By: Arfa Ul-Haque

For my Remix and Adaptation Project, I will be highlighting the similarities between “Hamilton: An American Musical” and “The Greatest Showman”. For my Historical Annotation Project, I analyzed the Reynolds Pamphlet which detailed Hamilton’s relationship with Maria Reynolds, his mistress. With this project, I am excited to depict Hamilton’s domestic relationships in another way. By looking at the overall musicals and their symbols, I will compare “Hamilton” to the musical “The Greatest Showman”.

I came up with the idea while watching “The Greatest Showman” as I realized that many of the key features of the plots of both musicals are similar. Both men start out in destitute conditions and have their family members die off at a young age. They have a constant yearning for being as successful and renowned as possible: Alexander Hamilton wants to be a leader in shaping the new government of the United States, while P. T. Barnum dreams of becoming an acclaimed showman. They spend their lives writing letters to their significant others. Additionally, their wives each have ballads asking their husband to be satisfied with what they have. Both men require the love of the public to feel validated and lose that love as a scandalous affair is brought to light.

To complete this project, I will be completing an artistic rendering of comparisons between the two musicals. The skills I need are artistic skills and analytical skills in order to parallel the symbols of both musicals into my drawing.

One of the challenges I anticipate facing is being able to portray the comparison between the two musicals in a way that will make sense to those who haven’t seen one or both of the musicals. In paralleling the musicals, I hope to clarify their similarities and contrast their differences. Another challenge I believe I will face is focusing too much on the details rather than the bigger picture, which will cause me to spend more time and energy on the project than is needed.

I hope to bring a new perspective in comparing the two musicals to one another. I want to highlight the similarities in the fact that focusing more on their careers than their families led to each man’s downfall. One of the aspects of both musicals that strikes me as interesting is that both musicals tell true stories of each respective individual. Therefore, the lessons learned from the musicals should be taken to heart as they represent reality.

By: Kelton Dawson

Some people might say it’s very difficult or challenging to create their own writing process. But other might think it’s a simple task.  My hardest struggle with writing is I always seem to just be writing and it always seems to become run on sentences or just get completely off topic. So when I notice that I wasn’t the only one with these problem. I learned everyone has a different way to create their process. For someone like me would go by the six basic steps. These steps consist of brainstorm, prewrite, draft, revise, edit, and publish.  If you use these six steps you would never go wrong. For beginners who might not know what each step means it’s simple. The writing process always has been the main source on me having an effective paper. I never had a strong passion for writing in my high school and junior high days so when I learn the writing process it would a huge help for me getting through my papers I used to do. I know college may be a little more complex on how well the papers have to be written. Has I continue to go through my college life I hope that I grow as a writer and learn as much new things as possible.

 

When Obama was in office, Lin-Manuel Miranda performed an unedited draft, a work in the making, of “Alexander Hamilton”, conveyed only from Aaron Burr’s perspective. What seemed interesting to me was both the way he delivered it (a single piano being played in the back), as well as the audience to which he delivered the song (the Obama family and their acquaintances). The song can be found below:

After recently seeing this performance on YouTube, I want to creat a response, or, moreover, a newer version of the White House performance that incorporates my life instead of Hamilton’s life. This project is to help me become a more creative writer because creativity is a skill that I lack; I feel as though writing a newer and more contemporary version of the song, with a different interpretation and story, will give me another tool I need to help me grow as a writer..

With the incorporation of a single point-of-view as well as an audience of many students, I am considering a new adaptation of “Alexander Hamilton”, called “Ahad Khatri”, from the point of view of another student at Georgia Tech. The adaptation will narrate my successes, ambitions, and failures as a rising sophomore, but from a singular perspective, from an anonymous friend who knows and understands me very well.

The adaptation will consist of the same flow as the song “Alexander Hamilton”, but the lyrics will be entirely new and will make sure to maintain the flow of but give a more modern twist to the original song. The skills I would need to boost this project in terms of its success are understanding different points in my life as well as different points in “Alexander Hamilton”, making sure to comprehend what the song really means and how Hamilton’s struggle as a political figure could relate to my struggle as a student.

With two weeks to draft, revise and complete this project, I will inevitably encounter challenges, one being the inability to incorporate multiple perspectives into my adaptation. Because this story can only come from someone who knows and someone who I trust (no name necessary), I will choose to keep this anonymous figure in my life as the narrator of the song.

An example of a line I would change is “You could never learn to take your time”. The narrator, knowing what the effects of stress and procrastination have done to me, would then change “you” to “he”, and the line would change to “He could never learn to stop wasting time”, highlighting one of my failures.

