Three of my favorite articles from this semester were also three that gave me the best sense of the Early Republican culture. There might be more detailed threads to trace through the three articles, but I will refrain from trying to tie these articles together in this space. Rather, I will discuss why I found these articles interesting and what I learned from reading each one.
The first article, "Seduced Innocence, To the Editor of the Philadelphia Monthly Magazine," was found using the search term seduced for class on September 13. Published in The Philadelphia Monthly Magazine in February 1798, this tale is about how a young, moral woman was tricked into giving up her virtue through false marriage. Besides being an intriguing story, the article was interesting for a number of other reasons. First, the author blamed men for all the troubles in the world instead of using women as the stereotypical fall gal. Second, it must have scared the bejezus out of fathers that a man could potentially trick their daughters into a fake marriage and cause them to stray from a virtuous path. Based on the reaction of the "bride" (she repeatedly fainted, followed by behavior labeled as "almost frantic"), this article showed me how serious this virtue thing really was. Whether or not the story was true, it is obvious what the author intended: to scare fathers into keeping a watchful eye over their daughters, regardless of how nice any of her suitors may be.
The second article was found using the search terms treaty and Tripoli for the October 4 class. The article, "Treaty with Tripoli" is not so much an article, but a reprinting of said treaty by order of the President. Appearing in the July 11, 1797 edition of The New Star; a Republican Miscellaneous, Literary Paper, this "article" lays out the Treaty of Tripoli in its entirety. Everything from the provisions for all parties to those who signed the document from both sides. One interesting aspect of this "article" is the fact that the treaty was printed at the request of the President to better enforce the treaty. Another curious little characteristic of this treaty is Article 11, which states, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any way found on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States have never entered into any war of act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Well, now isn't that interesting. I think you'd be hard pressed to see things like that now in the United States. Finding this treaty opened up my ideas of what constituted diplomacy American identity at the end of the eighteenth century in the United States.
The third article I discuss here was found using the search term Mohammedan for the October 18 class. "Proposed Union of Unitarians & Mohammedans" was published on October 24, 1827 in the Western Luminary. The article is an argument for "cooperation" between Unitarians and Muslims, but the scare quotes are there for a reason. The author's view of unification was really the Unitarian absorption of Muslims and the "correcting" of the Quran to reflect the truth found in the Bible. This union apparently was an event that occurred in England during the reign of Charles II and has been reported (in the article) as true by academics. At first glance, I thought this would be a unique article discussing a cooperative movement between two religions; however, I quickly realized that the cooperation was non-existent and that this article is perhaps an attack on Unitarians by aligning them with Islam.
There aren't many (if any) discernible connections between these three articles (at least none that I could find); however, what I can gather from placing these three side-by-side calls into question the language in the treaty. The first and third articles seem to be so strongly based on religious and moral ideals that are so deeply intertwined in Early Republic society, that the treaty's treatment of religion is curious. If those Barbary pirates that signed the treaty knew anything about the United States, they might have questioned Article 11 (at least I would). The comparison of these three articles only raises more questions, but that is a good thing. I cherish those moments when I come to conclusions that immediately lead to more questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment