audiences. She has taken her private, inward thoughts and made them public by putting them on the page which feeds into how blurred the lines could be between public and private spheres.

The entry for this day is interesting because it doesn't read at all like a diary entry, it reads like a story. It is clear that she is writing for an audience (her sister) and doesn't simply want to tell her what is going on and how the family is doing, usual day to day stuff, but rather wants to entertain Patty by recounting exciting stories. The way she uses direct quotes makes me wonder if everything she says is entirely true. I feel like she wouldn't be able to remember what was said word for word like that unless she wrote it down immediately after the conversation took place. Nevertheless it's cool to see that she is having fun with her diary and share some of the excitement of her current situation with her sister by telling her these stories. She seems at least here almost more like an author than a diarist.

This reminds me of what we had talked about earlier in the semester about how people would sometimes apologize at the beginnings of their letters for them not being perfect, since letter writing was such a big deal. She seems to want to let her sister know that the materiality of the letter may be a little sub par, maybe her writing was messy or her message was rushed, because she didn't have a lot of time to write it as she says. She also makes sure to say that even though she has so little time she really wanted to make sure to get some news out to her sister, indicating that their relationship was important to her and she truly cared about her. Its cool to see concepts we talked about pop up in different letters that we read.

The term Indian File is something we say occasionally in the US today as another way of saying single-file. Although it's pretty obvious it has something to do with Native Americans it's origin has been lost to most people and it's said out of habit like so many phrases. It came about as a way of describing the way Native Americans walked when they were on an expedition, one right after the other in a long line. They would walk perfectly on top of the person in front of their footsteps so that anyone who happened to be following them would be unable to tell how many of them there were. Its kind of cool to see this term being used right around the time it entered the language when its meaning was likely still more well-known rather than today where it's just a phrase lost in time.

source: http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/brewers/indian-file.html

This seems pretty selfish of Richard to me. I can understand why he needed to leave in order to make some money and redeem his embarrassment but was it really necessary for him to take his wife with him while leaving his children behind? The only reasons I can see him needing his wife with him are to keep him company and have sex with him or to take care of wherever they were going to be living. I feel like it would have been better for the whole family if he had allowed his wife to stay behind and take care of the children rather than leave them in the care of his 16 year old daughter. This was unfair to both Hannah and the rest of the children - she wasn't really old enough for that kind of responsibility and they all needed their mother.

I feel like this line just goes to show that Richard made a damaging choice in separating his wife and children. It is not at all surprising to me that Hannah never had any children. She had already been forced to raise 6 of them when she was still basically a child herself. This must have been extremely overwhelming and stressful for her. Managing 6 children is a huge responsibility and it seems it put her off of the idea of ever having her own children- bringing up her siblings was enough. I can't really be certain she chose not to have children, though, since she lived in a time before birth control. There could have been other factors preventing her from getting pregnant, but it really seems a decision that would stem from her already having had to play the role of mother.

It's interesting that the October 21st entry is so brief feels and insignificant and rushed, like she was just in a hurry to write something down for the day. But then, the very next day, October 22nd, she writes a longer passage about movements of the army the day before. She talks about what she saw in detail, saying how many men there were, what they were doing and whose command they were under. I wonder why she didn't write about this the day it happened and instead only wrote about what she bought for food that day? Could she have been scared the Rebel army would attack and get their hands on her diary? Or was she maybe too distracted and preoccupied with the armies moves to have written about them the day they happened? It's just strange to me that she has an entry for the day of this event but she doesn't mention it until the next day.

I think this line goes to show that Fisher's husband embodies a lot of what it means to be a quaker. In accordance with the practice of quakerism, he seems to be remaining pacifistic even after being wrongly imprisoned. To lash out against the authorities who put him there, though understandable, would be going against his religious ideals. His ability to keep himself calm and composed during this trying time may have something to do with the understanding of the power of silence quakerism would have taught him. Though sitting in prison now, he would have learned through his religious practice how to basically meditate for long periods of time from the quakers' belief in quietism. This practice would be useful to him in this situation as it would allow him to take a step back from what was happening and not act out impulsively, but rather keep calm.