By: Ozkul Ege Akin

I would definitely characterize myself as a great follower of Hamilton, especially when it comes to writing, because just like him I write like “I’m running out of time”! Well, it may only seem to Hamilton as if he’s running out of time but when I write I am usually literally running out of time! Just like I’m doing right now!

http://gph.is/2FV1tSp

I feel like I am a slow writer when it comes to free writing but I tend to get more focused and creative when I’m running out of time. I usually check the subject and topic of what I’m going to write and I even might write down how and what I’m going to write about on a separate piece of paper, so it’s easier when I’m writing. However, I always have difficulty in resisting the pleasure of procrastination! – I mean how could you even think about writing an assignment when you can socialize, work out or be on your phone as you watch Netflix instead! – After I’m done with my writing plan I will usually lose focus until the due date arrives and then I get stressed and get in a mindset even unknown to me! Being an underwater athlete, I have had to learn how to meditate, calm myself and focus, and I use this method almost every time I’m writing, and even doing any other type of homework or studying. I do not do any type of other prewriting except my brainstorms on paper and I don’t eat or drink while I’m writing. To be able to get extremely focused and undisturbed while I write I usually look for an environment with no sound and movement that can interrupt me, which is generally my desk in my room or the library. For my last step, I put my laptop in airplane mode and turn my phone off. Sometimes I even lock my door for further psychological relaxation. Now that I’m completely “out of the current world” I start in writing.

When I’m writing, I completely focus on the subject I’m writing about and I usually do my best to finish it quickly so I donot stray from the topic because of the rush of more ideas I get while I’m writing. If I’m suddenly greeted with a great idea I can embed in my writing I will write it down on my “sheet of brainstorming” and continue to finish my writing. After I am done, I usually revise the whole writing once without adding anything except grammatical and vocabulary corrections, then I study my text to add the other ideas I got while writing or revising it. I love taking these steps while I’m writing because I found that trying to add new ideas to my text while I’m writing it usually ends up in a disaster! Therefore, I find myself usually adding a couple more sentences to my writing. Lastly, I revise it one last time for basic errors, and I’m finished!

by: Karl Risley

I am going to create a Hamilton version of “I won’t back down” by Tom Petty. I think that the title of this song describes Hamilton very well, especially during his duel correspondences with Burr. He never  backed down to Burr and faced him like a gentleman would at the time in a duel. I will use my extensive knowledge about their duel to create a version of this song that describes Hamilton’s actions in the duel, and just his character in general.

“I won’t back down” by Tom Petty is an iconic rock song that really portrays a strong vibe of power and relentlessness. It is an unmistakable song which will help give the song more meaning in today’s world. I am also learning guitar at this time and believe that learning this song will be a good  totally doable challenge. I also intend to have a women sing the lyrics that I write in order to bring awareness to the present sexism in America. Lin Manuel tends to focus on the injustices immigrants face in his songs. I would like to focus on sexism because I think it is an equally relevant issue in today’s society that needs to be heard. Having a women sing these strong lyrics will paint a picture of a strong women, supporting the feminist’s cause. I got the desire to focus on feminism through watching the ham4ham playlist, specifically the one where all the women in the cast sing a song.

There was a comment that I tweeted stating, “An all-female Hamilton cast like this would make my life.” I agree!

The song will incorporate a very small amount of tom petty’s original lyrics and a very small amount of my own lyrics I come up with. Most of the lyrics will come from my Lin Manuel’s songs. Songs that I have already identified as useful for this project are: “Alexander Hamilton”, “My Shot”, “Satisfied”, “Ten Duel Commandments”, “History has its eyes on you”, and “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story”. As this is merely the proposal, more songs from Hamilton the musical may prove useful.

 

Below is Tom Petty’s original song just in case it is new to my readers:

Burr to Hamilton, June 18, 1804

N York 18 June 1804

Sir,

I send for your perusal a letter signed Ch. D. Cooper which, though apparently published some time ago, has but very recently come to my knowledge^[1]. Mr. Van Ness, who does me the favor to deliver this, will point out to you that clause of the letter to which I particularly request your attention^[2].

You must perceive, Sir, the necessity of a prompt and unqualified acknowledgement or denial of the use of any expressions which could warrant the assertions of Dr. Cooper^[3].

I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. S^t

A. Burr^[4]

Hamilton to Burr, June 20, 1804

N York 20 June 1804

Sir:

I have maturely reflected on the subject of your letter of the 18th Instant, and the more I have reflected, the more I have become convinced that I could not without manifest impropriety make the avowal or disavowal which you seem to think necessary^[5].

The clause pointed out by Mr. Van Ness is in these terms: “I could detail to you a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”^[6] To endeavor to discover the meaning of this declaration, I was obliged to seek in the antecedent part of the letter for the opinion to which it referred, as having been already disclosed^[7]. I found it in these words: “Genl. Hamilton and Judge Kent have declared in substance that they looked upon Mr. Burr to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not to be trusted with the reins of Government.”^[8] The language of Dr. Cooper plainly implies that he considered this opinion of you, which he attributes to me, as a despicable one; but he affirms that I have expressed some other still more despicable; without, however, mentioning to whom, when or where^[9]. ‘Tis evident that the phrase “still more despicable” admits of infinite shades from very light to very dark. How am I to judge of the degree intended.^[10] Or how should I annex any precise idea to language so vague?^[11]

Between Gentlemen despicable and still more despicable are not worth the pains of a distinction ^[12]. When, therefore, you do not interrogate me as to the opinion which is specifically ascribed to me, I must conclude that you view it as within the limits to which the animadversions of political opponents, upon each other, may justifiably extend; and consequently as not warranting the idea of it which Dr. Cooper appears to entertain ^[13]. If so, what precise inference could you draw as a guide for your future conduct, were I to acknowledge that I had expressed an opinion of you, still more despicable than the one which is particularized^[14]? How could you be sure that even this opinion had exceeded the bounds which you would yourself deem admissible between political opponents^[15]?

