Whitman

     Poetry is always difficult for me to read.  However, I think I got the general idea of what Whitman was trying to say in his poem.  His main argument was that he is in everything and everyone.  There are not that many differences when it comes to the core of what makes up an individual.  This is evident in lines two and three when he refers to the atoms that make up people.  It is also evidenced in lines 327-329 at the very end of the reading.  

     Whitman begins with a discussion of nature that is detailed and very personal to Whitman himself.  This is evidenced in lines twenty and twenty one.  It is obvious that he values nature very highly and longs to be close to it.  This kind of writing is very characteristic of the Romantic age of literature.  I really admire lines 40-43 when Whitman is valuing the present for what it is.  I think that is a very positive, healthy way to live as long as it is not taken to the extreme.  I don't think we as Americans live that way for the most part.  I think we are constantly looking to the future, making money for the future, trying to provide for the future, etc. that sometimes we forget to look at what is right in front of us.

     Similar to Emerson, I think Whitman sees everything as being inherently good.  I see this in lines 134-135.  While I do not personally agree with this view, it is obvious that it was a popular view during the 1800s.  Lines 189-198 reminded me of The Sot Weed Factor but in an opposite view.  The speaker of the poem was nice to the runaway and allowed him up to his level for a couple of weeks which was unheard of during his time.  The speaker here is putting his money where his mouth is so to speak.  Because he believes that he exists a little in everything and everyone, he should be able to be kind equally to everything and everyone.  This idea is further supported in line 307 when the speaker is talking about the prostitute that everyone either looks down upon or makes fun of.  The speaker sees beyond that and sees her as a person-who she truly is.        

     During section six, was Whitman discussing the grass as the nature that it was?  Or was that supposed to be a symbol for something else?  A bigger idea perhaps?  Also, in lines 214-216 is Whitman referring to the mob mentality that was illustrated in Emerson's writing?  

  

Emerson

     In continuing with the Romanticism idea of independence from society, Emerson wrote this particular work.  He addresses religion, society, and history as he implores his readers to think for themselves and be courageous.
     My favorite quote from this work is at the end of page four when he writes, "but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude."  What great insight!  Emerson here is making the point that true independence requires courage and a certain amount of virtue.  Not everyone can break away from the crowd and still be a functional part of society.  Emerson also tells his readers that nonconformity will come at a price when he writes, "For nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure." (page five)  I think this is a pretty fair warning to give his readers.  Oftentimes, people think that it is easy to follow their heart but here Emerson is saying that change is inevitable.
     One question I had in particular was on page six when Emerson is discussing God and religion.  Is he saying that one cannot truly know and follow God if they also claim to be self-dependent?  Another characteristic of this writing that I found particularly interesting was at the bottom of page eight when Emerson is discussing the beauty of nature.  This is so different from the earlier American writings we read because they either didn't discuss nature or when they did painted it in a very poor light.  Emerson however, speaks of its "...poise and orbit..." (page eight) and suggests that humans should be more like nature when it comes to self-reliance.
     The mob mentality that we saw in our last Hawthorne reading reintroduces itself around line 260 on page nine.  Emerson here implores his readers to go alone and find their own genius.  I think that it is important here to note that even though this is an old writing, many of the same ideas apply to today's America.  We may pretend to not care what other people think but honestly no one wants to be the outcast of society.  It truly does take courage to stand up to society and break the mold so to speak.

