Fergusson is of course speaking here of her husband being accused of treason and also being the father of a baby born to one of the Stedman's servants. It has always bothered me that she constantly writes about how she believes he is innocent of being treasonous, when it is so obvious that he is! She is too intelligent of a woman not to believe it. I think she writes about him being innocent because she needs to keep her estate and also keep her reputation clean and not be accused of being a loyalist like Henry. If she can prove he is not a loyalist, then she will be safe and also so will her home.

I think Fergusson's handwriting is something that is important to pay attention to. Why was is so bad, especially in her last great work? What caused her to have bad handwriting? She simply could have just always had bad handwriting, but her earlier works were legible enough to publish. I believe that the events she experienced through life took a toll on her health and as she approached death her ability to write properly was hindered. She went through, as earlier in the introduction said, a very tough marriage, accusations, her estate being taken away, etc. all while the revolution was happening. I think this caused her handwriting to suffer.

Yet again Elizabeth Fergusson mentions her place relative to the sphere of a woman in her rhetoric. In all three documents for today she mentions it. Is she being clever, using it as a tool to get Congress to say yes? I don't believe she actually thinks herself confined to the private sphere of the woman.

We see here again Elizabeth Fergusson applying a certain rhetoric to successfully convince her reader of her innocence. She uses gender roles to appeal to the people reading her letter, especially those who have the ability to take Graeme Park away from her. She is representing herself as a virtuous person who could never be treasonous to the new republic because she is following her duty as a woman not to stretch too far into politics, which is obviously meant for men. I think she is successful in doing this.

Elizabeth Fergusson's rhetoric at the end of her account of the deliverance of the treasonous letter to Reed is important. She appeals to sympathy while going outside of the private sphere women were supposed to stay in. She acknowledges that women are ridiculed in politics, and finds it interesting that the Commissioners would use her as at political tool. She was a woman, and according to gender roles she should not have been mentioned alongside politics in the first place. This is very clever of her to call out the commissioners for doing so.

During this period in Philadelphia it seems there is a hysteria within all of its citizens, no matter what side they were on or if they were disaffected. They feared the governing powers, even if they were Americans. If they reported their neighbors to help the American side, they could also be accused of involvement in the treasonous activities. Living in Philadelphia must have been like walking on egg shells during this period-especially for Elizabeth-because she did not know how safe she was and feared that she would be accused of treason.

I know it was just one per chapter but I had to say something about this. It was the third or fourth time that the author mentions the fact that Elizabeth was not told of or was not supposed to be told of Henry's political life. This brings back the Warner Bourgeois public sphere theory-and that women were regulated and kept in the private sphere of the home and men were supposed to be dealing with political and business events. Elizabeth has been kept in the dark a lot and it so far is unclear whether it is bothering her or not.

Elizabeth approaches General Washington in the same way Drinker does, yet she gets denied by him unlike the Quaker wives of the Virginia Exile Crisis. What made Washington say yes to the Quaker wives yet deny Fergusson? I believe that that this excerpt from the book shows that Fergusson approached General Washington in a different way than the Quaker wives and it led to her failure. She tried to appeal to his sympathy for her husband by lowering his sentence. The Quaker women used the rhetoric of sympathy not for their husbands but for themselves. They begged him that they would suffer without their husbands, thus bringing the attention and sympathy to themselves and away from the husbands.

This passage describes the trouble that Morris, and probably countless other people experienced during the war because of the time and conditions they were living in. The information they received about the war was always word of mouth, and it was hardly ever verified as true, so at times the people in towns could never truly know and trust the events that were happening. For Morris, especially because of the winter storms and the movement of troops on both sides, it was hard to track everything that was happening. Today, we can track for certain the events going on in war and conflict through the internet and social media. It is hard to imagine what it was like to decipher through multiple accounts of information about battles happening, even when they were happening within the vicinity of the area she was living in. It must have been very hard for her to deal with it, and she expresses her fear and anxiety of it in her accounts to Patty.