But I forbear further comment on the embarrassment to which the requisition you have made naturally leads^[16]. The occasion forbids a more ample illustration, though nothing would be more easy than to pursue it^[17].

Repeating that I can not reconcile it with propriety to make the acknowledgment or denial you desire, I will add that I deem it inadmissible on principle, to consent to be interrogated as to the justness of the inferences which may be drawn by others, from whatever I may have said of a political opponent in the course of a fifteen years competition ^[18]. If there were no other objection to it, this is sufficient, that it would tend to expose my sincerity and delicacy to injurious imputations from every person who may at any time have conceived that import of my expressions differently from what I may then have intended, or may afterwards recollect^[19].

I stand ready to avow or disavow promptly and explicitly any precise or definite opinion which I may be charged with having declared to any gentleman^[20]. More than this can not fitly be expected from me; and especially it can not reasonably be expected that I shall enter into an explanation upon a basis so vague as that which you have adopted^[21]. I trust upon more reflection you will see the matter in the same light with me^[22]. If not, I can only regret the circumstances and must abide the consequences^[23].

The publication of Dr. Cooper was never seen by me ‘till after the receipt of your letter^[24].

Sir, I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. S^t

A. Hamilton

1. The first letter of the correspondence is brief and sets the tone for the rest of the letters. Burr references a letter that was bought to his attention by his colleague. The letter was published in the Albany Register by Charles D. Cooper. In the letter, the Cooper directly attacked Burr and quoted Hamilton describing Burr “to be a dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government”.

2. Burr employs ethos and grants a credible source, his friend Van Ness as the narrator of the tale. He does this in order to prevent Hamilton from passing his accusations off as rumors or small talk. Burr was running in the New York gubernatorial race at the time and Hamilton publicly opposed his campaign. The sentence that particularly bothered Burr in the letter was that Mr. Cooper “could detail . . . a still more despicable opinion which General Hamilton has expressed of Mr. Burr.”

3. Burr demands confirmation of Dr. Cooper’s statement. He requests clarification because his honor is hurt due to the accusation. Burr considers his honor to be in jeopardy because of said letter, so he demands a black and white answer in order to secure his ego. Honor is a big part of politics in this age, and Hamilton speaking ill of Burr hinders his honor and shows a lack of respect for Burr’s work. This is also why Burr signs off the letter with “I have your honor to be”.

4. Hamilton and Burr both sign off each letter as your “Obdt. S”, which means “obedient servant”. This greeting was commonly used during this time period and serves to give an ironic flare to the tone of the letters, which are hostile in nature. This is also referenced in the song, “Obedient Servant” in the play.

5. In this letter, Hamilton neither confirms nor denies the accusations Burr has placed upon him. Instead, he belittles Burr and amuses himself with circular talk. Instead of openly agreeing to speaking ill of Burr, Hamilton states that he cannot respond to this accusation without “manifest impropriety”. His hatred for Burr stems politically, but it also seems to be personal in this exchange of letters. Although this rivalry started with Burr defeating Hamilton’s father in law in the race for senate in 1791 and continued to deepen with more political turmoil, the taunting tone of these letters hints at personal turbulence between the two.

6. Here, Hamilton uses Burr’s own tactics of drawing upon his source to further highlight his own point. He quotes exactly what Cooper says as if to portray that he himself is not hiding any secrets. In fact, he recalls exactly the sentence that started this dispute as part of his retaliation.

7. Hamilton’s tone here is sarcastic and defensive. His “endeavor” to get to the bottom of the statements made by Cooper in the letter is half hearted, and he acts as though recalling this issue which is important to Burr is a meaningless hassle for himself. Hamilton acts as if he does not remember the statements he made in order to belittle Burr.

8. Hamilton directly quotes the letter again to remind Burr what was said about him. Hamilton is adding fuel to the fire here and it is very apparent that he has no intentions of solving this conflict. I can only imagine how fired up Burr would have been reading his part of the article. Hamilton was not afraid of making people know his opinion, and certainly wanted Burr to know what he thought about him.

9. Hamilton fights Burr in this sentence by using pathos, or feelings. He turned the accusation around and tried to shift the blame from himself to Dr. Cooper. In his next sentence, he explains that whatever Burr heard that was paraphrased by Dr. Cooper is just a reflection of how Dr. Cooper feels, not how Hamilton feels because the word “despicable” has an ambiguous nature and Dr. Cooper decided to use it to describe Burr. I can only imagine how angry Burr would feel while reading this sentence because it just accuses Burr’s character more to assume that Dr. Cooper feels this way about him.

10. Here, Hamilton distracts Burr from the issue at hand with talk of grammar. He takes the role of a teacher and drills the possibility of the various meanings of the word “despicable” into Burr’s head. This task is unnecessary and exists to belittle Burr. This sentence also functions to Hamilton’s subconscious desire to avoid duel. He changes the subject and dwells on a tangent instead of facing the consequence of his action- this confrontation.

11. Hamilton states here that has a very specific opinion about Burr that he clearly communicated with Cooper; however, he is stating that he cannot articulate that opinion based on the word “despicable”. He says this word does not accurately convey this very precise opinion. He does not tell Burr exactly what this opinion is, and instead employs vague language to criticize the use of vague language.

12. It is interesting here that Hamilton employs the term “between gentlemen” to a man who has been his political enemy for 15 years. This sentence is a comical jab at Burr. He basically is telling Burr that he called himself despicable, and asking him what really is the difference between “despicable” and “still more despicable”. This arrogance did not sit well with Burr, who demanded a duel with the still reluctant Hamilton after just eight days of negotiations.

13. Hamilton says that the statements made about Burr are typical of what political opponents say of each other and should not warrant a justification. This is a change from the accusations in the rest of the letter, which attack Burr’s personal character. Now, Hamilton brings up politics to remind Burr that they are political opponents and that he has been planning on ruining Burr’s campaign. This stems from the fact that Hamilton considered Burr to be a threat to the Federalist party had he become New York’s governor in the gubernatorial election of 1804.

14. Hamilton is extremely rude here and belittling Burr. He is basically challenging him and asking what exactly he is going to do if Hamilton does indeed tell him the “still more despicable” opinion. He is also saying that the opinion already revealed in the letter was already despicable enough to warrant a reaction from Burr. Hamilton is clearly not afraid of Burr and is trying to draw a response from Burr here.

15. Here, Hamilton plays the accusation as negligible. He tells Burr that even he would probably deem this statement as fair amongst adversaries like themselves. Here, Hamilton seems to back off of Burr a bit. He does not want to duel, and the tone in this part of the letter becomes more of Hamilton’s consolation to Burr for his actions. His response to Burr’s letter is conflicted, as clearly seen in the juxtaposition of this sentence and the previous one. But, Burr needed to defend his honor against Hamilton after the lost election and the personal attacks Hamilton was casting, so Burr was ready and willing to duel.

16. Hamilton, after insulting Burr the entire letter, acts as though he is the bigger man by doing Burr the favor of halting his insults. This larger than life talk was ironic from Hamilton, who told his friends King and Peddleton that he does not want to fire at Burr the first time, but rather receive the blow himself. His friends were shocked and reluctant to let Hamilton fight, but he did so anyway.

17. Here, Hamilton tells Burr that if he wished, he could expand on this situation further. He says this endeavor is simple and that Hamilton could effortlessly explain the request to Burr. This further circular talk demonstrates Hamilton’s reluctance to duel. I can only imagine that this makes Burr want to duel even more. When Burr and Jefferson tied in the presidential election of 1800 and the House of Representatives had to pick the winner, Burr knew that Hamilton sided with Jefferson even though he hated both Burr and Jefferson. This was a stab to Burr’s honor as Hamilton picked Jefferson over him, and Jefferson won presidency while Burr was the vice president. This letter and Burr’s knowledge of Hamilton’s political sabotage led to Burr requesting a duel.

18. Here, Hamilton draws on their history. They have fifteen years of animosity and uncomfortable political relations. After Hamilton aided Burr’s competitor to win the presidency, he also ran against Burr himself in 1804. The two men were further pitted against one another when their competition lead to a third party, Morgan Lewis, winning the presidency. He does this in order to justify his actions. He is basically saying that whatever he said to Dr. Cooper should be forgiven because they have a history of hatred, so he should be excused from his mishap. He is saying that it is not fair that Burr ask him to confirm or deny the accusation, and that Hamilton will not to so because he does not deem it necessary to dismay Burr’s suspicions.

19. Here, Hamilton uses vague language, which he objects to in the previous part of this letter, to shift the blame away from himself once more. He is acting as if Burr is drawing these conclusions and coming to this scenario without reason. But given the fifteen years of political history between Burr and Hamilton in which they are enemies, this accusation is not without cause. Furthermore, Hamilton criticized Burr at this dinner party, which lead to the letters and then finally the duel when Hamilton refused to apologize.

20. Hamilton acts as if he is very honorable and that had this claim been specific, he would have agreed or disagreed with it and given Burr the satisfaction he asked for with this letter. He also told his friends that he would not fire the first shot during the duel, but some critics think Hamilton did not throw away his shot! Even though he did not fire directly at Burr, he did shoot the first shot, which meant Burr followed and shot Hamilton in the abdomen shortly after. This fake citizenship is interesting on Hamilton’s part, and it is unclear to me still why Hamilton was so weary of a duel that he himself instigated with the tone of this letter.

21. Hamilton is the Secretary of the Treasury of the united states but he acts clueless. He acts like an explanation cannot be expected of him because he doesn’t understand the limitations of the word disgusting. He does back to the beginning of his letter here and makes a full circle. He goes from teaching Burr, to reminding him of their uncomfortable political past, and then again to teaching him about the word and really delving into the specifics of the accusation instead of clearly responding to the letter. Hamilton is weary of fighting, but obviously adamant on not apologizing.

22. What light? This letter has been very ambiguous. Hamilton does not want to fight, but he was instigating with this letter and did not give a clear response to the claims in order to defend himself or come clean at his actions. He spun the accusations around in circles, beat around the bush a few times, and then arrived at no conclusion. He then asks Burr is he agrees with this conclusion. It is quite comical and exactly what i would expect from a politician.

23. I think this sentence- a form of pure innocence that makes Hamilton seem unaware of the savage nature of his letter, is what convinced Burr of a duel. This long letter does not answer the simple accusation. It is interesting though that although the battle between Hamilton and Burr was just by the laws of the time, that Burr’s political career died when Hamilton died. Both men were huge influences in their time to the formation of the united states government, but their duel wiped both of them out of the political sphere.

24. This sentence is interesting. It is the very last sentence of the letter and it is the only clear response Hamilton has given. It is defensive and he rejects the claim, but this is the first i have noticed of a clear rejection. He did not blame Dr. Cooper or the word “despicable” in this sentence. He did not blame their political history or say he is just in speaking ill due to this history. Here, he clearly states that he does not know what Dr. Cooper is talking about. It is an interesting way to close such a passive aggressive letter with a political enemy, and it shows how reluctant hamilton was to duel. He also ends it with “Your Obdt. S” to close.

Citations:

Burr, Aaron, and Matthew Livingston Davis. Memoirs of Aaron Burr: with miscellaneous selections from his correspondence. Vol. 2. Harper & brothers, 1837.

“Burr–Hamilton Duel.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 June 2018,         en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burr%E2%80%93Hamilton_duel.

Cochran, Hamilton. Noted American Duels and Hostile Encounters. Chilton Books, 1963.

Fleming, T. J. (2000). Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America. Basic Books.

Ellis, Joseph J. Founding brothers: The revolutionary generation. Vintage, 2002.

Freeman, Joanne B. “Dueling as Politics: Reinterpreting the Burr-Hamilton Duel.” The William and Mary Quarterly 53.2 (1996): 289-318.

Freeman, Joanne B. “The Election of 1800: A Study in the Logic of Political Change.” The Yale Law Journal 108.8 (1999): 1959-1994

“Founders Online: Introductory Note: The Duel Between Aaron Burr and Alexander H …” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration,   founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0201.

Hamilton, Alexander. The Works of Alexander Hamilton: Volumes. Henry Cabot Lodge. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons, 1904.

Hamilton, John Church. Life of Alexander Hamilton: A History of the Republic of the United States of America, as Traced in His Writings and in Those of His Contemporaries. Vol. 7. Houghton, Osgood and Company,  1879.

Jefferson, Thomas, James P. McClure, and Barbara B. Oberg. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 29: 1 March 1796 to 31 December 1797. Vol. 29. Princeton University Press, 1950.

Kennedy, Roger G. Burr, Hamilton, and Jefferson: A study in character. Oxford University Press, 2000.

Knudson, Jerry W. Jefferson and the Press. Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 2006.

O’Neill, Barry. “Mediating national honour: lessons from the era of dueling.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 159.1 (2003): 229-247.

Rogow, Arnold. A Fatal Friendship: Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Macmillan, 1999.

Rorabaugh, William J. “The Political Duel in the Early Republic: Burr v. Hamilton.” Journal of the Early Republic 15.1 (1995): 1-23.

Shneidman, J. Lee, and Conalee Levine-Shneidman. “Suicide or Murder? The Burr-Hamilton Duel.” The Journal of  Psychohistory 8.2 (1980): 159.

Syrett, Harold C., and Jacob E. Cooke. The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Vol. 1987. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961.

“Today in History – July 11.” Apple Computers: This Month in Business History (Business Reference Services, Library of Congress), Victor, www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/july-11/.

Wheelan, Joseph. Jefferson’s Vendetta: The Pursuit of Aaron Burr and the Judiciary. Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005.

White, Kathy. “The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History.” Nat Turner’s Rebellion, 1831 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, www.gilderlehrman.org/content/hamilton-v-burr-story-behind-duel.

Writing about how I write is best done by describing my writing process for this very blog post! I always get nervous when papers are assigned in class because I am a slow writer. I have so many ideas in my head but I do not know how to formulate them on paper. I know this very issue is why I am currently having difficulty applying to medical school as well! I am a slow writer but also a perfectionist. It is quite a dangerous combination. When given a prompt such as this one, I first think about what I am going to write. It is hard for me to brainstorm on paper because often I am greeted with a flood of ideas. So I do what I do best- I procrastinate! I open up Netflix to see if I could watch reruns of The Office. After a hilarious twenty minutes watching Michael Scott procrastinate his own work, I decide to get to work. First, I need to make the ideal work environment for myself. This means I first go downstairs and grab a bowl of grapes and a cup of yogurt with granola. Of course, I can’t come back upstairs until I have annoyed my younger sisters enough. Once they kick me out of the living room, I stumble back into my bed. Oh! I forgot to watch last night’s world cup highlights. I spend about an hour and a half doing that first. Now I finish up my snack and then start rereading the prompt. I think again about all my ideas and discard 90 percent of them, shaking my head at my own wild ideas. Then, I notice the time. It’s almost 11 pm and I need to wake up at 6 to commute from home! I calculate my hours of sleep in my head and then decide it’s time to do this. Then, when I finally start, I am on a roll. I am writing like that right now, and it feels amazing. My ideas are looking clearer and my brain is less full of ideas. Now I don’t check my phone, don’t open a new tab on my laptop, and don’t look at the clock. It’s just me and my ideas.

By: Avery Showell

 

The writing process is different for everyone, especially with higher level of education. Not everyone writes or has the same thought process of ideas to be represented in literature. That is just the same as everyone not being able to learn the same. Alexander Hamilton writes like he is running out of time, and Avery Showell writes like he knows who he’s talking about. Sometimes, even if you don’t know what you are talking about, the energy given off by someones confidence in the ideas they provide can be convincing enough.

Personally, when I begin to start writing a paper, blog post, etc., I like to just start rambling. Not rambling by just saying stuff that does not make sense, but rambling on paper. Meaning, I write like I am having a conversation with someone, rather if it is grammatically correct or not because I know I am going to go back and edit it. The faster I can get my ideas on paper the better. I don’t see any other way that would help me write more fluently or comfortably, but I’d be open to new techniques.

Most of the time, when I’m writing, I am in my room alone. Mostly just because it is much easier to get distracted writing a paper for me, than any other homework. I know many people who like to write and listen to music, but I am better off with the TV in the background on low volume and my phone as far away from me as possible. I say my phone to that extent because I will pick up my phone every 2 minutes and it will just make the whole process slower and take me longer to finish and meet the deadline (which I hate) that I procrastinated on the whole time. Along with my phone, Fortnite has been proven to take away at least three hours out of my time to get work done. But when I finish writing, I definitely go right back to playing the game.

There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the wellbeing^[1], I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head^[2].

2dly. A Sacred regard to Public Justice^[3].

3dly. The adoption of a proper Peace Establishment^[4], and

4thly. The prevalence of that pacific and friendly Disposition, among the People of the United States, which will induce them to forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances, to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community^[5].

These are the Pillars on which the glorious Fabrick of our Independency and National Character must be supported; Liberty^[6] is the Basis, and whoever would dare to sap the foundation, or overturn the Structure, under whatever specious^[7] pretexts he may attempt it, will merit the bitterest execration^[8], and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country^[9].

Under the first head, altho’ it may not be necessary or proper for me in this place to enter into a particular disquisition^[10] of the principles of the Union, and to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated, whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress^[11], or not, Yet it will be a part of my duty, and that of every true Patriot, to assert without reserve, and to insist upon the following positions, That unless the States will suffer Congress to exercise those prerogatives^[12], they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution, every thing must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion, That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States, that there should be lodged somewhere, a Supreme Power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic^[13], without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America^[14], and the Authors of them treated accordingly, and lastly, that unless we can be enabled by the concurrence^[15] of the States, to participate of the fruits of the Revolution, and enjoy the essential benefits of Civil Society, under a form of Government so free and uncorrupted, so happily guarded against the danger of oppression, as has been devised and adopted by the Articles of Confederation, it will be a subject of regret, that so much blood and treasure^[16] have been lavished for no purpose, that so many sufferings have been encountered without a compensation^[17], and that so many sacrifices have been made in vain. Many other considerations might here be adduced^[18] to prove, that without an entire conformity to the Spirit of the Union, we cannot exist as an Independent Power; it will be sufficient for my purpose to mention but one or two which seem to me of the greatest importance. It is only in our united Character as an Empire, that our Independence is acknowledged^[19], that our power can be regarded, or our Credit supported^[20] among Foreign Nations. The Treaties of the European Powers with the United States of America, will have no validity on a dissolution of the Union. We shall be left nearly in a state of Nature^[21], or we may find by our own unhappy experience, that there is a natural and necessary progression, from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny^[22]; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness^[23].

 

Annotations:

• The four core concepts Washington outlines in this letter are importance of a strong federal government, paying off the debt accrued by the nation during the war, establishing a well-trained militia in each state and promoting unity between the states despite their differences. Thirteen years later he would echo several of these points in his Farewell Address. There he reemphasizes the importance of balancing the nation’s budget, as well as unity in multiple forms, encouraging it between the states and discouraging the development of political factions and parties. He also praises the Constitution as an improvement on the Articles of Confederation, as it had created the strong federal government he advocated for in this letter (Washington).

 

• When this letter was written in 1783, the Constitution had not been adopted yet and the government system being used was the Articles of Confederation. The AoC government had no executive branch on the federal level and was instead governed by a congress of representatives from each state. The main functions of the federal government were foreign affairs and minting money, while most other matters were left up to the individual state governments (Samson).

 

• Although the meaning behind this statement is not immediately obvious to a modern reader, Washington late elaborates on this point, making it clear he is referring to the country’s debt. Both the federal and state governments were in substantial debt to foreign and domestic powers by the end of the war. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton would estimate that the US was $54 million in debt, with about $42 million of that being do domestic creditors (Hamilton).

