Just because rules or laws have been established through a democratic process does not necessarily mean that they abide by a moral compass. This notion of morality is presented throughout the texts “A Model of Christian Charity” by John Winthrop and “Resistance to Civil Government” by Henry David Thoreau.
Throughout “A Model of Christian Charity,” Winthrop utilizes “logical reasoning combined with sympathetic nature” to persuade his audience to unite together and form a loving community. He ties in God’s plans during his description of the different kinds of people in the world: the poor, the rich, the average joe, etc. He says the reason for the variety of people is “to show forth the glory of His wisdom in the variety and difference of the creatures” and for His “preservation and good of the whole.” Winthrop depicts how God created different social statuses of people in order to balance out peace, since “every man might have need of others.” I think he’s saying that everyone has something to offer, and if we were all the same, no one would progress or have the ability to help one another. Winthrop also discusses morality through the Law of Nature, an idea that presents man in a “state of innocence,” and the Law of Grace, an idea that shows one must “love his neighbor as himself.” Essentially, Winthrop ties in religion and the whole idea of purity and innocence to persuade his audience to practice moral behavior. He wants everyone to treat each other the way they would want to be treated, and with that concept the community will thrive. Winthrop continually uses Bible references to back up his points, such as “Love your enemies…Do good to them that hate you” (Matt. 5:44). This helped enforce Winthrop’s idea of unity. Sometimes the rich need to give to the poor and people need to make sacrifices for others. God intended love for mankind, and practicing love will unite the Puritans. One of the most influential things that Winthrop stated was, “If thou pour out thy soul to the hungry…the Lord shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul.” This was probably one of the most influential points for Winthrop’s speech. As Puritans, Winthrop’s audience strive to follow God’s wishes and lead a pure life leading to heaven. Knowing that moral behavior and a united community can “guide thee continually and satisfy thy soul” is comforting to the Puritans. Winthrop discusses love as the “bond of perfection” and the glue that holds the community together. He also mentions the metaphor of a city upon a hill, with people constantly below and watching the people in the city’s actions. I think this is essentially stating that it is important for everyone to practice morality because their moral compass is consistently being watched by God.
While Winthrop utilizes religion and puritan beliefs to persuade his audience to unite, Henry David Thoreau takes a different standpoint. He does not address religion at all, but rather, he utilizes logical reasoning by breaking down each of his points and essentially guilting his audience (in a subtle, non-aggressive way) into practicing morality. Winthrop discusses more government-oriented issues, opposed to religious issues. He presents the notion that the government should not be overbearing, and he describes the American government as nothing but “tradition” to “transmit itself unimpaired to prosperity, but each instant losing some of its integrity.” The American government does not seem to care about whether or not the law practices morality. Thoreau describes it as a “wooden gun” shooting America in the face, as the government is neither educational nor representative of freedom. One of Thoreau’s interesting points was his deconstruction of the idea: majority rule. Thoreau discusses that just because the majority agrees, does not mean they “are most likely to be in the right.” Rather, they are just more overpowering. Instead, Thoreau thinks that laws should be determined through “conscience” and morality. He thinks that people are resentful to use morality for laws because of the amount of work it will take to change society’s way of thinking, but they can’t “postpone the question of freedom.” Thoreau states, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish to prevail through the power of majority.” Essentially, someone who truly wants to abolish slavery and practice morality will not just simply vote against it. Instead, they will slowly try to help and become active in the reformation. Thoreau continually uses logical reasoning to depict the faults of the American government. He thinks that if we start small, with even just one person sacrificing himself to cease holding slaves, it will be the beginning of abolition. He persuades people to stop paying taxes to a country that supports slavery. If they cease taxpaying, at least there won’t be “bloody” or “violent” activities encircling the country.
While Winthrop utilizes religion and puritan beliefs to persuade his audience to unite, Henry David Thoreau takes a different standpoint. He does not address religion at all, but rather, he utilizes logical reasoning by breaking down each of his points and essentially guilting his audience (in a subtle, non-aggressive way) into practicing morality. Winthrop discusses more government-oriented issues, opposed to religious issues. He presents the notion that the government should not be overbearing, and he describes the American government as nothing but “tradition” to “transmit itself unimpaired to prosperity, but each instant losing some of its integrity.” The American government does not seem to care about whether or not the law practices morality. Thoreau describes it as a “wooden gun” shooting America in the face, as the government is neither educational nor representative of freedom. One of Thoreau’s interesting points was his deconstruction of the idea: majority rule. Thoreau discusses that just because the majority agrees, does not mean they “are most likely to be in the right.” Rather, they are just more overpowering. Instead, Thoreau thinks that laws should be determined through “conscience” and morality. He thinks that people are resentful to use morality for laws because of the amount of work it will take to change society’s way of thinking, but they can’t “postpone the question of freedom.” Thoreau states, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish to prevail through the power of majority.” Essentially, someone who truly wants to abolish slavery and practice morality will not just simply vote against it. Instead, they will slowly try to help and become active in the reformation. Thoreau continually uses logical reasoning to depict the faults of the American government. He thinks that if we start small, with even just one person sacrificing himself to cease holding slaves, it will be the beginning of abolition. He persuades people to stop paying taxes to a country that supports slavery. If they cease taxpaying, at least there won’t be “bloody” or “violent” activities encircling the country.
Essentially, Winthrop and Thoreau were similar in their works in the sense that they both use logic and simplicity to present their points. They give examples and metaphors (as shown above, like the “wooden gun”) to persuade their country to unite. However, Winthrop and Thoreau contrasted in what they chose to focus on. Winthrop depicted Bible versus and referenced God (which worked, as his audience was mainly Puritans), while Thoreau picked apart the American government (which also worked, as he was in a politically active time period). Both people, however, were extremely powerful influences during that time period. What else did you guys find differed between the two? I found the language to be pretty similar…very simple and to the point!
I really enjoyed reading Thoreau’s work. It must have been so difficult for him to stand up against slavery in a time of such chaos. It made me think of times when I had to stand up for what I believed in even when the majority of people around me thought the opposite. Do you guys have any examples of this in your life? Times that paralleled Thoreau’s courage to stand up for his beliefs despite majority rule?
I really enjoyed reading Thoreau’s work. It must have been so difficult for him to stand up against slavery in a time of such chaos. It made me think of times when I had to stand up for what I believed in even when the majority of people around me thought the opposite. Do you guys have any examples of this in your life? Times that paralleled Thoreau’s courage to stand up for his beliefs despite majority rule?
Hey Ally!
ReplyDeleteIt was very helpful to read your summaries of today's readings, especially the summary on Thoreau's piece. I understood the basic message, but some parts confused me. One similarity that I saw was that both men advised people to take action. Winthrop wanted people to act as a good person towards others for the good of the community, and Thoreau wanted us to act to change the laws and not just "vote". I liked your connection to Thoreau. When trying to compare the readings to the present day, I struggled. Your example though is perfect, and I can relate to standing up for something that is not really "popular" or "accepted."
Hey Ally, I did notice the difference between Winthrop and Thoreau was that Winthrop talked more about living for God, and Thoreau just talked about facts, and how the government was making his life hard. I liked Winthrop's speech better because he was more uplifting and tried to show everybody how their life could be a good life. Where Thoreau's speech talked about how bad the government was and how bad life is right now. But I guess the "New World" didn't turn out as well as Winthrop said it was going to.
ReplyDelete