The grief of the revolution was obviously affecting everyone. People were struck with internal and external pain. There was chaos brewing all around, paranoid people struck to the ground. These two lines exclaim how people’s homes and bodies were being destroyed inside and out. Fergusson does another wonderful job expressing how people were feeling during this time. She expresses the feeling as a general wound to all of the public. This expresses how truly agonizing the revolution was to all sides and all people. Overall, throughout this poem Fergusson does a great job expressing the heart stricken grief of the revolution.

My jaw dropped when I read this line of the poem. I was astounded that people had these thoughts while this was all going on. Fergusson summed up colonization of America in one beautiful line. The whole idea that people are racing to dwell in this area and control it, is what she expressed here. This is the whole concept we were all blind to growing up in schools. We never really talked about the truth of the colonization of America until college. Prematurely I have had grasped early thoughts about this concept in middle school. This is the best way to explain the struggle of the new world, people had to deal with the terror of this every day. First, Natives were stripped of their lands. Second, Europe began to fight over who controls this land. Finally, the colonies claim this land and fight for it (Britain). This ties back into the title of the poem “The Deserted Wife” because it gives an example of one of the struggles people have faced because of this race for land. She was deserted and on the brink of the rebels wanting to claim her land.

The devotion Elizabeth Ferguson had showed for the rebels is portrayed beautifully here by herself. Fergusons café was the Athens of North America and people respected how she composed it. Henry, her husband, was an absolute buffoon and put her property into jeopardy. He was very selfish but still the man. The man obviously having the rights to everything back in those days. Elizabeth did everything right, except relay a few treasonous letters, that still didn’t mean she didn’t played a huge part in the revolution. Washington knew that she did along with everyone in the community. She is reminding everyone that she was just being fair and did not mean to hinder the revolution like Henry did.

Johnstone never had a chance to reason with Sir Joseph Reed. His words can never be trusted since he spoke with reasoning to reconstruct with the crown. The stage of paranoia that anyone had during this time was expressed through Reeds words here. He did not want to lose his sense of devotion and trustworthiness to the cause. He wanted to be known as an honest fighter not a Benedict Arnold. Furthermore, paranoia of being labeled as something that you weren’t and the treatment that went along with it is what caused Reed and Washington to publicize these letters. Overall, they felt to sincere to the cause and did not want to ruin what they stood for, they did not want to betray the people of the cause.

A very subtle yet powerful note of her actions. She showed how she was loyal to the revolution and not the crown. She shows that even when speaking with a loyalist she is not afraid to express that she stands behind the revolution. Out of this whole letter this stood out to me the most. It was such a subtle and separated reference, showing her thought process but was very impactful. She really showed that she did respect the cause and the effort.

When I read this I thought about how it relates to modern day America. When Duche’s letters was read by congress they activated this bill to be put into place. This law can be very dangerous because it would give the government and all its entities the right to steal for personal gain. This law creates safety for the rebels but creates corruption within the government. Furthermore, it can be used to take advantage of innocent people. This reminded me of the Patriot Act that was passed right after 9/11. The fact that ourselves or belongings can be confiscated without warrants.

This nonchalant statement withholds the elements of a “classic.” My definition of a classic is a concept that is universal throughout all of time. Public opinion was largely contrasting this sentence that was given to these two innocent men. Overall, public opinion was out weighing a lot of governments rule during this time. We have seen this when people were stripped of their houses, or charged with nonsense crimes. This has happened then and it is happening now. We have seen this now through a popular Netflix show, Making a Murder. This just goes to show how we share the same ideals as they did.

Morris has a superb sense of humor. Earlier in the letter-journal, The Gondola men were going to shoot her house because a candle was lit. She did not find this out till the next day when she approached them. She took this conflict as gods’ intervention in her favor. Later in the letter journal, she throws in this line ever so casually but makes one snicker. She is making fun of how stupid those men sounded. Why would they possibly harm an unknown person, defiantly assumed and never identified? She was mocking how stupid that ordeal with the men seemed. This could have spoken volumes on the Revolution in a whole. She thought of it as pointless and was tired of being unsafe. The way she played the joke was wondrous to hear but heartbreaking, even if, she copes by letting nothing phase her. She seems to have the motto “life is not that serious.” That is why I enjoy her sense of humor because it is kind of how I handle things.

A comical visualization of this playing out came into my head. The man was freaking out from the beginning of his announcement to the town. Then Morris was thinking, “you don’t scare me” and then proceeds to justify why they won’t plunder them. A little ways down she even acknowledges that her sister and herself never become frightened by such things. They love that quality about themselves. The part of this brain-scene that had the corner of my lips pinned towards my ears was when the man ran home after his declaration. When the man ran home he frantically snatched all of his valuables, putting them in a crate or bag. The man then grabbed a shovel and began digging. He dug and dug, until, he hit china. He picked up the crate that withholds all of his life’s safe keeping, kissed it and put it in the ground. Thanks for telling us that they would bury all of their safe keeping's when they believed they would be plunder. Sublime mind in time. (Well, that ending line was weird, but I just thought it sounded nice to end this laughable scene that played out behind my eyes.)

The passage on December 11th was four whole pages long. The first time I have seen a very long entry in the journals we have studied. Morris is very detailed in her account, making me question its credibility. I am not saying that she is a liar, but for her to produce such a detailed account seems supernatural. The only explanation that I can make of this is that she had help in retelling the account of what had happened with the Hessians coming to town. The doctor was profoundly mentioned in this passage. This makes me think that he had helped her in creating this entry. She was so specific on the accounts the doctor had with the Hessians that it is the only logical explanation. Additionally, one can assume that she satirized this passage of what had happened. Why would she do this? She may do this because her entries could have been directed toward an audience, showing the drama and anguish that went on during her stay by the Delaware.

At first, this came off as a simplistic thought that deemed no importance when I read it over the first time. Then when I read this over the second time it struck an emotional cord in my brain. I felt for Morris in this line because it shows that she is tired of all of the drama and agony. I mean that each day new problems arise that are heart trembling and each day ends in remorse for what that day had brought. This line identifies how tiresome the war was for everyone. It shows how worrying, pain and stress are taking a toll on everyone’s conscience. Overall, each problem has its own individuality but they all in all are the same, bringing anguish upon civilians.

The reoccurring theme of the diaries that we have read so far “Women being alone at home and suppressed in society.” It really makes me feel sorry for the horrible treatment women faced during this era. It has put my perspective into place and makes me beyond grateful for the life that I live. The most interesting thing I have noticed is how the different characters deal with these troubles. We saw Galloway as a drama queen that acts insane. Then we saw on the opposite of the spectrum, Drinker, a very prominent and self-sustaining women. I am anxious to see what Morris will handle the horrible treatment of this era. I will make an assumption that she might be a in massive depression and use medicine to help her escape.

Why did she live so long if she was around disease for so much of her life? Margaret was always around sickness because she was a modern day doctor. The introduction identifies that at one time she treated 30 small pox patients. Margaret lived to age seventy-nine. This is very old for this time period with all diseases being spread around because of the horrible sewage and poor hygiene. We have seen a plentiful amount of illnesses. I have always annotated them because I amazed with their practice of treatments to illnesses. I want to make an assumption that Margaret lived to such an old age because she practiced good medicine. Additionally, she was immune to disease because she faced it all the time.

When I see how much pain Fisher suffers from not having her husband around, Galloway and her troubles come to my mind. Why would women miss their husbands so much if they were taking part in this white male dominate society? Yes, Fisher may have been a Quaker and all people are supposed to be treated equally. I understand that but regardless, she did not have as much power as him. I think Galloway and Fisher are similar because they share the feeling of being abandoned. Fisher’s husband always is traveling and Galloway’s husband fled without her. The only logical reason why they hold on to them is because it’s the only thing they have that can provide for them. Men depended on women running the house as much as women depended on men for providing for them. I feel as if men acted tough around men but when around there wives they “buttered them up.” Those are the reasons why I think these two women were so upset when their husbands weren’t around, even though, they partook in this misogynistic society.

She has been doing things that are on the edge of what it means to be a Quaker. She takes a side when she first refers to the English as her country men. She then starts to help the Hessians, reassuring me that she defiantly took a side on the war. The war was the cream of the crop of gossip and everyday life during this era. How can a Quaker truly be true to the rules that they are meant to follow? How can this relate to the revolution and the rebel based ideas for their new country? I believe that it is nice to practice things but all people are hypocritical, nothing in this world, then and now are practical. People were so overwhelmed with the war, it was all they breathed. The concepts of being a Quaker are enlightening but she does not practice most of them. She even takes breaks from journaling periodically, an action that is supposed to be holy to the soul. Quakers are supposed to see the light in everyone and Fisher clearly hated the rebels. In my mind, Fisher is not a devout Quaker. This idea of being a hypocrite because of the events that warp our practices, take place in the early stages of Americana. We found our country on wanting to be equal and not be controlled by a dictator. Do we think that is what they actually created?

