1 America Philosophy Collaborative Paper American Revolutionary Thought Group Parisi, Frescoln, Falk, Austin, Clark, Mercado, Pultz,

Tumminia Introduction American Revolutionary Philosophy is unique in the sense that most of the revolutionary thought occurred after the revolution. Further, diverging viewpoints were at the core of American political thought. Arguments between Adams and Jefferson embody some of the earliest forms of this agreement on government around the revolutionary time period. The Age of Enlightenment brought about new ideas through individuals whose perspective was shaped by the American Revolution. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were a few of the prominent leaders in fostering these new ideas that related to nature, social issues, and the maximization of individual rights in political organizations. As a result, Parisi argues that Adams, Franklin, and Paine wrote to redefine ways to solve oppression and abuses of power. The Age of Enlightenment produced ideas that questioned the legitimacy of certain systems of government. This notion is important even today for fundamentally understanding how the system works and improves throughout time. The competing views of human nature found in the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson provide an understanding of the main differences between the differing political philosophies of the two founders. Frescoin argues that both Jefferson and Adams philosophical systems are the result of a prolonged analysis of the world around them and are also a reaction to, as well as a developing of, a number of the ideas of their time. That being said, they were both very much the products of their times and held a number of questionable views, Jefferson most evidently on the question of racial equality,

2 and they must be understood as such. When this paper refers to human nature it is with the prejudices of the two thinkers being kept in mind. It should be noted that the nature of this paper is not reductionist in that is not saying one can understand the entirety of the political philosophies solely by understanding their views of human nature. Jefferson and Adams were two complex men who both seemed to have delighted in sharing and debating their ideas with one another, men who agreed about a lot and disagreed about even more. The both developed intricate views of human nature and its relation to the natural world, which in turn affected their divergent ideas on the role of government. In coming to understand how both men viewed human nature, one can better understand the nature of their discrepancies. Benjamin Franklin contributed significantly to the early developments of American intellectual identity. Ben Franklin was among those peoples, particularly in the colonies, who played a crucial role in the developing an American perspective on subjects such as science, politics, and intellect. He is portrayed in American history as both a great scientist and inventor and his science experiment with key and kite is almost canonized school lore. His example and legacy have helped to shape American influence around the world intellectually and technologically. Franklin was indeed a very central component growth and development of the American Enlightenment mindset and his contributions have reached beyond American shores. Falk argues that Franklin asserts that the autonomy of the people was great enough that through this medium, they people could come together in order to form a social construct and a government that was dedicated to the people because its power rests in the hands of the people. Determining the overall authority of Man is often a difficult question to assess. In

3 order to understand the authority of Man, it requires overviewing humanity then objectively defining what success of Man is, rather than what the over success is of an individuals purpose. Further, Thomas Paine postulated that before society there was a reason to offer the value of deductive truths that require Natural Law. Collectively, the ability to reason and rationalize is more ideal rather than individually. Clark sets out to engage in an assessment of the current state of government and social hierarchies that are important to understand. Thus, there is a need for a cultural awakening in order to acknowledge that there was a basic requirement that was understood far before we proposed a better understanding of the reality of things in relation to natural law. Thomas Paine was a very influential founding father of American political and social thought. His arguments for justifying American political philosophy rely upon the premise of natural right independent of any form of government. His work The Rights of Man is a highly critical defense of the French Revolution. He argues for the rights of all people to determine for themselves their own political beliefs. Mercado argues that these rights are considered by Paine to be a natural part of the world. Therefore it is not in the realm of government to grant us those rights; they are inherent in us all. Instead, government is best when it interferes least. Paine additionally wrote Atheism Refuted: in a discourse to prove the existence of a God, in order to show that he was not an actual atheist. Pultz attempts to portray Paines opinions on Christianity in a manner consistent and clear to determine that Paine was in fact not an Atheist as accuse him of being. He argues that Paines attack on Christian prayer, rejection of science, and the holy trinity provides an interesting point of view. When these attacks are presented, it is clear that these rejections of Christianity

4 hold logically behind reason for Paine and for many others studying American Revolutionary Philosophy. Lastly, Tumminias essay explores the influence of Henry David Thoreaus work as revolutionary towards American Philosophy. Transcendental thought primarily focuses on notions of individualism like nonconformity, self-reliance, free thought, and the importance of nature. Its evident that Thoreaus ideas are influenced to some degree by American Revolutionary Philosophy from the likes of Alexis De Tocqueville. Through influential figures like Martin Luther King, jr, and Mohandas Gandhi, Thoreau has provided a solid groundwork for non-violent protests that has since then branched off into several other perspectives in American Philosophy. Accordingly, American Philosophy is constantly undergoing revolutionary thought. In Civil Government and Walden Where I lived and What I Lived for the characteristics of transcendentalism take a powerful role in redefining individualism and the role of individuals in society.

American Revolutionary Philosophy and The Age of Enlightenment Parisi The early years of the United States of America were politically and socially turbulent to say the least. The political and social attitudes of the American colonists were shifting rapidly from the acceptance of absolute authority to ideas of individual freedoms and rights. The wide adoption of such beliefs led 18th century America to a time known as the Age of Enlightenment. Individuals like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and later Thomas Paine, wrote extensively on new ideas relating to human nature, social issues, and the maximization of individual rights through

5 efficient political organization. They sought to restructure anything and everything that employed elements of oppression and abuse of power. The Age of Enlightenment is a period of our history where ideas of freedom are examined by people like Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Paine and they began to question the legitimacy of certain systems of government. These Enlightenment thinkers became the founders of American Revolutionary Philosophy and their work would inevitably lead to the American colonies' outright rejection of British rule. In this essay, I will discuss the ideological beliefs of some of the American Revolutionary Philosophers during the American Age of Enlightenment. Enlightenment, by definition, is the act of freeing a person from ignorance, prejudice or superstition. To become enlightened, one transcends to a certain level of intellectual clarity. German philosopher, Immanuel Kant defines the term in his essay, An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? as the human beings emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. This immaturity is inability to make use of ones own understanding without direction from another is self-incurred when its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another (Kant). This period in American philosophy is recognized for the realization of human dignity, and the overall necessity for individual empowerment. When 18th century Americans began to trust their own judgments, they emerged from intellectual immaturity through the acquisition of information which utilizes reason and scientific rationality. Enlightenment thinkers began to fiercely challenge the legitimacy of the British empire, which ruled the colonies from across the Atlantic ocean. After all, how can a self-empowered nation allow themselves to be forcefully kept in a state of

6 perpetual childhood by the British Empire which claimed to know whats best for citizens on another continent? This period of American philosophy is also recognized for the shift in religious thought. American philosophers such as Franklin, Adams, Jefferson and Paine spoke on the rejection of certain aspects of Christianity as it was practiced at the time. With factors such as the acceptance of Darwinism, the use of scientific reason, and the rejection of the Church's authority (paired with an observance of it's corruption), these revolutionary thinkers accepted a Deistic theology. Deists did not speak against all religion, in fact they argued strongly for religious tolerance. They simply adopted newer attitude towards creation, rejecting doctrines and rituals. Thomas Jefferson accepted Deism while understanding that Christianity can provide people with a suitable code of morality. Jefferson believed that as long as people do not harm others with their religious doctrines or rituals, they should be allowed to believe whatever they want. Thomas Paine was vicious in his arguments against institutionalized religion, which he believed to be counterproductive to reason and rationality. Others, like Benjamin Franklin, recognized the utility of Christian virtues but distrusted the institutionalized Christian church. In a letter to Ezra Stiles, Franklin stated: As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England (Franklin). Benjamin Franklin was not only one of the most politically influential founding fathers, he is world renown as a Revolutionary American Philosopher. He spoke fervently for the

