2. In class we will be spending much time on comparing and contrasting New England with the "middle colonies" (my quotes, and what I mean here is New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- and during the colonial era, Delaware was a lower county of Pennsylvania -- , and the southern colonies, and here Boorstin goes into great detail singling out Virginia, with earlier discussions of Georgia and the Carolinas). Please pay special attention to his differentiations of these colonies.
3. Boorstin mentions that the colonists practice, "purposeful reading." What is meant by this quote?
4. Much is made of the colonist's "lack of literature." Please give an example of what Boorstin means by my quote.
5. For those of you under-achievers, who have not ever read anything, nor posted anything in the comment section, then please read the last paragraph in chapter 48 and comment.
6. Boorstin mentions the Star Chamber Decree and I would like to know what your world history background might provide. Do you understand Boorstin's reference?
7. Comment on what Boorstin means when he says, "The sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who brought and paid for his complements, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean?"
8. Given what we've learned in this book, why might it explain characteristically that Georgia be the last colony to acquire a printing press (hey, be nice!)?
9. Give one example of why newspapers in the colonies outnumber those that existed in Great Britain.
10. Any of you want to comment on magazines?
11. Please comment on the censorship which existed in the colonies...
12. What impact did John Peter Zenger have on the press?
13. Printers in the colonies were very important. Please give an example of their impact on society and politics.
14. The term "Indian Summer" takes on a whole new meaning for me... at least. Please comment.
15. Boorstin goes into much detail about how the colonists were much better prepared for fighting then British Regulars (and when we get to the Civil War many of the same arguments will be used again). How were colonists better prepared then the professional British Regulars?
16. Comment on the "myth" that, "Americans are always better prepared for war, however their weakness is that they fail as readily into peace."
17. Boorstin give a great comparison of the colonial "militia" vs. the British Regulars. Could you please provide an example of each?
18. "How could such an ill-assorted, ill-disciplined, an ill-supplied army succeed against the well-organized forces of one the great military powers? How, indeed, can we account for the final victory?" Comment?
19. The reference to Cicinnatus? What might this have to do with Washington, as well as the rest of the colonial militia?
On to Zinn...
35 comments:
1. In Ch. 46, Boorstin refers to the London Agent, or the London factor, at times when the colonies, for one reason or another, were unsure of their next move. The “London Factor” was what the colonies turned to for help. This shows how dependent upon England the colonies still were, even when they had the opportunities, such as books, to become unique. The inhabitants of the New World simply didn’t know how to be unique. When Boorstin first mentions the London Agent, it is when the Americans chose to let the English chose their books. It shows that the Americans still looked to England as the better country, while ignoring the obvious opportunities they have. Also, since it was a “London Agent” that selected books, it shows that the New World did not show a love or need for literature.
2. In Virginia, the “leading planters” controlled books. This is like the clergy in New England, but the clergy in Virginia had to depend on the planters, who controlled this aspect of life. Also, unlike New England, Virginians did not want to be “culturally controlled” or led by New Englanders, while they saw an early need for unification. Virginians preferred to be separate, because they believed that they were holier and walked in the right path.
Because of the Quakerism of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia’s “bookish” culture set it apart from New England or the southern colonies. In this middle colony, the people looked inward for help, and used books primarily to satisfy an inward goal, while in New England, they would focus on a more community-based approach to religion. Also different was that the Quakers would use books for entertainment as well, probably because of the individual entertainment that could be obtained. Boorstin challenges that Philadelphia could be called a cultural capital of the US more than the other areas; they had time to develop freely, unhindered by the social technicalities. Boorstin also mentions that in Pennsylvania there was a notable tolerance to religion.
3. Boorstin’s quote of “purposeful reading” referred to the gathering of people into social libraries that were started by Benjamin Franklin. These gatherings used the group’s supply of books for a fee, and they debated about them. Through the books, debates would have reason to start. Therefore, it is acceptable to say that these get-togethers were really about debating. Purposeful reading was so popular because it gave the people of the New World an outlet where they could question their country’s motives, and do this in a protected way. Also, the formation of these groups, and the Library Company of Philadelphia let all men, regardless of social status, talk about issues together. It was the books that they based reasoning on, not social rank.
4. The colonists’ lack of literature did not hinder them from making literature a part of life. A good quote is when Boorstin says the colonists were highly literate but not literary. Partially because of their “London Agents”, the colonists didn’t have to figure out the technical side of books (printing, distribution, social stratification) and had the luxury to focus on the reading itself. This allowed them to enjoy reading more, and put it toward every-day use, since reading itself could only help the colonists. Writers in America left almost no account of history during this time, and preferred experiencing life rather than recording it. America “made much” of a lack of literature by using England as a steady resource to fund what they considered their hobby and help, not a job.
5. The last paragraph in Ch. 48 explains why literature was important to the colonists. It says that men felt “entitled” to spread their knowledge. Was this because they wanted to “save” everyone from evils of other religion? Possibly, but it is also because speaking knowledge publicly proved how just a man was. Men could be equaled by books. It was in knowledge that a poor man felt comfortable around scholars. This paragraph justifies this view by explaining, “Riches give none.” In America, everyone did several different jobs just to keep a house safe. Knowledge was available to anyone, and was the only way to separate normal men from distinct men.
6. A Star Chamber Decree sounds familiar, but I do not remember its reference in World History. Boorstin states that it was to limit freedom of press in England, and it would seem like this decree was meant to limit many more things. The limiting of press can go hand in hand with the limiting of other things like social climbing. In England, the press was a well-known job, and limiting press could have an impact on who received these jobs. Also, a limit on the press could also be useful to cover up an underlying problem in England?
7. Within this quote, Boorstin means that America didn’t want its investment being known. This was probably because of the internal thought of the Americas. The printers and writers needed to show that they could accomplish things on their own, to provide and make a living for their families. Also, America was different than England. While overseas they wanted to secure investment, it was not necessary in the Americas because bookmaking was not their only job. Another reason for this could be that the American man did not want the burden of being dedicated to anyone else. In his mind he had enough to look after, and weak people needing attention had no place in America.
8. Georgia was the last colony to get a printing press. This isn’t surprising, considering Georgia would already be a “victim of its own benefactors.” Georgia was a colony that could easily be taken advantage of, since England was strongly invested in it. That grasp was hard to escape from without damage. Everywhere else in the colonies, “government subsidy” provided areas with printing presses, but since the Georgians had no steady government, they were forced to go by England’s opinion and were blocked from getting one. The Georgians also had a faulty bureaucracy that prevented any contentment to appear between the colonists and the government. It could have been a Georgian refusal to go with the government that led to a lack of a printing press as well.
9. Newspapers outnumber those in England primarily because it was the newspaper type of literature hat the colonists enjoyed and pursued. There was no want or need for the English-style literature books, comprising of long stories and such. Newspapers were a chance for Americans to read what interested them most, and that was daily life. Living and surviving was the main priority for the colonists, so the opportunity to have daily news about what affected the individual was too perfect to pass up. Also, newspapers joined people together in a way that America desperately needed, and in a way that England could not understand. A newspaper was one of the only things in America that was entirely American at the time, filled with only useful for the American. There was a pride in this uniqueness. One more reason was that, with the price of paper, newspapers were the only thing that could be made from the lesser value paper that the colonists had.
10. Because they were not as applicable, magazines started out as a slow industry. And when they did show up, they mostly copied English magazines. This is because of the leisurely nature of magazines. The colonists might have associated the fun purpose of magazines as being “just more English literature”, filled with more fiction than fact.
11. In the early American colonies, a censorship appeared about printing. This censorship was able to happen because all printing was started by government sponsorship in the colonies. First, there was to be no printing without consent of the government. This was partially because of the known power the written word had. Then, a law was passed in Massachusetts to censor all copies of a manuscript before it was published. This was enforced until about 1685. Then, warnings were sent out regularly. Also, attacks on certain people by the clergy had to be unanswered and unchallenged because of the risk of government punishment.
12. From the text, it seems that Peter Zenger was tried for printing something that was not approved of by the government. He is famous for being freed at his trial, and for revealing that the juries were giving more power to themselves than was expected. Because of this, Zenger started a movement for equality, and more people, like Hugh Gaine and James Parker followed his example. Because the government was in control of the press and the jury, for that time it was a no-win situation.
13. Printers in the colonies played a large part in society and politics. As time passed, printers were able to start to make a living for themselves apart from the government. It was then which they started to have real impact. In society they were referred to as “servants of the general public”, instead of an upper-class group. They supplied the public with needed information, and gave each separate government business. They were already of high demand. These men were called “Publick Printers” because of their firsthand service to the community. In politics, the printers established a close relationship between the press and politics. As Boorstin says it, new was made in the government, so this was a great place for printers to be. In society, the printer was also commonly the postmaster, so he had the power to control the secrecy of important political letters, and this close proximity allowed the printer to also have the newest news, possibly still unspoken. Benjamin Franklin was a great example of a man that branched out his personal control through his job as a printer. He was able to influence both society and politics, like many other printers during that time.
14. “Indian Summer”, in Webster’s dictionary, is referred to as a time in the fall where there is an unusual period of warmth following the first weeks of winter. There is no mention of the fighting and fear that Boorstin shows us as he reveals the origin of this name. In a letter from a Rev. Doddridge, it explains that the winter was the only time when the settlers could look forward to peace, and not have to worry about Indians. The Indian raiding would go on and on throughout the whole year, and they looked forward more to snow than spring flowers. It shows that their whole life was molded around fear, and that is a moving thought. While it seems like enormous progress has been made in the colonies up to this point, they still couldn’t tame what was around them. No one was safe in an “Indian summer”.
15. The colonists were better prepared than the British regulars in a number of ways. First, the troops in England were only soldiers, while in America the entire community was made of soldiers. The entire population of America had been readied to fight because of their experience in the forest, and that fact alone greatly outnumbered England. The Americans were publicized to all be great sharpshooters as well, so it was a great reputation that helped. On both sides, the weaponry was very primitive, but the English had a reputation of faulty muskets. Because of self-defense, many Americans had weapons, while in England they were limited. In England, fighting had become more of a ceremony than anything else, and battles in England were mostly meant to show an area’s strength. There were no mass casualties, so it seemed like England was much less prepared to face the real world. Also, in America there was great incentive to lead, because the job was virtually open to any civilian leader that was prepared.
16. The myth that, “Americans are better prepared for war, however their weakness is that they fall readily into peace” seems very true. This weakness has come out many times. Boorstin gives a great example: On Sept. 23, 1675, 1200 men gathered at the sound of a warning alarm, but after the alarm ended, everyone quickly dispersed. There was an immense fear of a standing army, but wasn’t this taking it a bit far?? The people of the community didn’t feel like they owed anything too a group. They were just standing to defend their family, their house, or their land. War was an individual affair to the Americans. Also, because their militia was organized in peace, it wasn’t prepared for a war situation. There was also no central control to organize the masses.
17. To the English, the colonial militia was known for being unreliable. Loudoun, an English lord, was “appalled” by their workings. Each group of the militia was responsible for a different government, and it was reported that there was a lack of sanitation in the camps. In fact, there was even a lack of military order, and disease was a leading cause of death for soldiers. People could run away with only mild punishment as well. These conditions were compared to those of the British Regulars, who were supposedly “well-disciplined” and tightly run. The American soldiers could not work in the tight environment of England, and the British could not stand the open atmosphere of the American army. The Americans had the incentive of higher pay, better supplies, and each soldier could take his musket home. Americans also preferred to stay close to home, in order to defend the things that mattered most to them (land, etc.). Also, the British could not understand the “leveling spirit” of Americans. Every man virtually ruled himself and did what he pleased, and there was always the question of what rank someone really was (in the American army).
