The Assignment for Module 3 includes two short-answer questions. Each is worth 5 points. For this Assignment, answer the following questions in 2 paragraphs each. Base your answers on the 18th Centu

The Assignment for Module 3 includes two short-answer questions. Each is worth 5 points. For this Assignment, answer the following questions in 2 paragraphs each. Base your answers on the 18th Centu
Many literate Americans of the revolutionary period came to believe that marriage provided the training ground for a republic and that it was to be held together by mutual affection. The idea has its roots in the seventeenth century as the English Civil War and then the Glorious Revolution of 1688 sparked a debate over patriarchal authority. Charles I, who became king in 1625, sought to create an absolute monarchy in England, which set off a contest between absolute monarchy and a mixed system for the rest of the century, at least until The Glorious Revolution of 1688. Robert Filmer, a Royalist, sought to justify absolute monarchy in his Patriarcha in 1742 on the eve of the civil war. He pointed to the traditional idea that a father has control over his family – wife, children, and servants. The patriarchal model of the family, he argued, went back to Adam and provided the basis for the state. Authority in the state derived from the father’s authority in the family. Filmer’s connection between authority within the family and the state was not new in the seventeenth century, yet it had not been explicitly articulated. Charles I did end up losing his head in the English Civil War and for a brief moment England did not have a king. As you saw in the last module, however, the monarchy was restored in 1660 with Charles II as king. There was some stability until Charles II passed away and his brother, James II, took the throne. James was only king for a few years when Parliament deposed him in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Parliament sought to prevent James from becoming an absolute monarchy, and in so doing Parliament went against the idea of Divine Right of Kings. Parliament invited James’ daughter Mary and her husband William to take the throne. By doing so Parliament broke the line of secession. James had a son, and so the son was supposed to be king. The breaking of the royal line of succession undermined “aristocratic ideology,” the idea that one’s worth and virtue was based on one’s birth. The breaking of the patriarchal inheritance at the level of the monarchy, meaning the level of the state, had implications for the family as well. The family would still provide the foundation, but the father would rule through affection and merit rather than by right. This was at the core of Republicanism in the 18th century – rule by merit rather than by right. In England, this had been accomplished by a Constitutional Monarchy in which Parliament provided a check on the monarch. Although England was still technically a monarchy, republicanism was a popular ideology that seemed to be able to reform monarchy rather than overthrow it. The culture of sensibility came out of this revolution in late 17th century agreement – relationships would be the result of affection not force – both at the level of the family and also the state – and the culture of sensibility would provide the language for the development of such ties. This was arguably even more important when the American colonists cut off their relationship with the king all together. If society is not held together by its loyalty to the king, then it could be held together by peoples’ loyalty to one another. What was the culture of sensibility? And how did this culture influence the colonists? Definition slides: Sensibility denoted the ability for people to be able to feel through the senses. The term was developed during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. John Locke’s sensational psychology (1690): Nerve endings is what allowed people to feel, and so it was believed that this applied to emotions as well. Those with more sensitive nerve endings, we more apt to feel for others – feel distress when another is in pain, to feel joy when someone else is happy. In other words, those with more sensitive nerve endings would be more sympathetic to others and were more moral. There was always a fear that those with feelings could be manipulated – used. That their sympathy made them vulnerable, and so the sentimental novels of the 1700s often followed a plotline of virtue-in-distress. They were supposed to demonstrate virtue (sensibility) while also warning of Villains. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense (1776) – combined the language of sensibility with the family analogy to provide an argument for American independence. For revolutionaries, leading up to the break with England, the king was painted as a villain who threatened American virtue – which went along with the virtue-in-distress plotline. During the revolutionary era, sensibility referred to “a highly developed capacity” for the “emotional pain and pleasures in oneself and in others.” Particular words, including “wounds, pangs, stings…” and “sympathy, compassion, pity, tenderness, and benevolence,” were part of the language of sensibility that was intended to convey happiness, pain, and bittersweet moments. If a person was in tune with the feelings he or she gained through sense perception, then he or she would act morally. Sensibility was often associated with women, who were believed to have more sensitive nerves, thus were more emotional. While this could lead them into danger, it also made them more moral. This was a significant shift in thinking in the Western world. Women were often seen as manipulative or seductive (think of the story of Eve). Still, sensibility affected popular understandings of masculinity as well. And, we can see this play out in the Revolutionary War. The execution of John André provides a good example to highlight the mix of republican stoicism and honor with the sympathy and understanding of sensibility. John André, the British spy, who colluded with Benedict Arnold and got Arnold to betray his fellow revolutionaries. Arnold became a traitor, even though he and André were never able to execute their plan. They had planned to surrender West Point to the British, but before they could André was captured. Arnold fled behind British lines. The revolutionaries executed André for being a British spy and plotting with Arnold. Americans since the Revolution have learned about Arnold as a traitor, but they often do not hear of André, who became a hero to Britain. Arnold is vilified by Americans; André is honored by Brits. The American officers’ reaction to André’s stoicism upon facing death is telling. The officers wrote letters telling others of how André “met death with the courage of a hero.” He had “died like a Roman.” Rome was the epitome of a republic to those of the 18th century Anglo-American world. Even more telling was the sentimental way the officers described the scene. The execution of Andre, a brave Roman-life figure, elicited tears from the revolutionaries there. The revolutionaries used the language of sensibility to describe their and others reactions – André’s character while facing death “lead us for a moment to lose sight of the enemy and the spy, in the tender feelings of humanity and sympathy for the fellow creature.” Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s aide-de-camp and the topic of the recent Broadway musical, response to André’s behavior was all “elegance and sentiment.” In this scene from the Revolutionary War, we can see the strains of Republicanism and Sensibility intersecting. We need to step back to the 10 days before André’s execution for a fuller picture. During those 10 days, André had charmed his captors. His easy conversation with them, his demeanor, and the way he held himself showed that he was an educated man and a sensible man. He was strong, stoic, yet also conveyed feeling and could develop a connection with others. The revolutionaries who kept him in custody felt a connection to him – a shared sensibility. The officers had been raised in a culture of sensibility that encouraged sympathy for others. It was this combination of republicanism – strength, courage, honor, doing what was in the interest of society instead of oneself – mixed with sensibility that formed a transatlantic culture of masculinity. Men were supposed to be rational, virtuous, strong, and sympathetic. The combination of Enlightenment thought including sensibility would lead thinkers to argue against torture and against capital punishment. To limit unnecessary death – to show mercy – were signed of a virtuous, rational, enlightened man. Although they all agreed André had to die, they did not enjoy it.
The Assignment for Module 3 includes two short-answer questions. Each is worth 5 points. For this Assignment, answer the following questions in 2 paragraphs each. Base your answers on the 18th Centu
Man being born…with a title to perfect freedom, and…all the rights and privileges of the law of nature…hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it… IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others… …But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and… punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power…And thus all private judgment of every particular member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire, by settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties… Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another. …whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience…Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall… endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands…and it devolves to the People… What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor…He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly pre-engages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by solicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs: and employs them to bring in such, who have promised beforehand what to vote, and what to enact. Thus to regulate candidates and electors, and newmodel the ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security? …Revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs…But if a long train of Abuses, Prevarications, and Artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the People, and they cannot but feel…