7 recognition of human dignity, communitarianism, and the virtuous life. On religion, he found it unlikely to find an ultimate truth through practiced religion, but was mainly concerned on the utility and usefulness of the religion to it's follower. Originally a Presbyterian, he accepted Deism then returned to Christianity later in his life. He famously doubted the divinity of Jesus, stating that Jesus' divine status would not make his words or teachings any less valuable to humanity. Franklin believed that all human beings are inherently social and rational who could achieve strong moral characters through the practice of virtue. He stressed the ideas of self-perfection and theself-made man. It was his duty to create himself as the moral being he wished to become according to his understanding of Christian morality and because a citizen has an obligation to be the best and most productive person he is capable of becoming (Stanlick). Franklin composed a list of 13 personal and social virtues that he believed should be practiced habitually to ensure happiness in one's life. He had the idea that if all citizens strive to be the best that they could be, it would eventually lead to a more productive and happy utilitarian community. John Adams, on the other hand, had a negative view of human nature. He believed that human beings are self interested, uncooperative and could not be left to their own pursuits of individual happiness. In his work, A Defense of the Constitutions, Adams discusses his thoughts on how to control the selfishness of man through a government of laws. He stresses the importance of a representative government composed of a hierarchy of offices where all people are equal under established laws as opposed to one which allows for a hierarchy based on perceived human value, such as the British monarchy. When George Wythe of Virginia asked John Adams to lay plans for

8 the transition of government following a war with Britain, Adams discusses what he thought would be the best approach to the establishment of the new constitutional American government. He argues that a legitimate government is the form of government which communicates ease, comfort, security, or, in one word, happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree.(Adams). He states that the representatives who make the laws should be in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large. It should think, feel, reason, and act like them , thus ensuring that all voices are heard and interests are equally represented. In his letter to Wythe, Adams also argues for the separation of powers, stating that I think a people cannot be long free, nor ever happy, or ever happy, whose government is one assembly (Adams). He believed that a model of government with one assembly, is not only fundamentally incapable of handling all legislative, executive and judicial duties, it would fall victim to its own avarice, vote itself in perpetually, and ultimately abuse it's power over the populace. Thomas Jefferson was an interesting individual. On paper, he wrote extensively as a champion for civil rights, yet in his life he kept hundreds of African-Americans as slaves. He was a Deist who saw no problem with adopting some aspects of Christianity into his own personal philosophy, even going as far as clipping out sections of the Bible that he disagreed with. Jefferson believed that human beings are inherently generous. Like Benjamin Franklin, he believed that one strengthens his own moral character through the individual practice of virtuous behavior. Also like Franklin, he believed that we have an obligation to develop individual competence in the matters of one's political community. He believed human beings should find a way to satisfy personal interests without infringing upon the rights of others and found the idea of the forced adherence of

9 anything, be it political, religious or scientific belief deplorable (despite being a slave owner). Jefferson was not unique is having been an advocate for the war with Britain, but he was the only one to say I hold that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. (Jefferson). In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson explains his perception of the three types of government that existed in his time: none, government by force, and government by general will. A government by force, such as the British empire's rule over the colonies is a government of wolves over sheep. He believed that a government is only legitimate if it is formed and instituted with the full consent of the governed. A government, according to Jefferson, is legitimate if it protects the rights of the people, is tolerant to all religions, and allows for the freedom of speech. Once civil rights and liberties are threatened by an established government, he believed citizens had the right to overthrow said government by any means necessary. He is responsible for writing the Declaration of Independence, which contains the words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The Age of Enlightenment would not have happened without revolutionary thinkers such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. Their philosophies and beliefs went against the grain of their time and shook the world. The realization of the injustices facing the colonists was inevitable and if it wasn't for the work of enlightenment thinkers, they may have continued for generations to follow.

Jefferson and Adams on Human Nature Frescoln

10 The competing views of human nature found in the writings of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson provide an understanding of the main differences between the differing political philosophies of the two founders. Both mens philosophical systems are the result of prolonged analysis of the world around them and are also a reaction to, as well as a developing of, a number of the ideas of their time. That being said, the were both very much the products of their times and held a number of questionable views, Jefferson most evidently on the question of racial equality, and they must be understood as such. When this paper refers to human nature it is with the prejudices of the two thinkers being kept in mind. It should be noted that the nature of this paper is not reductionist in that is not saying one can understand the entirety of the political philosophies solely by understanding their views of human nature. Jefferson and Adams were two complex men who both seemed to have delighted in sharing and debating their ideas with one another, and were men who agreed about a lot and disagreed about even more. They both developed intricate views of human nature and its relation to the natural world (which will be referred to as Nature to avoid confusion). Their independent intellectual developments in turn affected their ideas on the role of government and caused a bit of divergence between them. In coming to understand how both men viewed human nature, one can better understand the root cause of their discrepancies. John Adams was a man who was profoundly impacted by his puritanism upbringing, which later, as time and age carried him forward, progressed into a sort of puritan deism. His conception of human nature is a mixture of evolved Calvinistic and deistic beliefs (as strange as that may sound). His Calvinism was not the traditional Calvinism of a Jonathan Edwards, but should instead by viewed as a simultaneous

11 developing and overcoming of some of the basic tenants of Calvinistic doctrine. Adams rejected the idea of total depravity flat out. Instead he had a less radical understanding of what causes man to sin, that mans nature is essentially weak, as opposed to being essentially evil. According to Adams, human nature is the result of three gifts God has given to mankind: reason, the passions, and moral sense. Human nature should be ruled by reason, but ever since the Fall, mans passions have tried to wrest reason from its natural role as ruler of human nature. According to Adams, mans weakness and tendency to let passion rule where reason should is the source of evil. Out of this belief, Adams developed his opinions on the role of the state. To him, the purpose of government was to strengthen men against their natural weakness and to guide them towards reason. Adams view of the state of Nature also impacted his views on human nature and vice versa. Although he was a deist, he did not view the world and Nature as some great playground made by God solely for the beings He created to enjoy. Rather, Adams thought that the world was not designed for a lasting and happy state, but rather for a state of moral discipline. To Adams was something that reminded man of his transitory nature. His political thought can be understood as the outgrowth of a combination of his view of human nature as being essentially weak and how he understood human nature to interact with the world. (Fielding, 1940) Thomas Jefferson, was also a deist, however his philosophy of man was more heavily affected by his view of Nature and the role it plays in the lives of men then by any religious doctrine. His view of human nature is heavily influenced, even to an extent defined, by mans relation to nature. He had a great trust in the power of nature impacting man and believed that as long Americans were chiefly engaged in agriculture and not

