Avani

ESSAY #3 (Revision)

It cannot be denied that the vision of America and its society is constantly changing. The introduction of new ideas, cultures, and industry change not only others’ views on America but the views the society holds itself. St. John De Crevecoeur offers an eighteenth century view of American society. Crevecoeur’s visions and observations of America reveal a number of issues in eighteenth century America such as slavery, war, agriculture and geographical variations; however, in discussing these issues Crevecoeur focuses on the role that religion plays on the American people. The extreme importance of religion that was once seen in Puritan tradition no longer fits into the society that Crevecoeur describes. In contrasting Crevecoeur’s __Letters From an American Farmer__ with Puritan visions, it becomes clear that Crevecoeur saw America as a place where religion was not important to success, while the Puritans saw America as a place where religion could flourish.

The most evident difference between Crevecoeur’s view of religion in America and the Puritan view can be found in the growing religious indifference that Crevecoeur sees among the population. In Letter III he intends to show, “how the various Christian sects wear out, and how religious indifference becomes prevalent” (601). In the America that Crevecoeur knows, it is almost custom that neighbors are of differing religions; however, the America known to Puritan communities rested solely upon religious homogeneity. Crevecoeur finds that this is no longer the basis for a prosperous American community and questions, “If they are peaceable subjects, and are industrious, what is it to their neighbors how and what manner they think fit to address their prayers to their Supreme Being? “(601). Here Crevecoeur sees the growing importance of industriousness overshadowing religion in American communities. Puritans put little emphasis upon industriousness and instead focused on religiousness. It is clear that the religious indifference Crevecoeur discuses prompted the beginnings of these diverse eighteenth century communities.

In __Letters From an American Farmer__, Crevecoeur also discusses the line between church and state that allows for such religious indifference from eighteenth century Americans. In Letter III, Crevecoeur writes, “As Christians, religion curbs them not in their opinions; the general indulgence leaves everyone to think for themselves in spiritual matters; the laws inspect our actions, our thoughts are left to God” (599). The line drawn between law and religion separates action from thought. In Crevecoeur’s America, laws handle acts of crime, instead of the church handling sin as is the case in Puritan tradition which draws no line between church and state. Puritan religion controls both the mind and actions while the religion that Crevecoeur observes is nurtured more in thoughts and contemplation. Crevecoeur goes on to say that “Industry, good living, selfishness, litigiousness, country politics, the pride of freedom, religious indifference are the characteristics” (599). He finds these things to be the characteristics of the eighteenth century American. Religious indifference rather than religious intolerance characterizes America which clearly leads to the separation of church and state. Although the Puritans set out for religious freedom, their mission included only freedom for their own kind and a separation from English government; however, Crevecoeur’s view of American freedom does not only involve religion but the freedom to pursue the American characteristics that he identifies. Crevecoeur’s America provides more freedom and power to the individual than to the religious group as did the Puritans.

Crevecoeur’s views of religion in American are further expressed through his various addresses to nature. In the end of Letter III of his __Letters From an American Farmer__, he attributes the success of the American people to the bounty of the land and embraces nature almost as a God who rewards hard work in this life. This view and appreciation of the land is very unlike that of the Puritans. Puritan success and failure in farming the land is attributed to either God or Satan instead of the richness or poverty of the land itself. This Puritan view also applies to the natives whose kindness was assumed to be the work of God and whose supposed evils were assumed to be Satan’s work and God’s tests. Crevecoeur’s focus on nature is also seen when he discusses the slavery in the south. He calls upon nature and not God to understand why such inhumanity can occur: “Oh, Nature, where are thou? – Are not these blacks thy children as well as we?” (607), and later questions, “Is there no superintending power who conducts the moral operations of the world, as well as the physical?” (608). Since the land and prosperity it brings have become more significant to the majority of Americans, Crevecoeur possibly sees the call upon nature to be more appealing than a call upon God. As people could now be of a different religion than their neighbor, nature is a power that affects and can possible unite all Americans. This view is very dissimilar to the Puritan tradition which did not see nature as a spiritual force, and only called upon God through prayer in crisis. Another possible interpretation of these addresses is that Crevecoeur is slightly attributing the loss in religion and shift to adoration of nature to the immoral slave system. The powers of nature can only extend so far as the physical; therefore, Americans must be careful not to forget the morality that religion is meant to instill upon them. Although the religious indifference in eighteenth century American society allowed for greater tolerance and success, these slaveholders may need religion to see the injustice in slavery.