In a time where women where woman were not able to do much more than take care of their families, it is not surprising that being separated from a husband would be catastrophic for a woman whose family was basically her entire world. I think it is interesting that this painful time in her life is when Sarah decided to start keeping her diary. It seems like writing was a way of coping with stress and pain for women who didn't have many places to turn. Writing, even just about day to day life, was an outlet and a voice for silenced women. I think it is kind of beautiful that women like Sarah were able to focus their energy into keeping these diaries as a way of almost getting around the restrictions put on them. They were not supposed to have a voice but they managed to find one anyway, and now we have so much insight into what life was like during this time because of the words they left behind for us.

This line is a little confusing to me. The Patriots were absolutely carrying out violent acts during the Revolution, but the British army were not exactly a peaceful and harmless group either. The Revolution was, after all, a war, and wars tend to be bloody on both sides. I can see why a man who "abhorred violence" would want nothing to do with the Revolution at all and would try to keep his distance from anything pertaining to the war, but Fisher does not really remain a pacifist if he is sympathizing with the British. By laying your sympathies with one side over another during a war, you are essentially involving yourself in the war. I don't think it is fair to say that because he hated violence Fisher's loyalty remained with England when the British were committing the same kinds of violent acts as the the Rebels were. War is war no matter which side you take.

I feel as though these lines attest to Grace's character. She is often complaining that she has no friends and that nobody cares about her troubles or is willing to listen to her talk about them. Yet here she is, whining that her visitors are too talkative and it pains her to listen to them speak. She even admits to treating one visitor, Polly, coldly on purpose to get her to leave her alone. For someone that claims to have no friends, Grace seems to have an awful lot of visitors. This one entry mentions four separate callers. She goes as far as to say she is "unfortunate to be obliged to hear such stupid people talk." Grace seems to be constantly pitying herself and wallowing in her lack of friendships, yet if this is how she treats her visitors I can't really blame people for not wanting to see her.

Even though I know from class discussions that letters were often public documents, it has been hard for me to really understand this concept since for me, a 21st century woman, a hand-written letter would likely be very personal. These lines make this idea of letters being public easier to grasp. Grace takes the letters around with her on her visits to her friends and reads them out loud to them, even though the contents would likely have little to do with anyone other than Grace. Her happiness to hear about her family's well-being is acknowledged by her friends in their listening to the letters; they show their affection to Grace through their willingness to hear her read about her daughter and husband. It also goes to show how much love Grace has for child. She refers to her husband only as J.G. but to her daughter as "my dearest child," though she is happy to hear from both of them and eager to share their news with her friends. This indicates that while she does have positive feelings towards her husband, displayed by her excitement to read the letters, she has a much greater love for her daughter, whom she speaks of more often and more kindly, and refers to in a loving manner rather than in mere initials.

The Church of Christ's Second Coming is also commonly called The United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing. As their name states, they believed that Christ had returned a second time as their founder, Ann Lee. They believed very firmly in being completely celibate. Because of this celibacy, they depended heavily on the conversion of outsiders to their religion in order to expand as they could not reproduce and raise their own children under their beliefs. They also took in orphans commonly and raised them as Shakers. They were pacifists and also supported gender and racial equality. The Shakers believed they needed to separate from society and create their own utopian world. The Shakers got their name from onlookers who watched them shake and tremble during services in an attempt to physically shake off sin and evil.

source: http://hancockshakervillage.org/shaker-history-faqs/

continues onto the next page to say "any laws in which we have no voice or representation." I was unable to highlight across two pages

This line jumped out at me right away because it is an exact echo of the complaints of the Patriots against the British. Rebels believed that they were continuously treated unjustly by the British, who were using their power to take advantage of the weaker colonies. They heavily stressed the issue of their being required to pay taxes that they had no say in as they were not represented in the British Parliament. This sentiment lead to the popular anti-British phrase "no taxation without representation." The Rebels issued complaints to the British about these problems, informing them that if they were not granted their freedom, they would fight for it. This passage, relaying Abigail Adams words, shows that women were in the exact same position against men as the Rebels were against the British. Being forced to adhere to laws which they were barred from creating or even participating in discussion about, as well as being placed under full control of husbands who were able to use their power to manipulate their wives, their children and their wives property, puts women in the exact same position as the Rebels. It is ironic that people like John Adams would be supportive of the revolution yet would ignore the parallel plights of women and even be in favor of their treatment as lesser beings than men. It seems to me that a lot of men felt that poor treatment could only be deemed unfair if it was happening to them.