12 collected into cities they would remain morally upright and as a result, so would there government. For Jefferson, mans relation to nature was paramount over and against religious doctrine. However, nature for him did not display a divine order towards some perfect plan but instead a chaotic force to be countered. Jefferson saw the American project as one that was essentially working against the wildness of nature to create and facilitate the orderly associating of men. He rejected the idea of a final overcoming of nature, but rather saw the role of man to be in a state of constant endeavor against the chaos and caprice of nature. He was fearful of monarchy because he believed that man was basically good and that because of this they should be left to themselves to life a life of simplicity, bringing order to the chaos of the wilderness. To Jefferson, any increase in government resulted in an increase on the infringement on the basic simplicity of man. Jeffersons understanding of human nature and its relation to nature was the base from which he developed the rest of his political philosophy. (Valsania, 2004) When one looks at the two views of human nature of Jefferson and Adams and how they are similar and yet very different, a number of things are initially apparent. Their shared belief in deism was highly impactful to their philosophical systems, but there conceptions of deism were widely divergent. However, it is not their differing brands of deism but their views of human nature that are the real difference between them. In a letter to Jefferson, Adams points out that his fear is aristocracy, while Jeffersons is monarchy. Adams is here referring to the office of the presidency (monarchy) that he was in favor of giving more power to, and the Congress (aristocracy) which was were Jefferson believed the power should be. This is clearly the result of their differing opinions of human nature. Adams who believed in essential weakness of man

13 since the Fall and the importance of strengthening man against this weakness pushed for a strong presidency, that could help to guide the moral sense of man towards reason over the passions. Jefferson, however, favored a government spread across a number of individuals, a simplistic government thats chief purpose was to protect the natural rights of its citizens against those who would seek to put unnecessary laws over their heads. Mans relation to Nature also plays an important role in the two thinkers political philosophy. Adams saw Nature as something that was not made for his enjoyment, whereas Jefferson viewed it as something that man should strive against to remain morally upright. From this discussion it is evident that the competing views of human nature found in Jefferson and Adams heavily influenced their differing opinions on the role of government in the newly founded United States. Jefferson and Adams competing views of human nature can be understood as the guiding force impacting and shaping their respective political philosophies. Their individually unique deisms and their concepts of Nature played a role in the Adams unique mixture of puritanism and deism led him to a belief in the basic weakness of man and the job of government being to guide the moral sense of its citizens to reason over the passions. Jeffersons belief in the basic goodness of man and the placing of importance on the role of man being to interact with wilderness brought him to a concept of government that focused on its main job being protecting the rights of its citizens, or in other words, staying out of their business as much as possible. Studying the two views of human nature found in Jefferson and Adams is key to understanding how the two founding fathers came to such radically different conclusions concerning political philosophy.

14

Benjamin Franklin and His Philosophical Influence on America Falk The eighteenth century was an intriguing time in human history; it was filled with great changes and discoveries in science, religion, politics and many other aspects of intellectual human capacity. The minds behind such revolutions gained insight into new realms of thought by way of new scientifically- proven techniques and Enlightened thinking, thus vastly changing the status quo of world-wide ideology. Without a doubt, this tremendously influenced the mean and ideas that were so heavily ingrained in our countrys founding fathers and the documents they crafted that set the framework for our political and cultural ideologies. One of the most influential and important of these founders was Benjamin Franklin, a man whose influence and value is still felt to this day for his contributions of the 18th century, not only to America but to the entire world. He filled this world with imaginative designs and also introduced and spread his own philosophies on religion, politics, and society which would have profound effects on the revolutionary colonies. As a youth and into his time as a young man, Franklin was on the constant pursuit to better himself and quench his thirst for knowledge and intellectual debate. It is widely, known that he was an avid reader and newspaper creator, and with this he could gain information and learn about the happenings of the time, but also he could introduce his own ideology to the masses. Franklin quickly gained a reputation as a writer and he became widely known throughout the colonies as an influential thinker. He would earn his way into the political scene, beginning in Philadelphia, and from there be thrust into the forefront of men leading the new American ideas forming from the Revolutionary

15 movement. Although Franklin was not perhaps the most politically recognized revolutionary, in the opinion of many, he was perhaps the most wise and influential. He based many of his lessons and thoughts off of ancient Greek philosophers along with the new Enlightenment thinkers. Always a clever man, he used both of these influences to progress his own ideas further, primarily on society and religion. Franklin was primarily influenced by the two philosophical movements of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle and the more modern philosophers of Descartes and Kant. The primary source of Franklins thought, and the basis of philosophy of any philosopher in the previous 2,000 years was the Aristotle. Franklin primarily based his view on ethics on what is referred to as the Aristotelian approach. In this, he discusses the ethics of a society in which he says that virtues are not a natural born instinct, but are rather learned and practiced through experience. In a practical approach, the idea that the community, character, and consequences all lead to each other is the most widely used example, in which the ideal scenario would involve all three aspects leading to the end goal: a good life. Aristotle would also argue that, the whole is prior to its parts, which Franklin would adopt himself in the American sense, calling for a united and concentrated union of the colonies to precede any sort of federalist, state-first system. As for the influence of Descartes on Franklin, this can primarily be seen with Franklins adoption of fallibilism. Franklin continued the idea of almost no certain truths in the entire universe, and it would behoove one to state something that they believe to be true as with almost certainty or it appears to be, because he believed that there was no room for certainty, as so did Descartes. This theory of Fallibilism could be applied to all realms of inquiry in the universe, thus making it to these men, an absolute law.

16 Furthermore Franklin, as well as almost all other Revolutionary philosophers, gained a great deal of their ideas from the period of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, was cultural movement of intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries, which began first in Europe and later in the American colonies. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition, intolerance and some abuses of power by the church and the state. (Kors 2003) Perhaps this was the most important seed of in the minds of Americas revolutionaries in that it bred and supplied the political, religious, and social beliefs that shaped what would become the government of the American Colonies. This new way of thinking put forward the importance of the individual and began to implement a way of thought that, for the goodness of man (Shapin 1994). This idea was critical in the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the foundation of Americas legal backbone. Franklins ideas on ethics and religion were something else that was greatly shaped from the Enlightenment movement. He was a firm believer in the works and philosophies of Immanueal Kant, another 18th Century philosopher whose work today is still the basis of many philosophical arguments. Franklin believed that in the world of virtue and ethics that they are something acquired from knowledge and observation and they are not something inherent that one is born with. In terms of religion he remained true to his views on fallibalism and neither accepted nor denied God. In fact, he did like the ideas that religion brought to society. He felt that if people practiced the virtuous natures of religion and the morality they taught, than religion could be a very useful tool

17 in helping shape society in that it would keep people out of crime by having already shaped their moral views. An example of this would be the Ten Commandments of Christianity that instill religious law codes of morality on its followers to insure they are living the most Godly life they possibly can. This interesting approach helped shape his influence profoundly on the development on early American legislation. In all, Franklins influence on America is still well felt to this day. Although he was much older than his intellectual contemporaries who also dominated that revolutionary time in history, he still played a vital role as diplomat and creative mind to his young country. Perhaps one of the most brilliant minds of the time, his continuance of Enlightenment thought is well documented throughout his works, whether it be from his letter to Ezra Stiles or his many other published works on law, ethics or social problems. If George Washington is seen as the father of this great nation, then perhaps Benjamin Franklin should be seen as the old and wise uncle whose watchful eyes insured that America would become a symbol of freedom and the land of hope and opportunity for years to come.