18. In this quote, there is a question of how it is possible for an inexperienced and unprepared army to beat a professional one. There was no reason to hope for the American army, because they didn’t even have an interest in fighting. They used as little defense as necessary to get a wanted result. There are many things that can account for this victory. First, George Washington understood that the army was spread out, and not unified. He took advantage of this and found that a dispersed army could help, by being everywhere at once. There was nowhere that an opposing army could enter America without coming upon defense. And with that, there was no “center” to America. Without a grand takeover, the English had to go from town to town, slowly taking over small areas. The inexperienced generals of the American army also gave an unexpected advantage because they didn’t play by the English rules. Creativity in war was definitely on the American side. Also, it was the Americans’ ultimate connection to home that allowed them to win. Unity, at this time, would have allowed defeat. All of these reasons, combined with aid from the French, ensured a victory to America.
19. The reference to Cincinnatus meant that the American people didn’t want an overpowering person to rule them. Cincinnati was not a big city, just like Washington was not an English King. The American people chose Washington because he was like them. Because Washington was a general, it showed that the American people saw the army as a way to freedom. They may have based this off of their recent victory as well. The reference to Cincinnatus also could represent the militia’s hesitancy to change. Because this truly unique, American general experiment had created a victory, this turned into just another “regular” thing that the American people felt was constant in their lives. What would be the use of experimenting again, if it worked? And on top of that, having someone close to Cincinnatus would be relatable to the whole of the American people as well.
1: When Boorstin refers to people as London Agents or London factors he is referring to people in London who take change of people's affairs who can't access Europe’s trade and goods directly. This shows the dependence on commerce even on the small scale of books where Americans still have the need for all that Europe has to offer.
2: Boorstin goes into great detail on how Virginia was not the elite of America but something unique from all of New England with its specific uses for books. People such as William Byrd had expansive collections of books while most of Virginia only had around 25 books including religious studies and other various books.
3: Boorstin means to intensify the feeling of how the colonists did not read for pleasure but for practicality. They read books that are pertinent to what problems they are dealing with but of coarse that always includes a religious book of sorts. "Purposeful Reading" is directly interpreted as reading with a purpose which is what everyone always has.
4: This question has popped up 3 times now in different forms but ok. There was a lack of both American literature and literature in general because people were spread out and there were no major cities. The small libraries did not have a great expansive amount of books and therefore there was no dying need to sit in a library and read.
5: The last paragraph is showing how though in America the idea was to flourish and monetary gain there was much more to discover than that. Jacob Duche's passage gives thought to even though you may not be learning in the proper way you are still learning none the less.
6: I'm going to be honest and say no I've never heard of that before in my life let alone my world History background. Therefore I will use the magic of the internet and look it up. Ok so the Star Chamber was an English court of law in Palace of Westminster where it largely delt with political libel and treason cases until 1806 when it was demolished. But the decree that took place in 1637 which gave parliament to take charge of censorship instead of royal powers.
7: What i gained from this statement from Boorstin was that in America there was no large finanantial backer in the publishing so therefore there was sucking up to that person. I had to look up what "sycophantic" meant but that basically means when a person who tries really hard to please a person.
8: Georgia was founded as a charity state and snowballed into a land of great expectations of lush farmlands and great riches but Georgia fell flat when people discovered that no large amounts of crops could grow. Georgia had no source of economic growth therefore Georgia was behind the times in Technology.
9: One reason to why there was more newspaper production in America than there was in England because America was still growing politically and therefore had many new laws and decrees to publish. England had been standing for a much greater time than America. There was many printing of oaths, laws, and other legal matters.
10: I found it rather entertaining that magazines were both entertainment and instructional, because to me when I think of magazines i think of Pop Culture. Early Magazines weren't as popular as newspapers because they had no everyday need or emphasis on daily life and had no practical uses.
11: Censorship in the colonies was used and enforced by the government until many liberal presses popped up. To gain the privilege to print you needed to gain a license which is ironic because of the Freedom of the press. People who did not follow the protocol for publishing came under fire by prosecution. My favorite quote about this was from Boorstin which says "not a "free press", but return to a "well-regulated" press."
12: John Peter Zenger was important because he proved that freedom of speech and press was not possible under those jurisdictions. He caused the speculation of who should have the power to regulate the press.