 

• It was important to Washington that each state have a well-armed and trained militia. Washington feared that an armed rebellion could uproot the fragile new government unless there was a capable militia to prevent that. Washington’s vision of armed uprising would come to pass twice before his death, in Shays’ Rebellion (1787) and the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794). Shays’ Rebellion, prompted by high taxes and a bad harvest year, was successfully quashed by the Massachusetts state militia (Shays’…). The Whiskey Rebellion occurred when Pennsylvania farmers violently protested a newly implemented federal grain tax. Washington himself led an army of 13,000 troops to put down the rebellion and enforce the federal government’s right to taxation that it had recently gained after the ratification of the Constitution (“So, what…”).

 

• Washington’s fourth point is not so much a concrete policy suggestion as it is an appeal to the people of the United States to put aside their differences and work towards national unity. Today it is taken for granted that the United States is one cohesive nation, but that was not the case during the revolution and the survival of the early United States as an independent nation was far from guaranteed. Differences between urban and rural, north and south made merging the colonies into a unified nation a difficult task (Jaffee).

 

• Washington’s concept of liberty stemmed from the philosophy of John Locke, an Enlightenment Era thinker generally regarded as the “Father of Liberalism”. Locke believed that a just government could only exist with the consent of the citizens. Locke viewed society as a contract where the citizens agree to obey societal rules in exchange for the security provided by government. Unlike philosopher Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that people willingly enter this contract and, if the government does not uphold their end, it is within the people’s rights to break the contract through revolution. Governments can fail to uphold the contract by either failing to provide stability or by infringing on the people’s “natural rights”. Locke believed that humans were endowed by God with a set of “natural rights” which are both universal and inalienable, chief among those being “life, liberty and property”. To Locke, unless a government upheld these rights for all its citizen, those citizens would have the right to overthrow that government and establish a new one (Cranston, 85).

 

• “Specious” Adjective: having a false look of truth, fairness or genuineness (Webster’s…, 888).

 

• “Execrate” Verb: A. to declare to be evil or detestable B. to detest utterly (Webster’s…, 313).

 

• The severest punishment a person can receive, capital punishment, has an interesting history in the United States. While in modern times the US is one of the few developed nations to still use the death penalty, its law were comparatively progressive in the colonial era. The use of capital punishment in the pre-revolution colonies and the Articles of Confederation U.S. was largely based on British practices of the time. Leading up to the American Revolution, Britain was steadily increasing the number of crimes that could warrant execution, eventually peaking with 220 different capital crimes. After independence, the laws regarding capital and corporal punishment were not uniform across the states and they have not been since. By 1800 majority of northern states had reduced the number of capital crimes to less than five. On the other hand, many southern states had increased their list of capital crimes, adding many that only pertained to slaves. The mid-19^th century saw a thriving death penalty abolitionist movement push for significant reforms and even abolition of the death penalty in some states (Reggio).

 

• “Disquisition” Noun: a formal inquiry or discussion (Webster’s…, 260).

 

• The issues of state’s rights and the balance between federal and state power have been present throughout American history. Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, used “state’s rights” as an explanation for the South’s secession and the fundamental motivation of Confederate soldiers. Davis held strong to the claim that the Civil War was not motivated by slavery, but by the North and the Federal Government exerting unfair control over the South (Davis). In modern times “state’s rights” arguments have figured prominently in issues as diverse as marijuana legalization and LGBT discrimination laws.

 

• “Prerogative” Noun: A. a special privilege or advantage B. a right attached to an office, rank or status (Webster’s…, 713).

 

• Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the US was considered a confederation of states. A confederation is a union of independent nations or states, all of which have an inherent right to secede from the confederation. This differs from a federation, which is a union of only partially independent states under a weak federal power (“Confederation”). Defining the US as a confederation rather than a federation emphasizes just how little power the federal government held under the Articles of Confederation, although in a pure confederacy there would be no federal government. Principally, the United States was a group of sovereign states voluntarily united for the purpose of achieving a common goal (Batts). There are many historical examples of confederation governments including multiple examples in the pre-colonial Americas (one notable example being the Iroquois) and the Confederacy formed of secessionist states during the Civil War, at least in name. Due to their inherent instability, true confederations are very rare. The closest modern analogue to the Articles of Confederation system is probably the European Union, although it straddles the line between federation and confederation but is not legally classified as either (“Confederation”).

 

• Here Washington describes any action taken to separate states from the Union or lessen the power of federal sovereignty as hostile to the U.S. itself because, as he has said earlier in this letter, it is essential to the survival of the nation that the states remains unified. Significant conflict between the states or further weakening of the federal government could have spelled the doom of the young nation.

 

• “Concurrence” Noun: A. agreement in action, opinion or intent B. a coming together (Webster’s…, 185).