Benjamin Franklin on Government Austin Benjamin Franklin is considered to be one of the primary founding father of the American system of Government that we subject ourselves to presently. Franklin was one of the philosophical fathers of the Declaration of Independence written in regards to the succession from Great Britain as colonies and as a document laying out what Freedom and Liberty meant to the founding people of this Country. In this regard the people since this time owe Franklin the time to delve into his ideals and beliefs when it comes to the

18 creation of Government and what he believed Government was for in relation to the control of people and how the system of a national unifying Government under a democracy should be carried out. Franklin was for the unification of the colonies, but not exactly for a strong federal government for he worried about a new monarchy. Franklin had a great belief in the autonomy of the people and that through this autonomy people could come together and run a government that was dedicated to the people because it is put in power by the people. Benjamin Franklin resided in Pennsylvania during his life and was a member of the Continental Congress as an ambassador from his home state. He held a dear ally who was a fellow ambassador by the name of Josef Galloway, who presented a plan to the Congress to reconcile with Great Britain and establish a loser rule of Britain over the colonies but still maintaining allegiance to Great Britain herself. The name if the plan presented was the Plan for the Union of Great Britain and the Colonies and was presented with the idea that the only way to make the situation between Great Britain and the colonies friendly again was to compromise on both ends. The gist of the plan is as follows: Resolved, that this Congress will apply to His Majesty for a redress of grievances under which his faithful subjects in America labor; and assure him that the colonies hold in abhorrence the idea of being considered independent communities on the British government, and most ardently desire the establishment of a political union, not only among themselves but with the mother state, upon chose principles of safety and freedom which are essential in the constitution of all free governments, and particularly that of the British legislature. And as the colonies from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the Parliament of Great Britain, they will humbly propose to His

19 Majesty and his two houses of Parliament the following plan, under which the strength of the whole empire may be drawn together on any emergency, the interest of both countries advanced, and the rights and liberties of America secured A Plan for a Proposed Union between Great Britain and the Colonies of New Hampshire, the Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the Three Lower Counties on the Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. (Galloway, Joesef: 1774) The idea of a union with Great Britain was not a favorable one in Franklins eyes where he said in a letter to Galloway, I have not heard what objections were made to the plan in the Congress, nor would I make more than this one, that, when I consider the extream corruption prevalent among all orders of men in this old rotten State, and the glorious publick virtue so predominant in our rising country, I cannot but apprehend more mischief than benefit from a closer union. I fear they will drag us after them in all the plundering wars which their desperate circumstances, injustice and rapacity may prompt them to undertake; and their wide-wasting prodigality and profusion is a gulph that will swallow up every aid we may distress ourselves to afford them. Here numberless and needless places, enormous salaries, pensions, perquisites, bribes, groundless quarrels, foolish expeditions, false accounts or no accounts, contracts and jobs devour all revenue, and produce continual necessity in the midst of natural plenty. (Franklin, Letter to Josef Galloway) In this regard Galloway set the foundation for Franklins idea that the Colonies should at least be unified whether in their fight against Great Britain or there resistance to their rule; being the Quaker that Franklin was he was always in favor of peaceful negotiation with Great Britain. In his twilight years Franklin was a statesman who supports the cause of

20 succession from Great Britain and was the philosophical brains behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence behind Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. He also stood firmly behind the Constitution, writing up this speech right before it was ratified in 1787 where he said that he did not agree with every part of the document but that he will accept them, I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.(Franklin, 1787) He also purported that he felt this document reached near perfection and that others in the world were waiting for the United States to fall apart, In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I

21 think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. (Franklin, 1787) This humbleness that Franklin shows was present through most of the endeavors in his life and stems from his philosophical beliefs within the scope of human autonomy and his trust in the individual. Benjamin Franklin was a complex person with a complex mind; he was bold in his belief in the right of the individual although not unique with his fellow constitutional founding fathers. His views on the role of Government are as important as the personal philosophies that he held and are of course heavily influenced by them and other ideas he encountered in his life. If it were not for his passion for the individual then I do not believe that the United States of America would be the same country or have the same ideology engrained in its founding documents.

The Overall Authority of Man Clark If the question was, Where does the overall authority of Man lie?, we would have multiple answers based simply upon multiple values that individuals grew up with. Rationally though, this questions requires us to look at the entirety of humanity and be objective about what the over all success of Man is, and not what the over success is of an individuals purpose. Due to the ever increasing popularity of self, we find it harder

22 and harder to agree about the future of humanity and instead focus on the immediate gratification of personal accomplishment and an ability to be selfishly aware of the way humanity works in the world but not really self aware of the way humanity needs to work in the world. Thomas Paine understood that before there was a society there was a reason to offer the value of a priori truths that requires us to abide by a Natural Law. Since our ability to reason and rationalize to be together is better then to be an individual, we have allowed ourselves to believe that when we speak for a political/social standpoint that we use the words of unity when what is really meant is the we only means those who abide and agree with the proposed argument. I want to take the next few pages discussing how a deeper look at our current state of government and social hierarchies is much needed. In that, coming to a conclusion that a cultural awakening is needed in order to understand that there was a basic requirement that was understood far before we proposed a better understanding of the reality of things. A Natural Law that Creates All Men & Women Equal Paine expressed an idea that from birth all have a right to exist without persecution and without prejudice despite where they are born and in what condition. With this in mind it is easy to think that the self is what he is trying to focus on but I believe he is trying to focus on so much more. Because Man has a right, it does not mean he has an ability to live alone without others. Thomas Paine acknowledges that there was Man before there was government and because there is government now that does not mean our rights from birth have dissipated. However, because this need to abide by

23 specific laws exists in order to live with one another in common unity, it did not mean that the law of Man would over shadow the law of Nature. In Paines The Rights of Man there is an over all tone that humanity always had a right to exist and that every Man within that right had their own personal rights to achieve something so much more beyond their social status and title at birth. Today there is still an unfortunate stigma based upon who you are from birth without even have made a full sentence or made any action but of the simplest of natural movements that are of necessity for survival. Our lives have already begun to be written and in that the interactions of the world on us will do their best to keep us in line with what society deems best for us. There is a strong argument from Paine though, and in it he states that even though we strive for the unity of man we are still all of one degree. (Stanlick, 256) Paine believes that in birth regardless of generation we are born into, we are still born from creation in which we have the same rights that our ancestors did and that our ancestral right falls in line with what God has given us naturally in Mans existence. The world is as new to him as it was to the first man that existed, and his natural right in it is of the same kind. (Stanlick, 257) This should speak volumes to every generation born to prove that regardless of how the world works today it is important to separate yourself from the path of our parents and find the path that is ours to walk. In regards to how tomorrow exists, this shows that we have every right to start a new and every right to change the world as we understand it to be and not how the generation before us understands it to be.

24 As Paine suggests, Man did not enter into society to become worse then he was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. (Stanlick, 256) Our ability to reason that being in society is better then being in solitude suggests that we also understand that under the social contract of man we accept that everyone has rights that mans law just cant abolish because of personal preference. Where we most often find folly is in our personal religions and politics and the selfish gains in persecuting those who we deem are lower on the social totem pole and even if we deem specific establishments as being negative on the societal whole, the rights of those who abide by the establishments have every right to have that opinion. Governments, Religions, and Superstitions Paines main argument against establishments are establishments founded on God given rights that are of Mans choice and not really of a supernatural nature. He equates this to rulers who ruled by the weight of the sword and because of that sort of power it was easily swayed to who ever had the biggest army. When both of these ideals come together we get something like Divine Right which allows us to idolize the position and turn it into a dictatorship to rule over all, including, the state of Natural Law. This really does not work because the law of humanity does not trump the law of creation. Regardless of the belief system any one person holds there is still something greater then the minds of Man and if we choose to abide by that particular belief system is one thing, but to be ignorant and assume that we understand ourselves better then whatever existed in our creation, is folly. We find that as we go back through history there is only one true definite and that