Here is the first time in her diary we have read so far that Margaret has directly addressed Patty. Unlike Drinker, who would use the vocatives on multiple occasions, Margaret doesn't do the same for Patty even though we know that her diary is definitely meant for her. It is important to note that Margaret does so in this situation because she is saying something that she needs to clarify to Patty, and confirms that her writing style is almost conversation-like, not just a spiritual account of her daily activities.

This is the first mention by Margaret of the hidden room in her house that she was hiding a Loyalist refugee in. The mechanism which she refers to is a bell that signals to the person hiding that there is someone there to look for them, and to securely hide themselves before they are noticed. This was a room designed by the previous owner of the house, William Franklin, the illegitimate son of Ben Franklin. It is important to note this passage from her diary because it is very intriguing that she chose to help a loyalist hide from the rebels because that meant she was picking a side, which was clearly against Quaker beliefs. What made her decide to help this man, and also (like we talked about in class) what made her pick "option C," the option to pick neither side and flip flop from one to the other whenever she pleased? Another interesting thing to add is her tone when describing her encounter with the rebel soldiers. She seems to be very sarcastic and acting like she is inept. It is a very clever and very funny way of going at a conflict with potentially dangerous men.

The word "gondola" and "gondola men" keeps popping up in Margaret's diary and I did not know exactly what it meant-so I looked it up. At first it confused me because the first thing that popped up was a definition of a boat that is commonly used for travel in the city of Venice-which does not parallel with the story the Margaret tells. After some more digging, I found that there was a boat called the "Continental Gondola" named the USS Philadelphia used during the Revolution. Further research using google and google images confirms that it was a Continental Navy Warship under the command of Benedict Arnold. Unfortunately, it says this ship was used in a battle that was not in or around Philadelphia-it was used in New York. So were there ships like it that Margaret saw? And what made her refer to them as gondolas?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Philadelphia_(1776)

Margaret Morris is much like Elizabeth drinker in this aspect. This could mean several things pertaining to public and private spheres. Were these women practicing medicine because it was their job to take care of the family? Or were they using their medicinal skills to break free of the private sphere at home? It says that she had up to 30 outsiders who had small pox in her house at one time for her treatment. Either way it is intriguing that the women of this period that we are reading are so interconnected, not only within the Quaker community but also in skill and experience.

This is a really cool historical point that can be made from this sentence. Richard Hill was suspected to have heavy losses at sea due to privateers, who play an important part in the international trading conflicts going on across the Atlantic. They were private parties hired on a government contract to capture enemy ships, and for the most part those were merchant ships. Their purpose was to take these ships and hinder the trade between countries and suffocate their supply routes. Privateers become what are known today as pirates. It is important to figure out why privateers were targeting him/the colonies during these pre-revolutionary times.

Due to the large overlying results and ideas of the American Revolution, a lot of people either ignore or do not even realize the underlying consequences the war had on the people, especially ordinary people. Fisher goes into length and excruciating detail in this diary entry describing the hardship that her community has fallen upon because of the shortage of food and goods. Hessian mercenaries had depleted their food sources, and now the supply was low and the demand was high. Therefore, the highest bidder was the one who survived. Even those who had servants and were part of a higher social class like Fisher had troubles.This was a really tough time for people who couldn't afford to purchase food to support their families during the Revolution.

When reading Galloway, it was at times very hard to tell who her audience was, whether it be just for herself or for her husband and children or the future of the country. Often, her audience switched between days and weeks. But Fisher is different here-she admits that the only reason for her writing, at least this day, is that it would pleasing to her husband to read about whenever she got to see him again. She has given us one audience for her writings, for now.

After learning about epistolarity, it makes me pause when reading this section of the introduction. Part of what makes epistolarity important is it reveals a lot about the writer and the purpose of their works. If the material has ben edited by taking away certain entries and the correction of punctuation, it could remove much of the meaning from the original document. In some diaries, there are crossed out lines and things such as manicule's in the margins that reveal to the contemporary reader more information about the document and it's author. This is an interesting move by the publisher to change the originality of the document. It is an ironic paradox that by making the document easier to read in an attempt for the reader to better understand it, at the same time it is removing a lot of the meaning that it contains.

This is a perfect example on how the interconnectedness of families was crucial to the economic system of the colonies in the Atlantic world. Familiarity and family feeling between families created a union of familiar business men that become overwhelmingly successful. The Fischer Clan is a microcosm of the economic, social, and political connections that formed early America.