Here Seabury uses a very smart tactic to bring the farmers into agreement with himself; he gives them a common enemy separate from Congress. By bringing up the selfishness of merchants, who's honor he had questioned earlier in the piece, Seabury is working to pit the farmers against the merchants by making it seem like the later are intentionally and unjustly using the exportation laws to their own advantage since buyers will be forced to pay whatever they ask for goods once importation becomes impossible. He is also moving the blame a little bit away from Congress. I wonder if he does this intentionally in an attempt to sway those farmers who are for the Revolution into agreeing with him but showing them that the importation laws have nothing to do with Patriotism and everything to do with the greed of another group. This would make any Revolutionary farmers question their support of Congress.

Throughout most of this piece, especially in this paragraph, Seabury is using fear tactics to get what he wants. He speaks to the farmers directly, so that as they read the piece they will really feel that he is speaking to them personally. He wants them to be able to envision themselves in the situations he is proposing they will be in when the exportation laws are in place. Seabury states that this is not just a possibility but "almost an absolute necessity," in order to further scare the farmers into agreeing with him. He goes on to list the events which will follow the laws and explain how they will hurt the farmers income and livelihood. His hope is that the farmers will become increasingly worried about their abilities to survive once their trade is harmed and will in turn assist in protesting the exportation laws and refrain from supporting Congress.

Leather aprons were the attire worn by the working class, people who held jobs as laborers and craftsmen; men of high status, the upper class, would not wear these aprons. The term refers to the common, everyday people who are trying to make ends meet. The term "Leather Apron Men" was used by Benjamin Franklin in his Silence Dogood letters in an attempt to turn the once insulting notion into something to be proud of. To wear a leather apron was to work hard and be skilled in a craft.

[https://muse.jhu.edu/article/548873/pdf]

I found this statement to be particularly interesting because it seems we have not moved past this way of thinking in the modern day. Here, the author is expressing his frustration with citizens who are afforded the right to vote yet do not act on that right. This leads to elected officials who do not represent the majority of the people's wishes; it allows for the few to decide for the many since the many do not seem to care. Today, we see this problem in most elections, even the presidential elections. So many people simply choose not to vote or find their right to vote surrounded by so many obstacles that they give up and their voice goes unheard. In a nation which prides itself on freedom and the right to choose, it is surprising and discouraging that so many citizens remain silent during elections. It is interesting to see that this is a longstanding issue, even during colonial times.

Here, Paine's word choice is careful and deliberate. He chooses the word "friend" to build an intimate relationship with the reader. Upon being addressed in this friendly manner, the reader begins to feel a connection Paine, a sense of togetherness. This relationship between reader and author is imperative to the trust Paine hopes to instill in his readers. He wants his audience to like and trust him so that they will be more open and willing to consider his ideas. A friend is someone who looks out for you and your well being, someone who has your best interests at heart. Paine is using this term in the hopes that his readers will see him as a trusted friend and be more likely to agree with what he is saying.

Here Paine is referring to the Seven Years War, which took place between 1756 and 1763. The war grew out of high tensions between Austria and Prussia and resulted in the creation of various alliances, bringing much of Europe into the conflict. France allied itself with Austria, and Britain with Prussia. In 1757 the French army invaded the Electorate of Hanover, which was under the control of Great Britain. British and Hanoverian forces fought against the attack.

Paine is using the invasion of Hanover as a warning to the colonists that they are likely to face a similar fate should they remain under the control of Great Britain. While under her control, the colonies will be the enemies of all of Britain's enemies, though they will not have any involvement in the making of those enemies. They will therefore be subject to the threats of wars they could have avoided by cutting ties with Great Britain. While British forces may assist them during these hardships, as they did for Hanover, they will only be working to protect themselves; the colonies do not need protection from Britain's enemies if they are not a part of Britain.

[http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_sevenyears.html])