25 there was something that existed before us, and in that we must know that we did not always search to one another to find comfort in a society and treatises. We could not have always been governed because the government did not precede our existence because the government is of our own mind. In saying that we as individuals agree together to create a state in which we would live under. We created a social contract so that we could secure one anothers rights not to abolish, persecute, and set up boundaries for all of humanity in sex and race. The government has risen out of the people and not above our existence. ... All the great laws of society are laws of nature. (Stanlick, 261) I find that in nature all of the laws that the animals of the world abide by we ourselves also abide by for the best of our existence, and our existence is the utmost of interest. We consider that in trade and interaction between one another that there are skill sets and things that one another can do and provide that we ourselves cannot do and provide. In saying that we have realized that the basic principles of what it takes to survive are needed in order to, for a lack of a better term, self preserve humanity to continue on. However, where we find a hiccup in the system is in our ability to over run and over take and if we are to abide by a Natural Law that always means that we must consider the rest of this planet that is natural and abides by this same law. We understand the basics of survival and that is what flourished our society to create consumerism and although at first, much like any idea in the realms of Man , it was a good start to an easier coexistence. Now we find ourselves abiding by our own laws and really have no care for the laws that have helped this planet exist year after year. Consumerism has begun to look in the best interest of the Divinely Right. The rich and

26 poor are slowly being separated and in that we will soon find ourselves at a place of revolution. Much like Paine I believe that our government should be open to the ebb and flow of what exists in this world and that there should never be a time where the people are cut off from what their elected are doing. It is in that disconnect where we will start to see revolution and although I do not abide by such actions I do think it is inevitable when you shackle the numbers that agreed to a social peace in democracy. Government is unpredictable for we are never in the rooms with our politicians and we are never close enough but a letter or email to try and sway the opinions of our elected. The government is like a wild dog that can be coaxed into society but never full trusted by its owner. The owner will feed it, nurture it, groom it, love it, and give it a name. Yet, the only change is that the dog is learning to live behaved in the presence of its owner but when the owner turns their back we find that the animal digresses for whatever reason in nothing more than what could be known as an animalistic characteristic, fear. When the dog bites the hand that feeds it is waging war without knowing. It simply sought protection in its new surroundings. It understood what was happening but never forgot what it was like to fend for itself. Governments are constantly in fear of losing power. A government cannot run without the people who have nurtured it into society. The issue is that we trust our government to do what is right for the people when time after time we see that the government does what is right for it. More often then not they move the pieces to sway the audience in thinking they are getting the best out of life and

27 what is naturally theirs. The government says that it protects the interests of the many but in reality it only protects the interests of the select few. It does not just bite the hand that feeds, but attempts to shackle its real owner. I believe in the ideas of Paine that in our acceptance of the Natural state of Man we can find a universal Ethic that promotes the rights of all men and woman so that we can search for a better way to take care of one another. As of now we are letting those who we are linked to by mere species die of diseases and famine and we look the other way to our broken political systems. The Natural Law of the world boasts we protect the whole of our species and not the whole of a specific continent, region, or neighborhood. I would like to end a thought from Paine which was as true in 1792 as it is today, Governments ought to be as much open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of which it has been monopolized from age to age, by the most ignorant and vicious of the human race. (Stanlick, 263)

The Rights of Man Mercado The intent of this essay is to provide an analysis of the criticism directed towards monarchical government by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man and to then demonstrate how that criticism is equally applicable to the representative form of government, focusing upon the United States government specifically, advocated by Mr. Paine himself. The first portion of this essay will focus on providing an analysis of Mr. Paine's arguments for the natural rights of man in an attempt to place his criticism of monarchical government in context. The next portion will then draw upon specific examples from The

28 Rights of Man to demonstrate that the government of the United States is equally susceptible to these criticisms. The Rights of Man is Paine's response to the criticism of the French Revolution presented by Edmond Burke in his Reflections on the Revolution in France. In a direct rebuttal of Burkes position Paine states that no generation is bound to the will of the generations which came before it. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. His argument is that each generation has the right to determine for themselves what their course of action will be, even if that course is to accept those laws which have been enacted by previous generations. Paine's position on rights is built upon the premise of natural rights. He believes that rights are a natural component of humankinds character, that is to say that rights are a part of the natural order of the world rather than a creation of man. He writes "It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few." Nature not government is the source of humankinds rights. Therefore the rights of man are independent of any government. This is an important point in Paine's logic. Since government is not the source of rights it holds the capacity to violate those rights, and when it does it is entirely within the rights of the people to remove and replace the government. A law not repealed continues in force, not because it cannot be repealed, but because it is not repealed; and the non-repealing passes for consent. In order for the laws of previous generations to maintain their legitimacy the generations which follow must give their consent to abide by those laws. Each successive generation will either

29 reject or accept for itself the enduring legacies of the generations which preceded it. Paine argues that what was necessary for one generation may no longer be necessary for the subsequent generations which follow. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living or the dead? Paine takes as a given that the world is in continual flux, and in order to survive each generation of society must be adaptable to the changes which are continuously occurring in the world around them. This gives each generation an inherent right to determine for themselves what the best and most appropriate response to the circumstances which compose their reality. Paine writes There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security. He believes that Nature has imbued man with a natural desire which is only fulfilled by his existence within a society of his fellow men. She [Nature] has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being. He believes that Nature has filled man with wants that drive us to seek the society of other men, and therefore we are born to be part of society through our desire for satisfying certain wants which we cannot achieve on our own. As such governments usefulness is determined by its ability to provide for people, and society as a whole, what they want but cannot provide for

30 themselves. Anything more than that is mere imposition. The following paragraphs will focus on three specific examples taken from Paine's writing in an attempt to demonstrate the premise stated in the opening paragraph. The first example is based on Paine's contention that the "The civil wars which have originated from contested hereditary claims, are more numerous, and have been more dreadful, and of longer continuance, than those which have been occasioned by election." This statement is directly refuted by the U.S. Civil War and the devastation it brought to the American people. In terms of number of people killed it is the bloodiest war in American history. As far as "continuance" is concerned there are more books written every year on the U.S. Civil War then any other subject. The causes and the legacies of the war are continually being discussed, analyzed, and argued about in modern academia. The second example is focused on Paine's statement concerning government expenditure in relation to the amount of debt accrued by the French monarchy. He writes "It would be impossible, on the rational system of representative government, to make out a bill of expenses to such an enormous amount as this deception admits. Government is not of itself a very chargeable institution. The whole expense of the federal government of America, founded, as I have already said, on the system of representation, and extending over a country nearly ten times as large as England, is but six hundred thousand dollars, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand pounds sterling." The current level of debt in which the U.S. government finds itself is in excess of fifteen trillion dollars. According to the standard set down by Paine, the U.S. government can no longer be considerd as rational.

31 The third example focuses upon Paine's statement concerning political awareness. "But the case is, that the representative system diffuses such a body of knowledge throughout a nation, on the subject of government, as to explode ignorance and preclude imposition." This claim like the two mentioned previously is refuted by the current realities of the U.S. While there are countries with a representative system of government where political awareness and activism are high, the level of awareness in the U.S. serves as a counterpoint to those countries. This essay is an exercise in analysis, not judgment. Paine's perspective was limited as is every persons by the world in which he lived. The statements made by Paine in these examples were written only a few years after the constitution of the United States had been written and even less time had passed since it's ratification. He also wrote in a time before revolutionary concepts, such as the theory of evolution, had been postulated. There are many words we use to describe the concept of perspective. Some have come to have a negative connotation such as bias or prejudice while others are used to express a more neutral or positive connotation such as outlook or worldview. Regardless the truth is that every person has a perspective, and our perspectives are shaped by the world in which we live. Since his criticisms have become just as applicable to the model of government he believed in and argued for, his work is just as important today as it was in 1791.

