“It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. “

“It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right,“  is a quote taken from Henry David Thoreau’s essay  “Civil Disobedience.”  To me, this quote shows what Thoreau believed was wrong with society.  Just because something is law, does not mean it is good or right. People are taught to do things, not because they are the right thing to do, but because they are the law.  When people become too reliant on the law to be their moral guide, the laws slowly slip away from what is believed to be right. When people respect the law more than they respect doing what is right, it allows the government to shape the morals of the people, even if the law is not in good conscience.

This quote is very relevant to the time Thoreau was living in.  Laws allowed people to keep slaves, did not allow women to vote, and people did not do what was right, they simply followed the law. Even though people disagreed with slavery, they did nothing about it, because it was legal. If they had not been so reverent of the law, perhaps slavery would have been abolished much earlier than it actually was.   Some people though, did not follow the law, but did what they felt was right. These people were the conductors of the Underground Railroad.  They were usually escaped slaves, who went back to the south, to help others escape slavery. This was very much against the law in the south, but people who worked the Underground Railroad valued what was right over what was the law. http://www.safepassageohio.org/resources/Intro.pdf

picture of underground railroad station.

Today, people often think the law is what is right. As children, we are taught to obey and respect the law. We are very rarely taught to follow our intuition on what is the right thing to do.  If people were taught at a young age to respect what is right and to do what is right, I believe there would be far less crime. When we let our conscience decide what to do instead of the law, it will generally be the right, or at least, the best choice. Today, solders have a duty to not follow any unlawful orders.  Although this does have them following the law, they must determine what orders are right and “lawful.” http://www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html

 

This is a recording of the oath American soldiers take. Pay atteniton to the part that says “according to regulations.” This means according to the law, this gives soldiers the responsability to not carry out an order that breaks laws.

Now more than ever, people need to respect what is right, and not necessarily what is the law.  This quote transcends time, working for the past and the present.  When people learn just because something is the law does not mean it is right, I believe society will greatly improve.  People today should teach the next generation to respect what is right, and if the law is right, to respect the law.

Can Hawthorne’s “The Birthmark” relate to science today? Have there been any recent science experiments that have resulted in death?

“The Birthmark” is a short story written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. In it, Aylmer, the husband of Georgina, tells her she would be perfect were it not for the birthmark on her face. Aylmer does various experiments until he finds one he believes will remove Georgina’s birthmark. He gives her the cure, successfully removing the birthmark, but killing her in the process. After reading the end of the short story, I began to wonder if the story could reflect any science experiments today that have gone awry or resulted in death.

Hawthorne wrote “The Birthmark” and several other short stories to warn about the dangers of experimenting and altering humanity. He wrote this during a time when science was making huge accomplishments, but people were wondering what the effects of these advances could have on humanity. This worry about science and its effects on humanity carry over in today’s time. 

  In the past one-hundred years there have been many horrifying experiments attempting to alter human traits that have resulted in death.  Some of the most notable of these experiments occurred during World War 2, not only from the Nazi regime, but also from the lesser known Japanese Unit 731. Although the Nazi experiments are better known, the experiments conducted in unit 731 were much more horrifying. Other countries who have conducted human experiments in the past one-hundred years are Soviet secret services and North Korea.  http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments

 The Nazi experiments included; attempting to change eye color, experiments on twins which out of 1,500 sets of twins, only 200 are said to have survived, and testing effects of treatments of perpously inflicted war wounds.  Unit 731 conducted vivisections, amputated limbs to study blood loss, reattached amputated limbs to other parts of the body, and other heinous experiments all without anesthetic.  The Soviet Secret Services had a poison laboratory, in which they purposefully poisoned prisoners to find a poison that could not be detected post mortem.  North Korea did similar poison studies on prisoners and families.  Although these are all different countries they conducted very similar experiments, all of them using prisoners or war or the state for experimentation, except for North Korea.  http://listverse.com/2008/03/14/top-10-evil-human-experiments/

 One of the most recent experamentel proplems happened in 2007 with the trial drug TGN1412, which would be used to treat leukemia and rheumatoid arthritis. I feel this relates better with the story “The Birthmark” because the people conducting this experiment were well meaning. They thought they had a treatment for leukemia.  The drug was given to human volunteers at 500 mg less that the tested safe dosage on animals.  Even though a much higher dosage was tested safe on mice, 12 hours after intravenous treatment, the six men were rushed to the hospital.  After a month long hospital stay, the men were released from the hospital, having recovered from acute organ failure.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412 

  This video explains what happened and the complications in more detail. Please excuse the man’s hair.

Nathanael Hawthorne’s short stories are still relevant today; they serve as a reminder of what can happen when one tries to tamper with human genetics. Even the most well-meaning experiments, such as the TGN1412, can harm people. “The birthmark” is still relatable today, and explains what can happen when people  who have no remorse try to alter nature.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       `

               

How Did “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” Affect the Civil War?