As the diary continues and Galloway encounters more hardship and illness, her handwriting has been subject to suffering also. More and more there are "illegible" replacements for words and phrases in Galloway's entries. Her declining health and living situation must be the reason she is starting to write messy and unorganized.

Here is an example of Galloway roving between writing the diary for her personal use and for the purpose of other people. She says, "I am very low & think the whole world is against Us." Her use of the word "us" makes me very curious as to why she would write "us" in a diary if it were not meant for other eyes to see, especially the eyes of her daughter and husband. It is intriguing that Galloway will list events of her daily life as a habit, and then every once in a while go off on a tangent and use terms such as "us" in a situation like this one. Was she going back and forth between deciding to keep the diary to herself and giving/leaving it to someone in the future? I believe she makes too much sociopolitical commentary for it to be kept just to herself.

What does this political comment mean? Earlier Galloway speaks in the same way, referencing the idea that British generals were letting the Rebels win (Footnote 22 page 159). She is also speaking in a different political tone than she did in part one of her diary. She has a journal entry on the bottom of page 158 saying she was hurt more by the behavior of the tories than that of the whigs. Is Galloway associated with the whigs or the tories? It seems that all her interests lie in seeing Betsy and JG and getting her estate back, and who ever is prohibiting her from doing so is the enemy. In the beginning of her diary it seems that she is sympathetic with the loyalist's but now it seems that she is uncertain, and really does not enjoy the company of anyone, whig or tory. At this point in the diary she has not yet had to sign oath, but it is important to understand what political message she is putting across, and to what audience she is directing her message to: herself, her husband and daughter, or "to posterity?" It is also important to note that in the end of part one of the diary, Galloway is very upset with her husband and expresses her indifference to his fate, but several times now in this section of her diary, she is very upset that she hasn't heard from him and that she is very concerned about his happiness. Why does she all of the sudden have a change of heart? This is strange to me.

In this passage from Galloway's diary, she does not hold back with her feelings about the situation of poverty she has been placed in. There is not one person she knows that escapes the roast. She gloats that she is perfectly content with the life she has been placed in... except for one thing. She is very concerned with the fact that she has been ranked upon the levels of common folk. Galloway clearly shows her disdain for the common people and her prejudice against being considered the same level as them. She has lived on such a high status level for so long that she actually perceives the people of poverty as lesser human beings, or 'brutes.' Although she has much cause for sympathy because of the situation she has been placed in, she is still very snobby and exhibits the same luxurious beliefs even though she no longer remains among the elite.

This excerpt from Galloway's diary is an example of how sympathy and sentiment played a large role in the lives of people living during the 18th century. She learns of her estate being possessed and given to a Spanish merchant and writes she was immediately taken ill and had to lay down, informing Peal that she could not even speak to him. In situations like this, women have been known to faint. Even though she did not faint, Galloway still responded in a way that suggests that bad news affected her physical body, not just mental. It can be said that she was exaggerating her illness so that she didn't have to deal with Peal possessing her estate, but it is important to note that after this event took place, she was never fully healthy again in her diary. Galloway is very ill on and off for the full year after her troubles began. In other words, this one event affected her physical and mental health for the rest of the year and even the rest of her life.

During the Revolution, Quakers remained disaffected because of their belief in pessimism. It made me pause when reading this excerpt from the text because a Quaker family, The Wister Family, "graciously fed and sheltered several American officers." It is not strange to me that they would want to give hospitality to the officers, it is strange that they chose to do it. Being pessimists, they would not have wanted to show allegiance to any side, and by giving American officers hospitality they are in effect supporting a war and it could have risked their safety with the British. This brings up a dilemma that many disaffected could face: When a wounded/hungry soldier from either side approaches your home, do you give them help or turn them away in fear of showing allegiance and supporting the war effort?

This passage from the text stands out to me because of the actions of the wife. Women were considered gentle and benevolent creatures by the men of this period and at the sight of a family member, let alone a husband, dying they were expected to mourn, sob, and even faint. In this case, the wife did the exact opposite and assumed the position of her husband and continued fire, even after sustaining an injury. She breaks out of the gender role she has been placed in and achieves extraordinary things. It is insane to keep reading and find out that she only received half of the monthly pay drawn by a soldier in the service of the United States, even though she fought and was injured on the battlefield.