Thomas Paine on Religion Pultz Thomas Paine wrote Atheism Refuted: in a discourse to prove the existence of a God, in a way to prove that he himself, was not an atheist even though he was frequently

32 accused of being one. Paine was often accused of being an Atheist because of his strong critical beliefs towards Christianity. The objective of this essay is to clarify Paines opinions on Christianity as well as explain why that does not make him an Atheist. Paine strongly believed that Christianity is unreasonable and unworthy of his personal beliefs. He firmly held issue with the ideas of Christian prayer, rejection of science, the holy trinity, and many other topics that are essentially crucial to the center of Christian belief. For a Christian to have full faith in God, they must submit themselves to believing that he knows what he is doing. It is often said that everything that happens is in Gods plans or that everything happens for a reason. Why then would a Christian need to pray? What would be the point of a person, who knows that whatever happens is because god intended it to happen, to pray for God to essentially change his mind? That would be absurd and would imply a lack of faith in Gods plans. Christians who pray to change what occurs are essentially saying that they know better than God what should happen (Stanlick) It does seem absurd when stated as such, but a Christian may reply by saying that it is their way of having a personal relationship with God, and that by bringing their own problems to him, it is a healing process for themselves. Others may say that the objective of prayer is to simply thank him for the way he has already made things. Paines second rejection is equally frustrating for him. Christianity rejecting science is a problem that Paine does not understand. For Paine, science is not a human invention. Science comes from God since science is about the natural world and God is the creator of the natural world. (Stanlick) This is also an example of how Paine could

33 not be considered an Atheist, he obviously believes in a God. Science must be Godly and an activity more likely to give us truth about God than religionIf we are to live in a Godly way, then, we should have respect for science. (Stanlick) This is definitely an issue that is less prevalent in todays times. In todays world science is respected much more but still has been separated from God in many cases. It seems that after Paine the world took a shift towards science and away from God which would be equally as frustrating for Paine because he believed there should be a union of the two. That one should explain the other essentially. The last rejection that needs to be discussed is Paines rejection of the Holy Trinity. He rejected the Trinity, noting that it is obviously contradictory to believe that there can be three persons in one. (Stanlick) Paine essentially believed that it was not true because it could not be verified by using reason. Paine also continues on to say that people such as Edwards views of us being helpless sinners cannot be true if God is good because he made us in his image and it would not make sense for us to be so helpless. When presented with these rejections of Christianity that Paine advocated so intensely it is simple to see the logic and reason behind his concerns with Christianity. However, it is also simple to see how people would consider someone disputing the core of Christian belief to be an Atheist. This could not be more false. Thomas Paine considered himself a Deist, which essentially means that he believed that observing nature is evidence enough to prove the existence of a god or supernatural being, just not a personal savior. For the Deist God neither Commands prayer nor expects ritualistic religious action. It is a religion without a Church and an attitude about Creation and our place in the world instead of a doctrine and set of rituals. (Stanlick) It is apparent in his

34 writings that Paine did believe in a god and anyone who claims otherwise has not taken the time to read his writings. It has been the error for the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them; for all the principles of science are of divine origin. (Paine) Obviously Thomas Paine believed in a god which would make it impossible for him to an Atheist. Paine holds critical views on the teachings of schools regarding religion, but not in the way most think. In Atheism Refuted, he states The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only has been that of generating in the pupils a species of Atheism. Instead of looking through the works of Creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. (Paine) He clearly holds a firm belief in a God. In fact, he goes as far to offer arguments for a gods existence by describing to a skeptic who denies divine authority by saying that they could be made by man and that the universe has no evidence to support the existence of god and Paine says To him we hold out this universe as a thing that man could not make; to him we propose it as the evidence for his belief, as the inimitable word of God. (Paine) Its apparent that Thomas Paine should never have been considered an Atheist. Although Paine had many issues with Christianity, he still held firm beliefs in the existence of a God that created the universe but he took issues with the many contradictions in Christianity itself. In all, Paines view is that the Christian lives a life of irreconcilable contradictions and that Christianity is not worthy of belief. (Stanlick) The fact of the matter is that Paine just could not support a God that is similar to the one

35 described in the scriptures. God is rational, not a God of wrath and fits of passion. (Stanlick)

Thoreau and Lupe Fiasco Tumminia Henry David Thoreaus work was influenced by American Revolutionary Philosophy and as time progressed, his work idea would then reflect and transcend in other individuals work. He has reached out to many as an inspiration for living life in a distinct way. Thoreaus work has influenced several public figures; some of the most prominent figures include Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, and Mohandas Gandhi. Alexis De Tocqueville wrote before Thoreau a warning of problems with justice which in turn influenced Thoreau in Civil Disobedience. Also important and influenced by Thoreau is Edward Abbey and Lupe Fiasco. One of Thoreaus most famous works derives from Resistance to Civil Government (commonly referred to as Civil Disobedience). The other influential work by Thoreau is Walden Where I Lived and What I lived for where Thoreau attempts to live his life without following society blindly like most people were at the time while writing the experience of living in Walden Pond. This essay will primarily focus on discussing the influences of Thoreau in American Revolutionary Philosophy through Civil Disobedience and Walden and how his thoughts have applied to the present. Civil disobedience can be defined as an act in which a peaceful political protest occurs by refusal to comply with laws, or to pay taxes and fines. For instance, Thoreau refused to pay a poll tax that he had accumulated for six years. As a result, he was thrown in jail for one day but he was bailed out the next day. However, Thoreau felt that he was

36 at home when he was thrown in jail and was actually unhappy when he was bailed out. As a result, Thoreau gave lectures that first began to define the support for what would become one of the most influential essays in American history to this date. Before diving into Thoreaus Civil Disobedience, it should be noted that Thoreau was clearly against slavery. Further, he also did not support the Mexican/American war which was fuel to the fire in Civil Disobedience. Additionally, he was against American imperialism which is noticeable throughout his essay. Lastly, Thoreau presents many instances of transcendental thought throughout both Civil Disobedience and Walden. In his essay titled Civil Disobedience Thoreau argues that civil disobedience is a moral and social duty that every citizen has. If a law is unjust, then individuals must refuse to comply with the law in a peaceful manor rather than follow it simply because it is a law. It was evident that Thoreau influenced Martin Luther King, Jr. who had vigorously supported non-violent direct actions as a means to protest throughout the civil rights movement until he was assassinated. Similarly, Mohandas Gandhi also used nonviolent resistance as a means for activism but also as a state of mind, departing from Thoreau in a new direction. Both King and Gandhi fought for justice and love of humanity as did Thoreau too, but his work did not become influential until after his death. The first idea that Thoreau puts forth in Civil Disobedience in the first few lines sets the tone for the rest of the essay. He wrote that: I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally

37 amounts to this, which also I believe, "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient (Civil Disobedience, 3). Thoreau attempts to provide an example that argues in favor of individualism. Specifically, that when individuals are on their own without the interference of government; that they are better off without the interference of that government. However, the last line Thoreau suggests that individuals are less likely to achieve this because it requires a certain quality that Thoreau believes that people do not typically entail. Thoreau suggests that governments are paradoxical in the sense that it is practical to have a system that represents and responses systematically as a means to become more perfect but that it can be impractical. Alexis De Tocquevilles warning in Democracy in America also is exemplified by Civil Disobedience. De Tocqueville recognizes that a general law is one accepted by the majority of mankind. He also distinguishes the difference of a just law and an unjust law. Moreover, he provides a situation, where the refusal to follow an unjust law does not challenge the authority in power, instead it calls in question the freedom of mankind. Consequently, he establishes a connection between mankind and justice. Therefore, De Tocqueville suggests that a mixed government does not truly exist and in a situation where there is say, a mixed government, that it will experience a revolution or fall into the hands of anarchy leading ultimately to a collapse. In the same way, Thoreau suggests this paradox which discussing governments expediency/inexpediency. While this situation may seem at first harsh, De Tocqueville argues that unlimited power is

38 dangerous and the fact that humans are not responsible enough to use unlimited power with prudence is similar to how Thoreau feels about the majority and the direction of the United States. The connection between De Tocqueville and Thoreau is enhanced even more when De Tocqueville provides a thought provoking situation that if an individual is wrong in the United States, they cannot seek redress because if they turn to public opinion, that is essentially the majority, or the legislature, thats the majority too, and even the executive is part of the majority. Thus, justice is hard to recognize among corruption of power and this is exactly the warning that De Tocqueville was warning his readers about. This is the same underlying notion that Thoreau wanted to bring attention to when he wrote Civil Disobedience. Consequently, Thoreau argues that A government in which the majority rules in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? (Civil Disobedience, 4) The question that Thoreau asks implies that individuals can fall victim to conforming to society by following the majority mindlessly and blindly. This is a perfect example of a transcendental characteristic which is one that drives for individualistic ideas. As Thoreau continues he begins to refer to individuals who fall victim to conforming to society without staying true to ones conscience as not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus (force of the country), etc. (Civil Disobedience, 5). Again, this correlates with transcendentalism thought and is a major theme throughout Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience attempts to broaden our understanding of human experience by helping individuals recognize the tumultuous power of human emotion and

39 imagination. For example, there are individuals who chose not to vote in the most recent election and the response of many to those who abstained from voting was for the most part negative. However, thats not always the case considering that being human means that individuals have the opportunity to think, assess, and use reason in order to arrive at a conclusion. Being human essentially means that individuals do have the ability to critically assess the government, and the governments direction since that critical perspective is necessary for the system to continuously be refined for improvement. Moreover, this is one of the points that Thoreau wanted to address. His choice to refuse to pay taxes for a government that he did not support was an act of civil disobedience because he did not believe that the United States was going in the right direction, a direction that he does not support because society was following it blindly according to him. After writing Civil Disobedience, Thoreau decided that he would stay at a small cottage in the woods near Walden Pond to live a more simplified lifestyle much more isolated from society for two years in a cottage in which he built. Not surprisingly, Ralph Waldo Emerson played a role in helping Thoreau settle at Walden Pond because the land was actually owned by Emerson himself. However, sometimes Thoreau would find himself wondering into Concord or if he got tired of being alone he was always welcome at the Emersons house so he didnt live the entire two years in complete isolation like some are led to believe. In Walden Where I Lived and What I lived for we see how transcendentalism influences the way Thoreau thinks and acts. Thoreau explains how he experiences mornings in almost and religious fashion when he says The Morning wind forever blows, the poem of creation is uninterrupted; but a few are the ears that hear it.

40 Olympus is but on the outside of the earth everywhere (Walden, 64).Here, Thoreau is essentially arguing that the morning wind is beautiful in the sense that it sounds as if its a beautiful poem of masterful creation. However, he does acknowledge that the celestial nature of the wind does not appeal to everyone; rather some experience it more often than others. This is again another notion of individualism, that is, that everyone experiences their surroundings under a different perspective. Thoreau emphasizes this with Olympus is but the outside of the earth everywhere which referred to Greek mythology where Olympus was the home of the twelve Gods of Olympus. What he is suggesting is that everyone can find something beautiful and divine in even the simplest things that surround one. He wakes up and bathes in the pond which he considered a religious exercise. He parallels the bath in the pond to baptism a form of spiritual cleansing by dipping ones body in the water. Thus, Thoreau feels that every morning he cleanses his mind from illusions that limit his spiritual connection that continue to foster enhancement of his mind while appreciating the simplicity of nature. He goes on to mention that the morning is the awakening hour where a period of drowsiness exists until he awakens and he feels his consciousness flourish with intellectual thoughts. He emphasizes that through leaning how to reawaken ourselves through infinite expectations that we can carve and paint the very atmosphere and medium through which we look, which morally we can do (Walden, 68).Thoreau finds this awakening phenomenon as essential for intellectual exertion which in turn allows individuals to reflect on life to improve the quality of the day through individualism. Further, in Walden, Thoreau critiques the lives lived in a hurry towards the end of the passage when he suggests that our life is frittered away by detail (Walden, 69). He argues that individuals are so entangled in so many things that

41 we have an obsession to seek too many things, whether it is money, food, or dishes. He then offers insight on how we should change through Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity! I say, let your affairs be as two or three and not a hundred or a thousand; instead of a million count half a dozen, and keep your accounts on your thumb nail (Walden, 69). Instead of buying many dishes we should instead reduce it to only what we need. These occurrences happen more frequently now than in Thoreaus time. For example, Television has all these reality shows that fool people into watching something so manipulative with little to no substance or value towards education. Then there are the massive advertisements that reinforce materialism and the need to have everything that is considered normal for an individual in society leading to overconsumption. Fundamentally, we live in a world where materialism prevails in society. The artist Lupe Fiasco shares similar characteristics with Thoreau. Lupe Fiasco is a strong proponent of individualism. Much of his lyrics suggest individuals to question political issues and social problems and assess them. Like Emerson and transcendental thought, Lupe Fiasco is a strong supporter for speaking your mind. Thus, he is not afraid to speak about hot topic issues in politics and societal issues like racism. Further, like Thoreau, Lupe Fiasco is strongly influenced by non-violent protesting. Perhaps part of this is due to the fact that he is African American so racism has influenced his life. He reflects on society in Strange Fruition: Now I cant pledge allegiance to your flag Cause I cant find no reconciliation with your past When there was nothing equal for my people in your math

42 As long as they look good when theyre doing bad Then the separation from the truth is getting vast, fast Be a slave at first or free at last Double-edged choices make a person want to pass Double-headed voices from the eagle on the staff An interpretation of the first three lines is the notion of disregarding the pledge of allegiance peacefully because one cannot support the direction of the government considering the long standing institutional racism of African Americans in the education system. The last five lines of his analogy pertains to societys addiction to materialism that people must look good by buying expensive clothing, shoes, cars, and houses to conform to society. Thus, we have two choices, be a slave (to materialism) and be the first to have the newest things, or be free (from materialism) and be the last to get up to date with the rest of society. However, the choice between the first and the last can be seen as double-headed voices from the eagle on the staff which depicts two evils but you choose between the lesser of two evils. The latter choice society views as not conforming to the standard and is frowned upon greatly. So which one does one pick? Lupe Fiasco also makes a connection to Civil Disobedience and Walden in Unforgivable Youth when he says: Ways and means from the trade of human beings A slave labor force provides wealth to the machine And helps the new regime establish and expand Using manifest destiny to siphon off the land