Almost everyone in America today has heard of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but I was surprised to learn just how popular it was when it was first published as a book in 1862. In its first year of publication it sold over 300,000 copies.  It even began to be sold overseas in Brittan and other parts of Europe.  When I read this, I began to wonder just how much of an impact did Uncle Tom’s Cabin have on society. Was it one of the catalysts of the civil war? And would things have turned out differently had she never written it?

Uncle Tom’s Cabin had a huge impact in both the north and the south.  In the north, it helped widen the circle of abolitionists from just the extremists, as they were thought of then.  Her novel  helped open peoples’ eyes to the problems and inhumanities of slavery.  Although some of the more extreme abolitionists said her novel was to compassionate toward southern slave owners, there was a reason she wrote it that way. She hoped, by not demonizing all of the slave holders in the novel, she would make an impact on the ideals of people in the south.  That is also the reason she had some of the southern characters openly reject slavery in the book.  www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/07/08/new-book-analyzes-impact-of-uncle-toms-cabin/  http://f/about/com/od/civilwar/f/Uncle-Toms-Cabin-and-the-Civil-War.htm

The South’s reaction to the book was very different than the North’s.  It was a topic of high controversy. The book was denounced, and people were told it was full of lies.  In some southern states it was even made illegal to own the book.  Harriet Beecher Stowe was portrayed as a criminal in Southern newspapers.  Although I was not surprised to learn the book was disliked, I was surprised to learn just how far the southern governments would go to help maintain their way of life.  I have no doubt that this caused more animosity towards the north than there was before this book was published. http://f/about/com/od/civilwar/f/Uncle-Toms-Cabin-and-the-Civil-War.htm

Clearly the book had a huge social impact but was it truly a catalyst for the civil war? When Stowe visited the White House in 1862, Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying, “Is this the little woman who made this Great War?” Although it is possible he never actually said this, I would not be very surprised if he did. Even though I do not think the book is responsible for the civil war, I do think it had a huge part in pushing the abolitionist movement. Stowe helped open the eyes of People who had not seen or experienced slavery.  http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/book-start-civil-war-uncle-tom-cabin-testament-power-culture-article-1.112605

This video provides some background to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and also gives a short summary of some of the things leading up to the civil war.

Would things be the same today without Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book?  I do not think they would be.  The civil war would have still happened, but I think it would have taken longer for the issues between the north and the south to cause such a huge conflict.  Uncle Tom’s Cabin had a huge social impact and worked as a catalyst for the bloodiest American war.  It helped change  American history for the better.

 

                                                                                                                                                                        

Gun Control: Then and Now

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property…Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them,” (Thomas Paine, Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775).  This is a quote from Thomas Paine.   He, as well as the other founding fathers, saw an armed population to be an important part of America, not only to protect themselves against those who do not follow the law, but to also protect against threats to the Free State (including their own government).

The bill of rights and the American constitution was passed in 1791. The second amendment states “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  The issue of gun control has been around in America about as long as the second amendment. In 1837 Georgia banned hand guns; the Supreme Court found this to be unconstitutional, and the law was thrown out. However, the issue of gun control is still around today in 2013.  http://usgovinfo.about.com/blguntime.htm

Today, one of the main arguments for both sides of the debate are what exactly did the founding fathers mean when the second amendment was written. Often People for gun control say the founding fathers and framers of the constitution did not mean private gun ownership, they met only those serving in the militia should have guns. Another argument given is the second amendment only applies to guns available in that time period. People against gun control also use arguments with sources from the contusion to back up their arguments.

This video is a speech against gun control. Please remember, this man is not a politician. He is an average American citizen, just like you and me. I tried to find a speech pro-gun control that was not given by a politician or newsperson, but was unable to.

If we truly want to know what the founding fathers intended the second amendment to mean, all we need to do is read what they wrote. Most of the framers wrote essays, letters, and books on their opinions and ideas behind what happened before, during, and after the writing of the constitution. Perhaps you have even heard of one of them, “The Federalist Papers”. I also think we should remember what a militia is and what it what in 1779.

A militia by definition is “An army composed of regular citizens as opposed to professional solders.” In 1775, at the start of the revolutionary war, the men in the militia were not supplied with weapons upon the start of the war. They brought the guns they used for home protection and hunting. During the revolutionary war, there was not a wonderfully trained and supplied army; there was the militia, who supplied their own weapons, to fight against their own government.

That is why, I believe, when the constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” it means private citizens have a right to own guns to protect themselves from people who wish to harm them, whether those people are criminals, or a tyrannical government.