Crevecoeur’s vision of religion in eighteenth century America differs greatly from the vision held by the Puritans. Crevecoeur’s emphasis on religious indifference, individual freedom for success, separation of church and state, and addresses to nature clearly reveal the vision that that he had of America. The overall shift from the religious fervor seen in the widely Puritan America to the religious indifference of the eighteenth century becomes very evident through the comparison of Crevecoeur’s views and the Puritans views.

- ESSAY # 2 (Revision)

The works of Anne Bradstreet and Jonathan Edwards focus on the importance of accepting Christianity; however, despite their similar theme, the two writers differ greatly in the way they convey their piety. Through their choice of words and tone, the writers virtually create two different types of literature with the same goal in mind: exalting their Christian God. Although Bradstreet’s gender has an effect on a number of her poems, such as “In Reference to Her Children,” the main focus of her poems is religion, as is Edwards’s. There are multitude of works displaying the religious beliefs and literary techniques of each of these writers; however, examining Bradstreet’s, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” and Edwards’s, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” reveals the differing religious views of the writers concerning life and death.

Although Bradstreet and Edwards are both interested in the other worldly, they approach the subject in differing manners. While Bradstreet focuses on the differences between this world and the next world, Edwards’s focuses solely on the differences between heaven and hell. Bradstreet uses her poem, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” to exemplify the constant struggle of humans to turn away from the world’s vanity. She shuns the selfishness of earth proclaiming, “Thy sinful pleasures I do hate, / Thy riches are to me no bait, / Thine honors do, not will I love; / For my ambition lies above” (lines 57-60). Bradstreet stresses the importance of having will power against the temptations of sinful wealth on earth in order to reach heaven. This focus Bradstreet puts on avoiding greed and sin on earth cannot be seen in Edwards’s, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Instead of concentrating on life on earth, Edwards’s speaks only about heaven and hell. In his sermon, he does not preach goodness as any means to heaven, but only urges the need for public conversion to escape hell. Edwards’s writes, “whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction” (429). Edwards’s clearly sees no need to write of doing good on earth since he sees any good deed unfruitful if its doer has not already been predestined to heaven. He outlines the differences between heaven and hell, as Bradstreet does Heaven and earth, to show the importance of conversion, not worldly goodness, to afterlife. The similar interest of the writers in life after death is clearly displayed; however, their differing views show their personal piety. It seems as if Bradstreet herself believed not only in conversion, but in truly using the world to do good as a means to reach the heaven, whereas Edwards’s only saw this world as the last chance for redemption through one single act of conversion.

Another notable similarity between the two writers is the way in which they use persuasion to convey their religious message. Bradstreet’s poem appeals to the materialistic nature of people while Edwards’s uses fear as a means of persuasion. In “The Flesh and the Spirit,” Bradstreet attempts to make clear the impermanence of the riches in this world in comparison to the riches that will be seen in heaven: “The city where I hope to dwell, / There’s none on earth can parallel; / The stately walls both high and strong, / Are made of precious jasper stone; / The gates of pearl, both rich and clear” (lines 85-89). She purposely describes heaven as a place with physical wealth and beauty in order to convince people to avoid materialism on earth. Through using such descriptions of heavenly opulence, Bradstreet furthers her religious purpose. While Bradstreet mentions nothing of hell in her poem, Edwards’s solely uses fear of hell as a method of persuasion to convert people. Edwards’s vividly describes hell as, “a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell” (432). Unlike Bradstreet, Edwards’s uses the fear of hell, instead of the glory of heaven, to persuade people to follow his religious beliefs.