13: Printers in the colonies were very important because they regulated what news came to people. Printers had a direct influence in politics because they printed all the laws, acts, debates, and votes; there were many separate governments each different with their own printer and if the printer didn’t print appropriate things for the government the printer was removed and a new one replaced him. The printer in America gave all literate people their news and information for daily life and connected the bridge between people and their political system.
14: I’ve never heard of an Indian Summer before this so this was a great learning experience. Indian Summer said by Boorstin was when there was a warm streak at the end of fall before winter and that was when they would come to attack. Though they attacked during the warmer summer they would leave to go back to their villages during the cold but during the “Indian summer” they would come out before heading home for the winter. This I find to be somewhat ironic because Boorstin says that the farmers were joyous when winter rolled around but usually aren’t farmers unhappy when they cant make money off of crops?
15: The colonists were better prepared for fighting because they were rough and tumble people. They had lived on the land and knew it well and therefore had an advantage over the British soldiers. British soldiers have specific lines and patterns to follow and therefore threes an advantage to running and killing like a mad man because if there was terrain problems it would be no different. Americans were also prepared in the fact that they have many skirmishes in the forests with Indians and such so they are used to being attacked on no notice and could act efficiently and effectively.
16: Because Americans were used to war and always being on the look out for a sneak attack it made life in the peaceful lane hard because there was the paranoia that something was about to pop out and kill you and that was in my opinion the myth because though people were ready for war they were also ready to leave. As told by Boorstin in the section about how they were only minute men and had no intention of having a standing army. They were ready to return to normal life and peace and therefore would not stand and fight for longer than it took to deal with the problem.
17: One comparison of the colonial militia and the british regulators is the unprofessional looks of the colonial militia. By European standards they were not a real military force. They wore no uniform and there were not professional drill sergeants or drills at all. European armies had brutal discipline and officers and training but the Colonial militia only showed up when their territory was in danger. British Regulars were in a standing army where they defended great amounts of territory but the colonial militia was very reluctant to move even slightly outside of their town.
18: Though American forces were ill prepared and we’re not professional by any means they were able to use that to their advantage. With out knowing it there was a silver lining to not being rigid with rules and regulations, because with no professional command there was the aspect of surprise when America took the offensive. As for the final victory there was more attributes to America winning other than by force. To send soldiers and to have supplies sent overseas from England is very costly and also there was no hope of being able to keep America under English control any longer because the moral of the people had shifted to America and nationalism.
19: Cincinnatus was a farmer as was Washington and he served without question in the best interest of his country. Both these men emerged when they were needed and did not act when there was no need also like the colonial militia which only popped up when there was a problem or threat. All these examples weren’t trained in any special way but they all achieved greatness. There was a direct tie between Washington and Cincinnatus with the Order of the Cincinnati where political tradition and comradeship was kept and Washington headed this operation but not with open arms. Washington hoped that the organization would end and dissipate soon which it eventually did.
1. The “London Agent” was a Virginian plantation-owner’s connection to England, and its bank of literature. A London Agent provided Virginians with whatever London books they requested. They could also send books of their own choice to their American buyers if the buyers did not have a preference. In this way the London Agent decided the Virginian culture of literature, which turned out to be very utilitarian. However, they also passively suppressed any possibility of a considerable bookish culture rising in Virginia. Since the literate, who were mostly plantation owners and Church ministers, could get all their books from London Agents, there was no reason to build bookstores, such as had developed across New England.