What was the reason for Jonathan Edwards dismissal from the church?

http://www.jonathan-edwards.org/jenew.jpg

Jonathan Edwards is considered one of the best preachers of his time. Despite this fact, he was still voted out of his church. “In 1750, Edwards’ church dismissed him from Northampton after he attempted to impose stricter qualifications for admission to the sacraments upon his congregation.”  That was all that was said about his dismissal in the biography we read for literature. I wanted to know more about what led to his dismissal. Why did he want to impose stricter rules? What kind of rules did he want to impose? Was there anything else that led to his dismissal?  All these questions led me to my final question. What caused Jonathan Edwards to be dismissed from his church? http://edwards.yale.edu/research/about-edwards/biography

His dismissal from the church was messy.  He was voted out by the congregation.  In fact, out of 253 people only 23 voted for him to stay. Even after he was voted out, he agreed to continue doing sermons until a replacement was found, which took about fifteen months.

This is his final farwell sermon.

One of the first reasons Edwards was dismissed was the one pointed out in the biography; he wanted to change who could receive sacraments, such as communion. His grandfather, Solomon Stoddard, had been the previous pastor of the church. Stoddard had very lenient rules on who was allowed to join the church and receive sacraments.  He believed being more lenient would allow more people to convert.

 Stoddard allowed anyone who outwardly appeared to be living a godly life to receive sacraments.  Edwards wanted to return to a more puritanical way of admitting people into the church. He wished to only allow people who showed evidence of receiving God’s grace to receive the sacraments. He changed the admittance policy in 1748, when he told an applicant, he must first make a “public profession of godliness.” A counsel was formed, and eventually, the congregation voted him out of the church.  http://www.reformation21.org/articles/jonathan-edwards-a-brief-storiedlife.php

http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/preacher-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-church-the-fall-of-jonathan-edwards/

Although changing church policy was what caused him to be dismissed, other problems had occurred during his leadership.  A scandal that occurred in 1744 was dubbed the “bad book” incident.  Boys in their late teens obtained a copy of a midwifery book, and distributed it to other boys in the congregation.  They used its contents to taunt the girls of the congregation and town. When the issue was brought to the church, Edwards read the names of the boys aloud, as well as the witness’ names.  He failed to discriminate between the innocent and guilty. This outraged some of the parents. http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/preacher-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-church-the-fall-of-jonathan-edwards/

Edwards’ reign as the Northampton pastor was clouded with salary controversies and power struggles. It seems, after the great awakening, his appeal as a pastor faded. Perhaps, it was because he continued to expect the same enthusiasm he saw in people during the great awakening, or maybe his views became stricter over time. Perhaps his failure to carefully navigate the “bad book” incident caused more tension than we know. One thing is known though; his change in church policy is what ultimately got him dismissed from the church. 

http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/preacher-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-church-the-fall-of-jonathan-edwards/

What was the reason Anne Bradstreet moved so often?

http://www.poemofquotes.com/annebradstreet/

Anne Bradstreet was a loving and devoted wife; that much is evident from the poems she wrote about her husband in his absence.To me, her willingness to follow her husband and move with him made her seem even more devoted.  In fact, Poem Hunter states “In the early 1640’s, Simon once again pressed his wife, pregnant with her sixth child, to move for the sixth time, from Ipswich to Andover Parish.” Reading this in her biography made me wonder why her husband moved around so much. I also wondered why she was willing to move so much.   Her poem “A Letter to My Husband Absent upon Public Employment” clearly says how much she missed him when he was gone.

Anne Bradstreet, age sixteen, was married to twenty-five year old William Bradstreet.  She and her husband first moved in 1630 to New England.  Like most of the other voyages to the new world, the trip was harsh, and many people died. Dealing with the harsh life of a colonist was something Anne was not prepared to face.  She had contracted small pox when she was younger; although she recovered, it left her weak. This caused the move to be very difficult for her.  http://www.annebradstreet.com/anne_bradstreet_bio_001.htm

Her husband and her father both served several terms as a governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  At one point William was even appointed to be the Massachusetts envoy for King Charles II. This job caused him to travel to England for several months.The job of governor and envoy were what caused Anne Bradstreet and her husband to move around so much.   http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/anne-bradstreet-puritan-wife-and-mother-11630086.html

She and her family spent the first winter where they landed, in Charlestown.  From there, they moved to New Towne or Cambridge in 1631. In 1635 they moved to Ipswich, the settlement written about in her poem “A Letter to My Husband Absent Upon Public Employment.” http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap1/bradstreet.html

This map should give you an idea of where Anne, William and her children moved and how far they had to travel.

http://geniebev.blogspot.com/2011/11/he-was-passenger-on-mayflower-in-1620.html

 

The Bradstreet’s moved to North Andover between 1638 and 1644. During this time she could have been traveling with anywhere from two to four children. It would have been difficult to move so far away with four children. I can not imagine she would have actually wanted to move so many times. This would be the town she and her family would settle for the last time.  She died around 1674. It is believed by the Andover historical society that she died and was buried there, although there is some debate about it. You can read more about it here.

So, why did Anne Bradstreet and her family move around so much?  Most of the moving was due to her husband’s job as governor.  Although it was not just her, her husband, and her children that moved; her parents and her husband’s parents moved with them as well.  She did not always go with William when he traveled. Had she, they would have moved much more often. When he was appointed envoy for King Charles II, he left Anne alone for several months while he traveled to England.

Did Anne mind traveling with her husband? Although my question was never directly answered, I think I can draw a few conclusions to find some answers.  She was left weak when she contracted small pox as a child. Travelling to America was hard for her; as was living the life as a colonist.  I believe traveling from town to town was hard for her, but I believe she loved her husband so much she was willing to go anywhere with him.

What Food and Nutrition was Available in the new Jamestown Colony?

When reading the assigned passages for John Smith one part stood out to me “And then they brought him venison, turkies, wild foule, bread, and what they had.”  This caused me to wonder what kinds of foods were available to the settlers in this new, strange world. Did they  near starvation or thrive? At the very beginning of “The General History,”  it is stated the president of the Virgina company was hording the food from the less wealthy travelers.  Another thing I began to wonder about was how much nutrition did they have.  Did they consume enough calories to avoid starvation? I decided that, to me, this would be a very interesting thing to find out.

According to avpa.org, a pit found in Jamestown dating back to before 1610  contained bones of fish and turtles, alluding to the colonists eating them. It is also suggested they consumed oysters, birds, and other native animals.  although they state nothing points to the consumption domestic animals.

Once the provisions the colonists brought ran out or went rancid food they ate was limited to what they could grow, catch, and gather. http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2004/122004/12052004/1590865/index_html?page=1 Also, as explained in “A General History,” they would also trade with the natives or wait till an english ship arrived carrying provisions. Once the food was somehow obtained they then had to cook it. This video explains how bread would have likely been made and cooked during that time period.

Although the Colonists were ill-equipped to survive in this harsh environment, the native americans ate well; they knew how to preserve food to survive through the winter and how to cook food using the materials they had. According to Fredricksburg.com venison was not redialy available, “The indians travel about 50 miles inland, near what is now Richmond, to catch deer.” Fish, Shellfish, otter, quail, Wild turkey, and other native wildlife were what the native Americans would hunt and catch. They would use flat rocks in fires like griddles.

http://www.nationalgeographicstock.com/ngsimages/explore/explorecomp.jsf?xsys=SE&id=1075702

As for nutrition, the colonists caloric consumption was incredibly high. People would eat anywhere from 4,000 to 8,000 calories a day. Compare that to the average of 2,000 calories people consume today. On top of eating that many calories they were not gaining weight. Can you imagine the amount of work one would have to do to burn off 4,000 calories a day, let alone 8,000? despite having consumed this amount of calories during the summer, when winter came people began to starve to death.

Although food was a huge problem, prehaps the biggest, yet most often overlooked problem was the water source. The site Jamestown was built on, Jamestown river, was essentially marsh land. The water they gathered from it was unfit for drinking. “At low tide the water became brackish and unfit for drinking.” http://www.jamestown1607.org/survival_v1.asp

The winter of 1609 was prehaps the worst. Many of the settlers had starved to death. Some of them resorted to cannibalism to survive. By the next spring only sixty colonists were still alive.

so what does all this information mean exactly? Well, I can tell you that by 1610 only sixty colonists were left alive. Much of this is due to starvation, dentistry, and other diseases related to poor diets. despite having help from the native Americans, the majority of the colonists failed to survive. The food that they did eat had to be caught, grown, gathered, or delivered by the native americans or the English ships. The food they hunted was often fish, raccoon, or other small game native to Virginia. Venison was also a rarity due to over hunting from the native Americans years earlier. Water was prehaps the biggest problem they faced. It was unfit for drinking yet they still continued to drink it. The conditions at Jamestown were harsh and few of the people who settled there were prepared for it. I doubt anyone knew quite what they were getting into.

Intro to me

My name is Megan and I am a freshman at JSU. There is really nothing very interesting about me. I love reading, but I usally don’t care for literature classes. They are normally very hard to pay attention to. I like drawing, but it is hard to find enough time to do. I was surprised when I heard we would be getting an iPad for our literature class. Instead of the students buying an expensive literature book that we would probably never look at, the school gave us an iPad to use for the semester. I am hoping the iPad will help make literature class more interesting. I also think the class will be more interesting because it is not strictly a lecture class.</