Romanticism and Hawthorne

     Romanticism was definitely a huge transition for the world as well as the United States.  The political papers we read before transitioning to Romanticism were placed perfectly because in the papers we begin to see why the need for government was so prevalent.  It was because the individual was being valued and highlighted!  The Romanticism age simply reinforces this statement.
     Hawthorne's story was easy to read in the sense that it was written as a story.  It was a lot easier to follow and understand than the Federalist paper was.  However, I did not pick up on the ultimate meaning of the story until the very end and I might have misinterpreted but to the best of my understanding, this story is highlighting the importance of independence and an individual taking ultimate control and responsibility for his or her life.  This is evident in the very last paragraph of the story when the kind stranger encourages Robin to make something of his life without the help of beneficiaries.
     I think Hawthorne was also making a general statement about society through this story.  All throughout, Robin meets strangers along the way on his journey to find his relative who he believes can help him succeed in life.  He looks to them for simple directions and help, but everyone either refuses to help him and outright ignores him or they mislead him in some way.  Hawthorne here is trying to tell his readers that society in general is not something to reach out to in times of need.  They cannot lend a hand and ultimately the individual is on their own whether they realize it or not.  Society is really just laughing at you which is evidenced by the ending scene in the last few paragraphs.  I think Hawthorne here is trying to make a bigger point by saying that society doesn't want to watch you succeed or get where you want to go; they ultimately want to see you fail.
     This particular story made me think of The Scarlet Letter that I read in high school my junior year.  In that work, there was a lot of discussion about the Puritan society and Hawthorne similarly utilized lots of  symbols to convey a bigger idea about society and even humanity.    

Huckleberry Finn Chapters 1-4

     In chapter one, we discover that Huckleberry Finn lives with a woman known as the Widow Douglas.  It is obvious that he has no family that can properly take care of him.  She is a typical religious, southern proper character and he is the complete opposite being a restless, troublesome boy.  Huck Finn's friend Tom Sawyer is also introduced.  Something that I found interesting in the very beginning of this chapter was Finn's reference to previous adventures he has had with Tom Sawyer.  I have never experienced that in any other work before.
     In chapter two Jim is introduced.  He is the main servant of the house and it is evident through him and the way that Huck Finn talks about him that African American servant society is a big part of white people society.  Tom Sawyer's gang is also introduced along with Jo Harper who is the second captain of the gang and Ben Rogers.  The gang plans to "rob and murder" or in other words, to play pretend like all little boys enjoy doing.  On page six we learn that Huck Finn's father is indeed no role model for him to follow.  His father will I think prove to be a significant character in Finn's life as well as the story.
     In chapter three we learn that Huck Finn does not buy into all the religion that surrounds him and makes up his southern society.  Nothing about it makes sense to him especially the whole concept of prayer.  It is obvious that Huck Finn is an intelligent, observant person through the issue with his father.  While the whole town thinks he drowned, Huck Finn knows he didn't simply by hearing about how the body was found.  Also in this chapter, the gang broke up because the boys discovered that it really was just all pretend.    
    In chapter four Huck Finn is starting to adjust and get used to his new life.  He has obviously not lived with the Widow Douglas for very long.  Finn discovers his dad's boot markings in the dirt which is a foreshadowing of later events to come.  Judge Thatcher is also introduced as well as a fortune?  It obviously ties together Huck Finn, Thatcher, and his dad but where is it coming from?  Along with being a religious society, Finn is also surrounded by a superstitious society.  We learn this through Jim who predicts his future and says Huck Finn is going to make it in life and be ok and not turn out like his father.  It is interesting to me that even though Jim is black and a servant, Huck Finn obviously looks up to him and values what he has to say.  The chapter ends with Pa in Finn's room scolding him for getting an education and making something of himself.  His father obviously is a very selfish person since he takes everything Huck Finn does as a personal insult.  The law cannot protect Finn from his father; he will prove to be an interesting character to the story.