In addition to their differing methods of persuasion, Bradstreet and Edwards use different language and technique to discuss their religious piety. In, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” Bradstreet uses a conceit to convey her beliefs, while in “Sinner’s in the Hands of an Angry God,” Edwards’s uses straightforward reason and logic to convey his beliefs. Bradstreet uses the flesh as a representation of the worldly, and the spirit as a representation for heaven. She shows the relation of the worldly and other worldly by creating a dialogue between these two “sisters.” This type of central conceit cannot be seen in Edwards’s work. Although he employs very descriptive language, Edwards’s sermon is clear and straightforward, and his use of numbers aids in the logical presentation of his beliefs. Both of these works seem to serve their purpose very well; however, they clearly do so in very differing ways.

“The Flesh and the Spirit,” and, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” show the piety and beliefs of Bradstreet and Edwards. Although both believe in heaven and put an importance on religion, the differences between their specific views can be seen throughout their works. Bradstreet’s poem uses a lighter tone to show the glory of heaven whereas Edwards employs harsh tone to emphasize the miseries of hell.

---

ESSAY #3 It cannot be denied that the vision of America and its society is constantly changing. The introduction of new ideas, cultures, and industry change not only others views on America but the views the society holds itself. St. John De Crevecoeur offers an eighteenth century view of American society. Crevecoeur’s visions and observations of America reveal a number of issues in eighteenth century America such as slavery, war, agriculture and geographical variations; however, in discussing these issues Crevecoeur focuses on the role that religion plays on the American people. The extreme importance of religion that was once seen in Puritan tradition no longer fits into the society that Crevecoeur describes. Through contrasting Crevecoeur’s visions on America in “Letters From an American Farmer,” with those of the Puritans and Neo-Puritans, whose visions developed before his, the shift in American society and the influence religion held upon it becomes very clear.

The most evident difference between Crevecoeur’s view of religion in America and the Puritan view can be found in the growing religious indifference that Crevecoeur sees among the population. In Letter III he intends to show, “how the various Christian sects wear out, and how religious indifference becomes prevalent (page 601).” In the America that Crevecoeur knows, it is almost custom that neighbors are of differing religions; however, the America known to Puritan communities rested solely upon keeping togetherness through faith. Crevecoeur finds that this is no longer the basis for a prosperous American community and questions, “If they are peaceable subjects, and are industrious, what is it to their neighbors how and what manner they think fit to address their prayers to their Supreme Being? (pg601).” Here Crevecoeur sees the growing importance of skill and contribution overshadowing religion in American communities. Puritans put little emphasis upon how an individual fared in contributing to the community and economy but instead would only value a neighbor if they fared well in church and converted publically. It is clear that the religious indifference Crevecoeur discuses prompted the beginnings of these diverse eighteenth century communities.

In “Letters From an American Farmer,” Crevecoeur also discusses the line between church and state that allows for such religious indifference from eighteenth century Americans. In Letter III, Crevecoeur writes, “As Christians, religion curbs them not in their opinions; the general indulgence leaves everyone to think for themselves in spiritual matters; the laws inspect our actions, our thoughts are left to God (page 599).” The line drawn between law and religion separates action from thought. In Crevecoeur’s America, laws handle acts of crime, instead of the church handling sin as is ideal in Puritan tradition which draws no line between church and state. Puritan religion controls both the mind and actions while the religion that Crevecoeur observes is nurtured more in thoughts and contemplation. Crevecoeur goes on to say that “Industry, good living, selfishness, litigiousness, country politics, the pride of freedom, religious indifference are the characteristics (pg599).” Religious indifference rather than religious importance characterizes America which clearly leads to the further separation of church and state in the eighteenth century. Although the Puritans set out for religious freedom, their mission included only freedom for their own kind and a separation from English government; however, Crevecoeur’s view of American freedom does not only involve religion but the freedom to possess the characteristics for opportunity and success. Crevecoeur’s America provides more freedom and power to the individual than to the religious group as did the Puritans.