2. The Middle colonies, especially Pennsylvania, had the most prosperous book trade, for many reasons, not limited to their comparatively city-based societies. Pennsylvania’s tolerance meant no predominating Religious theme of reading, such as that found in New England. Also, the Middle colonies had a much more leisurely view of books. While in the Southern colonies books were limited to being resources of information, and in New England to being conveyances of Religion, in the Middle colonies there was no such singular dictation. The Middle colonies accepted all types of books, seeing them as a “commodity,” rather than a very specific tool, as they were seen in other colonial regions. The Middle colonies swiftly had many bookstores, and even more specifically, bookstores of special types of books, such as bookstores that sold only books in German, to cater to the large German population of Pennsylvania; or bookstores that specialized in Ancient books. The Middle colonies were also the first to introduce the English book auctions into America, as early as the late 17th century. Literature did not flourish in the New England and Southern colonies, each for a different reason. In New England, the stranglehold of the Puritan Church limited its books to Religious texts, and so the possible reader base was diminished. Only the Clergy and incredibly devout Christian would have any significant interest in Religious readings. In the Southern colonies, books were combined purely to use. Also, the lack of a major city where commercial trade could take place further diminished the already sparse existence of books in the South. Only the very wealthy, such as William Byrd, had large libraries of books, and even they were careful not to read with too much intent for fear of becoming like the literati of London. However, the majority of Southerners, if they owned books at all, owned books that they intended only for their usefulness, such as medical books incase of medical emergency, books on agriculture for farmers and plantation owners, etc. But without existence of any centralization, there was no opportunity for books to become a subject of conversation and become the novelty they became in the Middle colonies.
3. Reading “purposefully” is exactly as it sounds. Social libraries that developed in the Colonies, such as Benjamin Franklin’s Library Company, rather than simply bringing together all the books they owned, which would provide them with a very slim selection; they instead picked a well-read person to select books that would be beneficial for them to read. The library members would then pool their money and order those books from London. In the case of Franklin’s Library Company, the person they chose was Mr. Logan. The books were mostly informational, such as dictionaries, books on history, and books on science. It’s clear that “purposeful reading” was an independence from the Puritan pretense that books were intended to be purely Religious, and that any books that covered an alternate subject matter were meant to distract from Religious books, and were thus temptations of the Devil.
4. “Lack of Literature” meant lack of the lazy upper class that produced this literature. This quote obviously accentuates Boorstin’s examples of all the great English works the Americans had the privilege of experiencing, without the inconvenience of experiencing the grueling time periods that produced them. So in a way it wasn’t “lack of literature,” but instead was a lack of literate institutions. The “lack of literature” also transformed the American attitude towards books. Without the aristocratic class to lord over literature and decide its definition, literature was instead something of the common people. And since common people didn’t devote their lives to literature, literature became peripheral to daily life, hence “lack of literature.” By having literature second to daily life, the American standard of equality remained, and books simply enhanced the lives of American people.
5. The quote at the end of chapter 48 further exhibits the extent of equality in America, especially in comparison to England. The full literacy of the American people meant that the same information was available to everyone. Without any way of obtaining intellectual superiority above the commoner, there was no way for an elite class to develop. And not only was this equality incident, but it was even demanded by the American people. In the paragraph it says, “For every man expects one day or another to be upon a footing with his wealthiest neighbor,” because Americans had become acquainted with a lack of discrete social distinctions, and were definitely not inclined to let them develop in America as they existed, and had existed for centuries, in England. Without the fallback excuse of tradition and birthright, no American man could claim himself superior to another because of things so petty as knowledge, wealth, or occupation. This was the very grain of America’s social system.
6. I’ve never heard of the Star Chamber Decree in any previous history readings; however, Boorstin makes its effects on American book-printing quite clear. The English regulation of development of new types/fonts (and thus development of types in America until its independence) meant that America only received the discarded prints of English printers. Not only did this mean poor-quality, sometimes hardly legible, prints, but it meant a shortage of types in America. As Boorstin explains in detail, a printer couldn’t afford to print books when they needed to have their type ready to use on other jobs that would give quicker financial return, such as newspapers.
7. Boorstin is making yet another reference to America’s equality and lack of a senselessly empowered aristocracy. In England, book-printers would often receive large sums of payment from aristocrats, and in return would place a flattering dedication to that aristocrat within the book. In America, on the other hand, book-printers searched for supplemental payment, not from aristocracy, but from the commoners. They would often give advance subscriptions for their book that was in print. Boorstin purposely inserts this quote because it shows that the American principle of equality was so widespread that it not only affected the obvious, such as social classes and government, but it also affected more mundane affairs such as financing book-printing. Clearly American publishers’ freedom from excessive flattery of individuals empowered only by birth shows that even printers who relied on British goods for their occupation still had the industrious American spirit.