This is the Committee of Inspection that we talked about in class, in which they search for loyalists and report back to Congress. Seabury is forewarning his readers that the government is prepared to exact punishments to those who don't follow the new agreements.

Seabury makes a profound argument by undermining a large issue leading up to the Revolution, the increase in tax placed on tea by Great Britain. The Boston Tea Party was a huge event in response to the tax on tea that catapulted revolutionary ideas through out the colony. Not only does Seabury do the math, but he does it in jest. He proves that he could sell and produce one bushel of seed every 33 years to afford the amount of tea that his family uses per year, and he goes on to add that his family uses even more than the average farming family. I believe that the fact that he specifically attacked the colony's obsession with the tax on tea is a very bold move and could prove to be very effective.

Seabury chooses to zero in on a specific audience to enhance the success of what he has written. A massive amount of the population in the colonies was farmers, and if he could reach each of them on a personal level it would amount to a large shift in belief and influence during the Revolution. He appeals to the farmers especially by describing their importance to industry, food, and trade in the colonies and that they should rise up for themselves. Seabury speaks of the new agreements passed by Congress to restrict the colony's dependence on Britain but also to boycott the usual trade in order to become independent of Britain. He says that the Non-importation Agreement, "does not indeed immediately affect You, the Farmers of New-York," because the farmers can produce their own goods and services. But when it comes to the Non-Exportation Agreement, the farmers are directly affected because the goods and services they produce are not being traded to other countries and in effect they are inevitably going to suffer.

This is right after my last annotation, but I think it was too important to skip over. Cato proposes freedom of press, and also offers a way to experiment with its limits. It is interesting that he offers to experiment, but writes ahead of time that there wasn't a need for people to be alarmed. Why? If he is experimenting with freedom of press, he should not be worried about what people are going to do in response, even if they are alarmed. I believe he has the intentions of resolving a problem without causing any disputes because he says, "and maintaining American Liberty." What kind of liberty is he fighting for?

Cato is talking about a very important issue in this passage and lets his audience know it because he includes a string of words that are composed of all capital letters. He is obviously upset, but at what? He is concerned about the "majesty of the people of Pennsylvania," that it has been wounded by the misrepresentation of the elected representatives. Are Pennsylvanians upset with the way that the representatives are using their power-given to them by the "voice" of the country? What were the representatives doing that was so upsetting? The article is published in 1776 before the Declaration of Independence, Cato could be upset at what they are proposing to the Continental Congress concerning freedoms and government.

Here Paine is referencing the Boston Port Act of 1774 and the Siege of Boston, which occurred at the start of the Revolutionary War in April of 1775. Boston was the center of many events leading to the Revolution such as the Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre. As a response to the Boston Tea Party, in 1774 the British Parliament issued the Boston Port Act, which discontinued "the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachuset's Bay, in North America" (Academic Search Complete 1). This suffocated the citizens of Boston. At the start of the Revolutionary War, Boston was taken by the British and the Continental Army led by General Washington laid siege and regained control (History.com Staff 1). Paine is recognizing the struggle of Boston and arguing that it could happen to all of American citizens if the British stay. "The Boston Port Act." Boston Port Act (2009): 1. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Aug. 2016. "Siege of Boston." History.com Staff. History.com (2009). Web. 30 Aug. 2016.

In the early American Republic, people were obsessed with being spiritually healthy. They could achieve this through reason, good character, and especially virtue. A virtuous man is the new man of American society, someone that can lead a Republican family. Paine, although he is writing to an audience during the beginnings of revolution, is appealing to his audience consisting of people that are striving for personal health and character through virtue, which is what they wanted in their new American society separate from the British. For example Benjamin Franklin wrote in his autobiography about being a virtuous man and included a chart of 13 virtues, each of which he kept track of everyday in his notebook (Franklin 69).

Franklin, Benjamin. Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. Ed. J.A. Leo Lemay. New York: Norton, 1986.