 

• Blood and treasure here refer to the casualties and financial costs of the war, respectively. Throughout the war approximately 4,500 servicemembers were killed and 6,200 were nonfatally wounded, for a total of 10,700 casualties. Casualties made up just under 5% of U.S. servicemembers by the war’s end (US Department…). The financial cost of the war was also significant,

 

• The word compensation is used very intentionally here. Only three months prior to this letter’s distribution Washington’s officers had raised a petition to mutiny due to inadequate compensation. The officers had not been paid during the war and Congress still had not paid them those wages or given them the pensions they were owed. Washington spoke to these officers in his Newburgh Address where he sympathized with their plight and pledged to help them, but denounced their intentions to mutiny (“Newburgh…”)

 

• “Adduced” Verb: to offer as example, reason, or proof in discussion or analysis (Webster’s…, 12)

 

• At the time this letter was written, only a handful of countries acknowledged the United States as an independent nation rather than as a British colony in revolt. Ostensibly the first country to acknowledge the United States’ independence from Great Britain Morocco. However, this recognition was in name only and was not formalized until 1786 when a treaty of peace was signed between the two nations (Dolan). So, the first country to officially acknowledge the United States as an independent nation was France in 1778. Although this treaty was established under the French monarchy, it was maintained after the French Revolution. Additionally, the United States had been recognized by The Netherlands, Spain and Sweden (“Countries”).

 

• Due to the federal governments inability to tax under the Articles of Confederation, its only recourse to address the national debt was to print money. However, with nothing backing it, the Continental Dollar collapsed, leaving the federal government to borrow money domestically to pay off its foreign debt. This situation was greatly improved after the adoption of the Constitution which allowed the federal government to tax and impose tariffs. The national debt was greatly decreased during Hamilton’s term as Secretary of the Treasury and continued to decrease until the War of 1812 (Phillips).

 

• This is a direct reference to the “State of Nature”, a concept developed by Thomas Hobbes in his 1651 book Leviathan. Hobbes describes it as the natural condition of mankind, where there is no government or civilization. Humans living in the State of Nature are constantly in conflict with each other in pursuit of power and resources. With no greater power to control them, mankind would exist in a perpetual state of war. Hobbes believed that life in that state is “nasty, brutish and short”. In Leviathan, Hobbes posits that government arises out of human desire to escape the brutality of the State of Nature (Merriam, 154).

 

• This is an example of the cyclical theory of history and periodic revolution. This concept was popular among the American Revolutionaries, many of whom believed that it was important for a society to go through periods of revolution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s [sic] natural manure” (Jefferson). The cyclical theory posits that corruption and unjust governments are inevitable and when they arise the people with inevitably revolt. The new government established by the revolutionaries will inherently have flaws, leading to corruption and injustice and eventually, another overthrow of power (Lienesch).

 

• “Licentious” Adjective: loose and lawless in behavior; esp : lewd, lascivious (Webster’s…, 516)

 

Citations:

1. BATTS, ROBERT LYNN. “THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.” American Bar Association Journal, vol. 5, no. 4, 1919, pp. 584–601. JSTOR, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/25700621.
2. “Confederation.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation.
3. “Countries.” U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of State, history.state.gov/countries.
4. Cranston, Maurice. “Locke and Liberty.” The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), vol. 10, no. 5, 1986, pp. 82–93. JSTOR, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/40257094.
5. Davis, Jefferson. “The Doctrine of State Rights.” The North American Review, vol. 150, no. 399, 1890, pp. 205–219. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25101937.
6. Dolan, Kerry A. “Why Morocco Matters To The U.S.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Nov. 2013, forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2013/11/21/why-morocco-matters-to-the-u-s/#635e4fe14f75.
7. Hamilton, Alexander. “Founders Online: Report Relative to a Provision for the Support of Public Credi …” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-06-02-0076-0002-0001.
8. Jaffee, David. “Religion and Culture in North America, 1600–1700.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art, I.e. The Met Museum, Oct. 2004, www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/recu/hd_recu.htm.
9. Jefferson, Thomas. “Thomas Jefferson to William Smith.” Library of Congress, loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html.
10. Lienesch, Michael. “Historical Theory and Political Reform: Two Perspectives on Confederation Politics.” The Review of Politics, vol. 45, no. 1, 1983, pp. 94–115. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1407276.
11. Merriam, Charles Edward. “Hobbes’s Doctrine of the State of Nature.” Proceedings of the American Political Science Association, vol. 3, 1906, pp. 151–157. JSTOR, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/3038543.
12. “Newburgh Address: George Washington to Officers of the Army, March 15, 1783.” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/newburgh-address-george-washington-to-officers-of-the-army-march-15-1783/.
13. Phillips, Matt. “The Long Story of U.S. Debt, From 1790 to 2011, in 1 Little Chart.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Nov. 2012, theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/the-long-story-of-us-debt-from-1790-to-2011-in-1-little-chart/265185/.
14. Reggio, Michael H. “History of the Death Penalty.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html.
15. Samson, Steven Alan, “Articles of Confederation” (1990). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 256.http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/256
16. “Shays’ Rebellion.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, history.com/topics/shays-rebellion.
17. “So, What Was the Whiskey Rebellion, Anyway?” George Washington’s Mount Vernon, mountvernon.org/george-washington/biography/washington-stories/what-exactly-was-the-whiskey-rebellion/.
18. US Department of Veterans Affairs. “America’s Wars.” Office of Public Affairs, May 2017.
19. Washington, George. “Avalon Project – Washington’s Farewell Address 1796.” Avalon Project – Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp.
20. Webster’s School Dictionary. Merriam-Webster Inc.,Publishers, 1986.