8. After the folly of the methods used in its initial setup (hey, there’s worse things I could say), it is hardly surprising that Georgia was the last colony to acquire a printing press and sever its literary dependence on England. There are two factors that heavily contributed to its slow progress to independence. Firstly, it was the most southern colony, and easily most isolated, even more-so than Pennsylvania and its Quakers. Being isolated from the more northerly colonies meant its people were not as much exposed to the literary culture of America and the push for American printing. Additionally, Georgia’s homogeneity contributed to its lack of a printing press. The only literate for the most part in Georgia were its rich cotton plantation-owners (is this time period too early for cotton plantations?), and they were quite content with their libraries of books they had order from England, if they had even ordered any books at all. Also, without any large cities, Georgia had no significant capital at which its people could exchange not just goods, but ideas. And if nobody exchanged ideas in the first place, then there was no need for such things as newspapers and magazines to further stimulate this spread of ideas.
9. America was perfectly suited for the newspaper. What more perfect a place for mass written media than America with its literate masses? Also, the newspaper’s universality fit 18th century urban America. America’s wide diversity in its multiple cities meant a wide range of information, too great to be spread by word of mouth alone. Also, this was accentuated by the competition of America’s major cities to be the London of America. With so many colonies, each with their own laws and capital cities, it would be impossible for someone to keep with all that happened without the aid of a newspaper. The newspaper catered to everyone, and there’s no bigger group than everyone.
10. It’s quite obvious why magazines weren’t successful in the Colonies early on. The first magazines in America were likely to be a lot like the English magazines they were modeled after (and sometimes plagiarized from). And those magazines were similar to books in England. They were meant only for the elite upper class, and not commoners. Also, they didn’t have the broad appeal socially or geographically. Usually magazines would only be for specific localities, and furthermore, would have a specific subject matter, significantly limiting their intended audience and potential readers.
11. The Colonies, at least up until the Revolution, practiced strict censorship, and for good reason. The press was as good a weapon as the sharpest blade or the most powerful firearm. The government employed numerous ways to maintain this censorship. Firstly, there was the overrunning English law against free press, but individual colonial governments continued to keep censorship laws even after the English laws no longer applied. Virginia was the strictest of these governments, not even allowing printing presses in their colony until 1730. In cases when they could not stop free press with laws, colonial governments could continue to suppress dissident publications with libel cases that had very penalties. In Virginia, for example, the penalty was jail-time, and a lifetime ban on ever printing again. Finally, the Colonial governments were able to control press simply because they controlled the printing presses themselves. Printing presses could only prosper with government subsidy, and thus if a printer printed anything against his government or even just incongruent with the views of his government, then he would lose his subsidy and thus his business.
12. John Zenger was the first man to win a Libel case as a defendant. Even though his case didn’t change the way of things, since libel cases continues to almost always fall in favor of the government, it did set some precedents in the legal system. The decision had ultimately been in the hands of the jury, who were commoners. This showed that the government could censor, but only to an extent. If their accusation of libel was too absurd, the jury would call them on it. The process still remained, however, heavily in favor of the government, even if the jury could put a limit on the government and its attempt to exercise supreme power of censorship. This is an interesting change from England’s prevention of freedom of press, where the government always won the case, regardless of its absurdity.
13. The Public Printer served a pivotal role in colonial American society. Firstly, he worked in collaboration with the government and helped keep laws and other acts publicized. This eventually led to the press we have today that does its best to make sure that our government is transparent and we always know what it’s doing. Also, Public Printers would often also become postmasters, at great profit. Benjamin Franklin was one of the best examples of this. He started as postmaster of Pennsylvania and ended up being the Postmaster of all the colonies. He was able not only to use the postal service to distribute his newspaper, but he could also keep other competing newspapers from being carried by his postal service. In addition, being Postmaster meant that Franklin had the most immediate source of information to be used in his newspaper. Public Printers also helped to establish the American post office. The postal service’s prices were steep for delivery of newspapers and William Goddard was one of the first to establish his own postal service and oppose the government-controlled post office. He had his own couriers, who not only delivered newspapers for him, but also provided him with information for his newspaper.