“to persuade their partner to convert, or; to marry before a priest, which would lead to 'disownment'” This is what Quakers had to do if they wanted to marry someone that was not a Quaker.. Could this marriage have been arranged for business and power purposes? I think that this a very likely theory from the information that I have read in this introduction and found in research. If this is the case then this would have caused for a very unhappy marriage and many wild events that will unfold in her diary. http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~engqfhs/Research/records.htm

Quakers were not supposed to take stances on the war or favor a side. The whole idea of “pacifism” is peace and nothing else, if one takes a stance or a side that means they are “little Eichmann’s.” Since the Fishers favored the British, they most likely took part in helping them in some way. Furthermore, they would be going against all they believe in, making them treasonous Quakers. I believe that the Fishers stayed royalists because they respected how wealthy they became from being under the rule of the King. Minimal information is portrayed in this introduction but this is my hypothesis. The Fishers were not true Quakers, they were loyalists that abused the Quaker religion to gain a profit. I cannot wait to read Sarah’s diary and find out her perspective on the matter.

One thing I will say about Galloway is that she is never scared to speak her mind. Obviously, it might piss people off by embarrassing or annoying them. She always spoke her mind, and I think that is why everyone mourned for her when she passed away. It is a seldom trait amongst all people, creating an envy to her personality. I wonder if Grace had this sass to her before everything went down. If she didn’t, I would assume that she gained it from people abandoning and turning on her as I talked about in my first annotation. Personally, I gained a lot of respect for her in this specific portion of the diary I pinpointed. She put Mr. Keen in his place, with her feelings of injustice and how she has would never respect their authority. She speaks her mind and it may be brutal but it is true. She has the right to express her opinion and feelings. The state is doing treating her inhumanely and for her to stand up and STILL use her voice is very admirable. She is one bad ass women whom never stopped using her voice. Even though, that is was oppressed by the white males.

If I was a doctor and diagnosed Galloway based off of her diary. I would conclude that she had a depression and an anxiety disorder. She seems to be very selfish and is always labeling people. Also, Galloway is mostly thinking negatively and expressing that throughout her journal. Some might say that her depression was caused by losing all of her assets and family. Losing things such as these can push anyone into depression. Galloway needs to work on coping with the negative space in her life. People then and people now are messed up in their own ways. Personally, I feel for her just like all of the other people that visit her. She expresses through her perspective that people are just using her and no one wants to help, but I don’t see it this way. I believe that people are trying to be her friend, always having tea with her. She is just pushing them away and characterizing most of them as “useless” or “stupid.” My hypothesis about why she acts this way is that she is scared to trust anyone. The two people she trusted (her daughter and JG) left her, which caused the decline of her health. Along with, her increasing hate of human beings.

Galloway expresses how she is emotionally broken down by the tragedy she faces. At first, she stands strong and appears that she will not go down easily. Grace exemplifies her strong will when she says that, only a bayonet will force her out of her house. In the matter of days, Graces’ perspective changes drastically. She has no hope in anyone or anything anymore. Optimism was swept from her heart, leaving it without blood. White males do this to women in similar or different events. Events entailing similar consequences to the heart and emotion of the suppressed. All were broken like shells in the sea. Yes, one may think that Grace brought this ordeal upon herself because of her decision to stay. In my eyes, Joseph should have stayed and protected her. He is an absolute coward, taking ownership to all of her inheritances but not protecting them. Also, not protecting his most important asset, Grace. Men alleged to look as if they were brave, noble or providers but were essentially cowards, liars and thieves. White males are what was wrong with the world then, suppressing the innocent for their personal power gain. Females and slaves just like Grace suffered broken hearts from the political and familiar turmoil that white males dictated.

Amazement is what came over my emotions when I read this excerpt. It really concreted a concept that I firmly believe in, "nothing changes but dates and times." Today, everything we watch, read and listen in the United States is completely biased to the United States. Thus, making me question is this bias good or bad. People needed this bias back then to get the motivation to separate from the crown. This can be seen as good for the independence of our nation, but bad in the eyes of humanity. This whole biased completely separated people and made them cause harm to each other. Who is to say that we were better off separating from the crown? Humanity should be the number one thing in people’s minds not money, materials or power. The concept that nothing changes but dates and times in my mind is only true because people let the media segregate people. We see this with the white cops vs. black, political races, fear of Muslims and et cetera. They are pushing us to take a side and go against each other. Furthermore, preoccupying us from what is really going on and being able to control us easier. They did this back in the 1700s, they put people against each other with this biased of the United States just so a certain few can gain power and become rich. As they do now, separating nations because of their wants and desires and separating the people to control them easier. As sensible moral beings, if we want history to stop repeating itself, we need to formulate our own opinions and not let the bias of the United States along with the media train our thinking.

Why are married women characterized and handled with ill-hearted integrity? Page four expresses, "Spinsters" (women unlikely to marry) and widows have legal rights but were not as financially stable. Obviously, stating that men supported themselves and their wives because white males were the only people given an opportunity to make an adequate income. Married women lived in the shadows of their husbands, or one can even refer to them as their "masters." Personally, I believe that married women were suppressed to the confinements of their home because men were physically stronger. Yes, in a sense this may sound ignorant but I see it as the only logical explanation. Men and women have one difference that would dictate who gets control over whom. Men had that edge of physicality and that's why they ruled over their wives so harshly. Did women of this time get repeatedly beaten by their husbands? Were all patriot and loyalist men this harsh to their women?

The ideas that passion of human nature are the same for each country during this time feels a little farfetched. I believe this because people were not treated equal during this time. Some countries were higher than others and some nations looked down on others. That is if we look at it in the sense that people care about each other regardless of race, religion or gender. If we look at it in the light that we all have the same desires, I still see it as not true. People from Native American cultures did not have a sense of ownership while Europeans did. I believe when it is pertained to this text Seabury believes that European cultures all have the same idea of how to prosper and succeed in this life. He is technically right, speaking about their ideas of trade, industry and the desire to survive.He can be pointing at that humans will do whatever to survive and if they suffer they will do whatever it takes to prosper. An example, taking revenge by raiding and fighting with America from suffering from trade restrictions with America. I still am on the edge about that idea the he proposed and cannot fathom what he really meant by this idea. I may be over thinking it but it is a generalized saying and I think that it can be interpreted in many different ways. Any thoughts on what Seabury meant?

This idea that we will suffer tremendously with the whole world was pretty accurate. Seabury is saying that if we hinder other countries progress, we will lose out big time in the end. Personally, I agree with Seabury regardless of what actually ended up happening. He thought rationally, it reminds me of the saying that "A rising tide lifts all the boats" -New England Council. Moreover, meaning that a well doing by each economy across the world is a better economy for each country. This idea seems to be pretty prevalent throughout Seabury's letter. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/230520/origin-of-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats

Cato is apologizing for what was said in Paine's letters. He justifies that the public is not wrong in their grievances but he is exclaiming that the public needs to check the ways they go about it. This rhetoric deems very effective because people are on edge. I think that Cato did not reach out to as many people as Paine did, and that is why his letters did not train people to think like him as effectively as Paine did. Most people during this time were irrational thinkers. All they can think about is separating from England.

When he uses this metaphor of comparing the kings followers to parasites it speaks to his true feelings on the loyalists. Furthermore, it spoke for all the people pleading independence during this time. It showed that anyone who opposes independence from England is a "parasite." Parasites to me are very unpleasant, clingy and dirty. Describing people as that speaks volumes and symbolizes the message of this text in all "rid the parasites". Referring to ridding England's control over America.

When I read this idea Paine had presented I thought of how it might relate to modern day. I thought of the question, Does the government "preserve the peace" in the United States today? Personally, I think that it does not because people do not seem to be happy with our government and each other. I hear many people complain about how they are fed up with resource wars, taxes and politics. Our government is not withholding the peace between us and them. They are becoming more controlling just like England. Paine has a more concrete and reasonable argument because England is far away and communication is scarce and twisted. There are many other prevalent problems in this era when Paine wrote this letter but the political lies today, do not stray too far away from their grievances then. Overall, I really think this idea of government withholding the peace can be compared and contrasted endlessly with modern day.