Crevecoeur’s views of religion in American are further expressed through his various addresses to nature. In the end of Letter III of his “Letters From an American Farmer,” he attributes the success of the American people to the bounty of the land and embraces nature almost as a god who rewards hard work in this life. This view and appreciation of the land is very unlike that of the Puritans. Puritan success and failure in farming the land is attributed to either god or satan instead of the richness or impurity of the land itself. This Puritan view also applies to the natives whose kindness was assumed to be the work of god and whose supposed evils were assumed to be satan’s work and gods tests. Crevecoeur’s focus on nature is also seen when he discusses the slavery in the south. He calls upon nature and not god to understand why such inhumanity can occur, “Oh, Nature, where are thou? – Are not these blacks thy children as well as we? (page 607),” and later questions, “Is there no superintending power who conducts the moral operations of the world, as well as the physical? (page 608).” Since the land and prosperity it brings have become more significant to the majority of Americans, Crevecoeur possible sees the call upon nature to be more appealing than a call upon god. As a person could now be of a different religion than their neighbor, nature is a power that effects and can possible unite all Americans. This view is very dissimilar to the Puritan tradition which did not see nature as a spiritual force, and only called upon god through prayer in crisis. Another possible interpretation of these addresses is that Crevecoeur is slightly attributing the loss in religion and shift to adoration of nature to the immoral slave system. He may be trying to show that although nature is so praised in America and gives success with hard work, nature does not control morality as it controls the physical. Although the religious indifference in eighteenth century American society allowed for greater tolerance and success, these slaveholders may need religion to see the injustice in slavery.

Crevecoeur’s vision of religion in eighteenth century America differs greatly than the vision held by the Puritans. Crevecoeur’s emphasis on religious indifference, individual freedom for success, separation of law and thought, and addresses to nature clearly reveal the vision that that he had on America. The overall shift from the religious fervor seen in the widely Puritan America to the religious indifference of the eighteenth century becomes very evident through the comparison of Crevecoeur’s views and the Puritans views.

ESSAY # 2

The works of Anne Bradstreet and Jonathan Edwards focus on the importance of accepting Christianity; however, despite their similar theme, the two writers differ greatly in the way they convey their piety. Through their choice of words and tone, the writers virtually create two different types of literature with the same goal in mind: exalting their Christian God. Although Bradstreet’s gender has an effect on a number of her poems, such as “In Reference to Her Children,” the main focus of her poems is religion, as is Edward’s. There are multitude of works displaying the religious beliefs and literary techniques of each of these writers; however, examining Bradstreet’s, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” and Edward’s, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” reveals a number of significant differences and similarities between the writers.

Although Bradstreet and Edwards are both interested in the other worldly, they approach the subject in differing manners. While Bradstreet focuses on the differences between this worldly and the other worldly, Edward’s focuses solely on the differences between heaven and hell. Bradstreet uses her poem, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” to exemplify the constant struggle of humans to turn away from the world’s vanity. She shuns the selfishness of earth proclaiming that, “thy sinful pleasures I do hate, thy riches are to me no bait, thine honors do, not will I love; for my ambition lies above.” Bradstreet stresses the importance of having will power against sinful wealth on earth in order to reach heaven. This focus Bradstreet puts on avoiding greed and sin on earth cannot be seen in Edward’s, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Instead of concentrating on life on earth, Edward’s speaks only about heaven and hell. In his sermon, he does not preach goodness as any means to heaven, but only urges the need for public conversion to escape hell. Edward’s writes, “whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.” Edward’s clearly sees no need to write of doing good on earth since he sees any good deed unfruitful if its doer has not already been predestined to heaven. He outlines the differences between heaven and hell, as Bradstreet does Heaven and earth, to show the importance of conversion, not worldly goodness, to afterlife. The similar interest of the writers in life after death is clearly displayed; however, their differing views show their personal piety. It seems as if Bradstreet herself believed not only in conversion, but in truly using world to do good as a means to reach the heaven, whereas Edward’s only saw this world as the last chance for redemption through one single act of conversion.