Federalist

     Something very different that I noticed in the Federalist paper the writer starts off immediately trying to convince people of why his view is correct.  He doesn't have a small introduction like the writer of the Anti-Federalist paper did imploring the people to put the best interest of the country first.  It is interesting to me though that both writers appeal to human nature and draw on it for their very different opinions.  The writer argues that government is itself human nature and in order for it to function properly, it must be intertwined with the people it is representing (paragraph four).
     The main argument of this particular paper is the interdependence of federal government between its three branches (paragraph six).  The writer believes that because the country has become so large and diverse, a federal government is necessary in order to help the states function properly.  He believes that current responsibilities are too much for the individual states to bear (paragraph seven).
     The writer's second point is particularly interesting to me.  While I don't understand every part of it, I did pick up on a couple of points the first one concerning the rights of the majority and minority.  It is evident that the speaker believes that federal government will secure the rights of both parties.  He continues to stress the interdependence of the different sectors of federal government and also the federal government with the people they are governing.  Another point I found particularly interesting was when he wrote, "Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society."  Did he mean this literally?  Immediately after he makes this point, he argues that sometimes liberty can be lost in the pursuit of justice.  A very interesting observation however it would have been helpful if he had included examples from history with this like the Anti-Federalist writer did in his letter.  Another significant difference in the Federalist writer and the Anti-Federalist writer is that the Federalist believes that the larger the society, the more capable it is of self-government.  The two writers could not differ more on this point when the Anti-Federalist was convinced that the country was in fact too large to have one single self-governing representative.
     While both writers have very different view on America and the way it should be governed, they also have similar views when it comes to people and human nature.  They both realize the importance of it and the power it possesses.  

Anti-Federalist

     The speaker in this work, while addressing the citizens of New-York, is also addressing all the citizens of the United States.  I find it interesting that the speaker starts off his work with the best interest of the country in mind.  He states right off the bat that if a Constitution would help the country then the citizens should stand behind it.  He implores the people however, to really give time, thought, and consideration to what they are voting for.
     He begins after the introduction, to list off reasons why he doesn't approve of a Constitution that gives power to somewhat ambiguous federal figures.  One of the most important reasons I think that the Anti-Federalists were wary of the Constitution was the power it gave to enforce taxation (paragraph six).  It is important to note that the citizens during this time came from England where they were brutally forced to pay outrageous amounts of taxes that served no purpose and ultimately made them suffer.  It is understandable that the Anti-Federalists would be nervous about that particular part of the Constitution.
     The Anti-Federalists also take into account simple human nature when considering the Constitution.  They argue that it is natural for a person to want to acquire more power and authority once they have tasted it.  The speaker utilizes the great civilizations of the Greeks and Romans as examples of this particular human characteristic which leads him into his next concern of the ability of the federal government to keep an army in peacetime.  The speaker believes this will fuel the fire so to speak when it comes to a desire for power and authority and ultimately destroy the very idea of liberty.
     The last major concern the Anti-Federalists have with the Constitution is the figures that will be representing the people.  The Anti-Federalists believe that the country is too large and too varied in character to have one national government representing all the different states.  The Anti-Federalists feel that an adequate representation is impossible (fourth paragraph from the end).
     I really admire the writer of this particular paper.  It is obvious that he has strong convictions about what he believes and he truly has the best interest of America at heart whether or not he is right.  He pulls specific examples from history to prove his points which when it comes to humans, is the only logical thing to do.  It is apparent that he simply wants citizens to make clear, thought out decisions when it comes to the making up of their own country and he doesn't want history to repeat itself.

Richard Allen

     Similar to all of the previous writers, Allen has a preface explaining why he is writing and how much he thinks his story will benefit others.  This is obviously a trend with autobiographers.  Both Cartwright and Allen have very similar experiences but they also have different ones.  First off, Allen's conversion experience is completely voluntary and on his own while Cartwright's was influenced heavily by his devout mother.  One thing they have in common however though is that they both experience deep feelings of guilt right after they get saved and have lots of conflicting feelings before they experience peace (page two).  One thing I found interesting about this reading and Cartwright's as well was the fact that preachers regularly came to houses to preach.  That would be, in today's time, considered a somewhat invasion of privacy.  On page three, Allen reminds me of Franklin and Venture when he is describing all the manual labor he does.  Allen is obviously physically strong.  Through pages four, five, and six, Allen describes his ministry and all of his travels.  Something very different about Allen and Cartwright however is that Allen faces much opposition to his ministry from people that should be supporting him simply because he is black (page six line 180).  Both Allen and Cartwright highly value the Methodist denomination (page 9).  They also both urge future Methodist preachers to remember the old ways of doing things and stick with old values (page ten).  Allen and Cartwright and Franklin and Venture are black and white almost mirror images of the corresponding pair.