43 Warns, "One cannot steal what was given as a gift; Is the sky owned by birds and the rivers owned by fish? Lupe argues that America used the trade of African Slaves to begin a labor force to profit greatly off their labor. While the machine becomes established, human beings become things used to achieve a goal by manipulating the masses or in this case Africans. Ultimately, manifest destiny and American exceptionalism override justice where land is stripped away from Natives. Clearly, there is a strong opposition to slavery by Lupe Fiasco and similarly Thoreau. The Natives did not live by Western customs where land would be partitioned and sold to others. Instead, the held the belief that the land was given to them as a gift by the Gods. In turn, the United States reasoned that because you live on the land does not mean you can claim ownership. The connection with Walden relates to humans and nature, specifically the problem with common goods. The Natives used the land extremely efficiently for what techniques and technology they did have. If they killed an animal they would use it for multiple things rather than wasteful. This alludes to the notion of simplicity! simplicity! simplicity. Much of Lupe Fiascos lyrics embody transcendental characteristics exemplified by Thoreau. Walden influenced Edward Abbey - who is most notable for playing a vital role in the environmental movement as just an author of a series of novels. Abbey wrote the famous novel titled The Monkey Wrench Gang which depicts protest of environmentally damaging activities in the American Southwest through the use of ecological sabotage. Consequently, Abbey takes it to another level with sabotage which can certainly be seen as a more aggressive stance towards materialism and departs from Thoreaus civil

44 disobedience to a degree. Abbey argued that sabotage is violence against inanimate objects like machinery and property as opposed to terrorism the violence against human beings. It is evident in Abbeys work that Thoreau influenced The Monkey Wrench Gang through opposition to materialism and technology to a degree in the sense that he was against it. In the novel, the main characters go around blowing up bridges, tinkering with construction sites and vehicles to stop them from creating environmental harmful things. Additionally, in an essay by Abbey titled Down the River with Henry Thoreau, Abbey is constantly visited by the ghost of Thoreau where in different situations he criticizes Abbey for his choices while he explores a river with a few other people. For example, he envisions Thoreau criticizing every move Abbey makes for even routine things like Abbeys breakfast being too complicated and offers the advice to simplify it. Ultimately, throughout time Abbey becomes fonder of Thoreau throughout the essay and eventually becomes more welcoming of Thoreaus ghost by appreciating the ideas the ghost holds. Henry David Thoreaus work as portrayed by this essay reveals that his writings have influenced many figures. Not only has it influenced individuals like Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Mohandas Gandhi, but his ideas have been amended to correlate to society becoming more advanced through Lupe Fiasco and Edward Abbey. The main goal of American Revolutionary Philosophy is this transformation of ideas. From Tocqueville to Thoreau, to Abbey we see that these ideas are continuously being challenged by new ideas to foster a better understanding of the political and social place. Thus, Thoreaus Civil Disobedience and Walden Where I Lived and What I lived for has served as a fine example of influential writing that will hopefully continue to be refined and applied to the political and social realm.

45 Conclusion A survey of American Revolutionary thought paints us a diverse picture of the different views and opinions held by the men who founded our nation. Each of the thinkers discussed was reacting to some challenge or problem and every opinion is unique in that it is the result of complex and careful study. When one studies American Revolutionary thought, it is easy to be overcome with a profound sense of the genius that went in to the creation of this nation. In the history of modern government, it is hard to find a nation whose founders even come close to level of intellectual endeavor examined above. A number of main themes can be observed throughout the course of his paper. Most evident are the numerous different attempts to try and answer the problems of power. Although an overall consensus is not reached, the variety of responses demonstrates the range of thought that went into solving the early problems faced by our nation. Ultimately, the American founding experience is unique because it synthesized a number of seemingly divergent philosophies and political systems. Not only that, but collectively, these divergent philosophies have formed a distinct type of philosophy that differs from traditional European philosophy. We see that the age of enlightenment would not have happened without revolutionary thinkers like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams. Their ideas and beliefs were unique during tier time due to the influence of British influence and Great Britains Constitutional Monarchy. Through Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams, the exchange in ideas of freedom created the foundation for American Revolutionary Philosophy. Due to Jefferson and Adams competing views on human nature, a split in political

46 philosophies occurs where Adams entailed a mixture of puritanism and deism, while Jeffersons belief resided in the basic goodness of man primarily on the importance of protecting the rights of citizens. As a result, the two founding fathers show how unique their political philosophy. Its important to be able to distinguish the difference in the two philosophical views of Adams and Jefferson because they may share similarities but wholly come to different conclusions on human nature. The influence of Franklin resulted in ideas that support the right of the individual. Franklin believed in the genuine goodness of the Constitution almost to the point that he believed it was almost perfect. Thus, it leads to the conclusion that to Franklin, a general government is necessary because there is an advantage in having joint wisdom in government because it inevitable leads to assembly, inclusion of prejudices, passions, errors of opinion, local interests, and selfish views. As seen later in the essay, these attributes are discussed by other prominent philosophers and create a sense of identity for American Philosophy.

47 Bibliography: American Revolutionary Philosophy and The Age of Enlightenment: -Kant, Immanual. Cambridge University Press, 1996. 0. <http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/enlightenment.htm>. -Franklin, Ben. N.p.. Web. 1 Apr 2013. <http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/franklin-stiles.html>. -Stanlick, Nancy (2012-12-12). American Philosophy: The Basics (Kindle Locations 696-697). Routledge. Kindle Edition. -Adams, John. "John Adams: The Foundation of Government." Thoughts on Government. 1776. <http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116853>. Jefferson and Adams on Human Nature: -Fielding, Ioan Howard. John Adams: Puritan, Deist, Humanist. The Journal of Religion Vol. 20, No. 1 (1940) pp, 33-46, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1198647 (accessed April 4, 2013). -Valsania, Maurizio. Our Original Barbarism: Man Vs. Nature in Thomas Jeffersons Moral Experience. Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 65, No. 4 (2004) pp. 627645, http://jstor.org/ezproxy.net.ucf.edu/stable/3654272 (accessed April 4, 1013). -Jefferson, Thomas. The Dangers of the One and the Few. The Debate on the Constitution Vol. 1, ed. Bernard Bailyn. pp. 473. Viking Press, 1993. Benjamin Franklin and His Philosophical Influence on America -Kors, Alan Charles. "Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment." Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003. -Shapin, Steven. "A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England." Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Benjamin Franklin on Government -Franklin, Benjamin. "Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Galloway." Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Galloway. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. -Franklin, Benjamin. "U.S. Constitution." Speech of Benjamin Franklin. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2013. -Galloway, Josef. "Galloway's Plan for the Union of Great Britain and the Colonies." Galloway's Plan for the Union of Great Britain and the Colonies. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Apr. 2013. The Rights of Man - http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-02.htm Thomas Paine on Religion -Stanlick, Nancy A. American Philosophy: The Basics. London: Routledge, 2013. Print.

48 -Paine, Thomas. Atheism Refuted; in a Discourse to Prove the Existence of a God. London: Printed for J. Johnson, 1798. Print. Thoreau and Lupe Fiasco -Fiasco, Lupe. "Unforgivable Youth." Food & Liquor II. Lupe Fiasco. Lupe Fiasco, 2012. MP3. -Fiasco, Lupe. "Strange Frution." Food & Liquor II. Lupe Fiasco. Lupe Fiasco, 2012. MP3. -Thoreau, Henry David, and John Porcellino. Thoreau at Walden. New York: Hyperion, 2008. Print. -Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience. Boston: David R. Godine, 1969. Print