Another notable similarity between the two writers is the way in which they use persuasion to convey their religious message. Bradstreet’s poem appeals to the materialistic nature of people while Edward’s uses fear as a means of persuasion. In “The Flesh and the Spirit,” Bradstreet attempts to make clear the impermanence of the riches in this world in comparison to the riches that will be seen in heaven; “The city where I hope to dwell, there’s none on earth can parallel; the stately walls both high and strong, are made of precious jasper stone; the gates of pearl, both rich and clear.” She purposely describes heaven as a place with physical wealth and beauty in order to convince people to avoid materialism on earth. Through using such descriptions of heavenly indulgence, Bradstreet furthers her religious purpose. While Bradford mentions nothing of hell in her poem, Edward’s solely uses fear of hell as a method of persuasion to convert. Edward’s vividly describes hell as, “a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell.” Unlike Bradstreet, Edward’s uses the fear of hell, instead of the glory of heaven, to persuade people to follow his religious beliefs.

In addition to their differing methods of persuasion, Bradstreet and Edwards use different language and technique to discuss their religious piety. In, “The Flesh and the Spirit,” Bradstreet uses a conceit to convey her beliefs, while in “Sinner’s in the Hands of an Angry God,” Edward’s uses straightforward reason and logic to convey his beliefs. Bradford uses the flesh as a representation of the worldly, and the spirit as a representation for heaven. She shows the relation of the worldly and other worldly by creating a dialogue between these two “sisters.” This type of metaphor cannot be seen in Edward’s work. Although he employs very descriptive language, Edward’s sermon is clear and straightforward, and his use of numbers furthers his logical conveyance of his beliefs. Both of these works seem to serve their purpose very well; however, they clearly do so in very differing ways.

“The Flesh and the Spirit,” and, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” show the piety and beliefs of Bradstreet and Edwards. Although both believe in heaven and put an importance on religion, the differences between their specific views can be seen throughout their works. Bradstreet’s poem uses a lighter tone to show the glory of heaven unlike Edward’s harsh tone to show the harshness of hell.

When examining the American Dream, two figures that seem crucial to its beginnings are Christopher Columbus and William Bradford. Each of these men project both dreams and nightmares upon the American landscape and natives that they encounter. Not only are these dreams and nightmares revealed at their arrivals, but also before their voyages even began. While Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, a place with undeniably beautiful weather, untouched land, resources, and exotic vegetation, Bradford’s voyage left him struggling in the harsh Massachusetts winter with much of the land already farmed. Although there are many differences between the expectations and descriptions of Columbus and Bradford, a differing but underlying hope shines through the dreams and nightmares of both men that can only be paralleled to the hope of the American Dream. Columbus’s findings gave him hope for further exploration and wealth, while Bradford’s determination for religious freedom gave him hope to conquer the elements he found so miserable.

An important aspect in understanding the thoughts these men projected on America is the fact that they were two different types of men with completely different motives. Although both claimed religious purpose, Bradford was a self educated Puritan who was seeking an escape from suffering and persecution for his people while Columbus, although interested in converting natives and financing a new crusade, had a main motive of finding gold and glory for himself and the Spanish crown. Although these motives are quite different they both display the American Dream that is about freedom. For some it is freedom of religion as is seen in Bradford, while for others it is freedom to reach wealth and fame as is seen in Columbus. In chapter IV, book 1 of //Of Plymouth Plantation//, Bradford describes the cruelty of the land and natives that he expects to find, and goes on to write that, “it was granted the dangers were great, but not desperate; the difficulties were many, but not invincible.” In this passage, Bradford’s motives for religious freedom turn into his dreams and clearly overpower the nightmares he has of the New World. Columbus’s differing motives for wealth and glory can be seen in his “Letter on Discovery,” when he writes, “I shall give them as much gold as they want if their highness will render me a little help.” Columbus’s small findings of gold and beautiful land, although not what he expected, reaffirm his dreams of further exploration. These differing personalities and motives clearly play a crucial role in Bradford’s more negative approach and Columbus’s positive one.

While Bradford was aware he was going to the New World, Columbus believed he was going to the East Indies which could also have reflected their differing views on what they found. Columbus based his exploration on Marco Polo’s traveler’s tales which told of the East as having great cities, kings, monsters, strange looking people, and most importantly an abundance of gold. These traveler’s tales created Columbus’s dream of finding this land that was filled with riches; however, when he reached America he did not find all he had dreamed he would. Instead, Columbus found no monsters, small amounts of gold, shy natives, and untouched land. In his “Letter on Discovery,” he describes the land as an untouched paradise and writes that, “the sierra and the mountains and the plains and the champaigns and the lands are so beautiful and fat for planting and sowing, and for livestock of every sort, and for building towns and cities.” Although he continued to search for Japan, he now had a new American Dream for Spanish expansion through the land he discovered. Columbus’s previous dreams may have also been mixed into the way he projected the American landscape in his letter. Since he wanted to believe that what he found was great and full of wealth like what he had read of in tales, it seems likely that he would describe the land’s beauty in such an exaggerated way to keep Spanish support for his exploration. Unlike Columbus’s positive dreams and projections on the landscape, Bradford’s projections on the landscape were more negative. This can be attributed somewhat to the fact that Bradford had heard stories of the land in the New World. Before even arriving in the New World, Bradford wrote of the nightmare he expected to encounter. In chapter IV, book 1 of //Of Plymouth Plantation,// he describes the hardships he foresees and writes, “the miseries of the land which they should be exposed unto, would be too hard to be borne; and likely, some or all of them together, to consume and utterly to ruinate them.” Clearly Bradford does not see the building a wonderful cities in this new land as Columbus did, but instead he sees his people struggling to maintain a miserable, but free, survival. Despite these nightmares, Bradford’s determination for religious freedom overrides, and unlike Columbus, Bradford has no need to spin his accounts because he was not looking for hope in the landscape but rather only looking for the success if his religion and followers.

As Columbus and Bradford’s views differed upon the landscape they encountered, their thoughts and expectations of the natives were also dissimilar in a number of ways as well. In his “Letter on discovery,” Columbus praises the hospitality of the natives when he writes that they, “show as much love as if they were giving their hearts,” and goes on to tell the king and queen that he has, “so far found no human monstrosities, as many expected.” Despite the talk of monstrosities in traveler’s tales, any nightmares Columbus had of the natives were dispelled when he encountered them. Although his positivity towards the natives may be exaggerated in his letter due to his quest for support from the Spanish crown, throughout the rest of his letter, he continues to cite the intelligence, navigation skills, and innocence of the natives. Unlike Columbus, Bradford had only negative views of the natives in both his observations and assumptions. His nightmares of the natives he encountered are seen in //Of Plymouth Plantation//, Book 1, Chapter IV, when he warns of the natives who he believes will be, “cruel, barbarous, and most treacherous.” Bradford viewed the natives not as innocent people like Columbus had but as hellish creatures. These beliefs are even seen in the fact that Columbus saw a potential for the natives to convert to Christianity, while Bradford had absolutely no intentions of native conversion. Although it is possible that the views Columbus and Bradford held were only based on their own biases, it is also possible that that the men saw the inhabitants in different lights because of cultural differences of the natives themselves. Columbus encountered the Taino Indians while Bradford encountered the Massasoit Indians. The two tribes may have been quite different culturally, leading to the differing views Columbus and Bradford had on them. Also, Bradford’s arrival at Plymouth occurred over a century after Columbus arrived to find the Tainos; therefore, the Massasoit Indians may have felt more threatened being that they possibly knew of the English settlements already in Virginia. At the time of Columbus’s encounter, all of the Taino’s had most definitely never seen white men before and may have been kinder to Columbus and his men than the already biased Massasoit had been.

Although Bradford seems to paint a more negative light on the American landscape and natives than does Columbus, he too has an American dream within this wilderness. Their clashing motives, outlooks, and dreams of America are reflected throughout their written accounts, and though they are quite opposite, both of these men were looking for hope in a new land. Bradford may have not been able to find it within the beauty of the land itself as Columbus did, but he found freedom which was worth the nightmares of America he had. The views that both of these men projected, though different, are each part of what has become the American Dream.