14. The Indian Summer was a fearful time of year for the backwoodsmen of America. It was the time during winter when the snow melted and temperatures rose, allowing Indians to once again travel and attack American settlements. It was an incredibly fearful time that interrupted the long-anticipated winter when backwoodsmen could relax and didn’t need to worry about attacks. Winter was the greatest season of all for backwoodsmen as it meant three months of no attack, no massacres. But winter never lasts forever. The Indian Summer, however, had its positive effects. For fear of Indian attacks, backwoods children were trained to handle firearms even from a young age. They were so well-trained from hunting and marksmanship practice that they could easily function in a Militia. This then allowed the Patriots to use marksmanship as a scare-tactic against the English army. They were able to successfully convinced the English that all the members of the American Militia were well-trained marksmen who could pick soldiers off from afar. This also helped in discouraging the English and eventually convincing them that the Americans could no longer be controlled.
15. The American Militia, at least its members who lived in the backwoods, had the incredible advantage of being tempered by Indian attacks. The Indians did not use the conservative European style of battle, and so, in defense from the Indians, the backwoodsmen learned how to not use the conservative European style of battle. The English, however, had no training whatsoever in guerrilla warfare and were ill-suited for what they would have to deal with in the American backwoods. The Revolution was fought in small, isolated battles, rather than the usual large-scale battles that followed strict rules. Finally, after being subject to regular training and firearms checks, the American Militia was well-suited not only with proficiency in their weapon, but even with marksmanship. The result was that the Americans were superior to their English enemies in backwoods battles.
16. This “myth” most certainly proved true during the Revolution. Although the American Militia did assemble quickly when they were needed, they also disassembled just as quickly, often too quickly. In many cases, at the end of a campaign, they would disperse too early, and would not be prepared when a town was attacked, they weren’t ready. However effective the American Militia was when it was assembled for fighting, it was useless during peace because it could not react quickly enough to an attack on a town if it wasn’t already assembled. Part of this problem could partly be attributed to the way the Militia picked their commander. The members of the Militia all voted and elected a commander. This democratic feel was interpreted by many to mean they could leave the Militia as they pleased, which was usually once they felt their family and assets were safe.
17. The Colonial Militia was incredibly unorganized and disorderly, especially compared to the strict discipline exercised by the British Army. This disorganization wasn’t limited to their behavior either. Militia camps were complete disasters. Those who had died of sickness were buried nearby, and the entire camp smelled wretched. It was frighteningly easy to contract a whole host of diseased while in a Colonial Militia camp. Furthermore, such places as those used for cattle slaughter were adjacent to important parts of the camp, such as barracks and kitchen. Also, there was very little punishment for deserting, which was highly contrary to the English practice of treating deserting as an act of treason. However, American Militiamen had the benefit of receiving nearly three times the pay as English soldiers, as well as bonuses for each successive year they returned to fight for the Militia.
18. This unexpected victory by an army of deserters and their unfortunate generals was not a victory of their military prowess, but simply a convening of other forces in their favor. As time wore on, regardless of the outcome of military battles, the English realized that it was impossible to control America, regardless of victories in each city. The English came to realize that America was so decentralized and its colonies so locally concerned, that it could not be negotiated with as a single entity. They realized that they could never control all of America without the costly allocation of many more troops. Also the collaboration of the French Army with the American Militia had swung a few battles in the favor of the Americans. The English feared that this could become a permanent alliance, and that rather than fighting disorganized revolutionaries, they’d soon be fighting their well-organized rivals, the French.
19. The Cincinnatus showed exactly what local Militia were afraid would happen, and what deterred them from joining a standing army. The Cincinnatus was formed after the War and was meant to be an organization of all the officers of the Revolution, headed by George Washington. However it threatened to become the ruling class of America and to become military rule. Although it quickly dissolved and never actually turned into such a ruling class, it helped to set a common American precedent that connected military accomplishments with later political office. In America, it became quite common for former military commanders to assume some political office. The most chief example of this is George Washington, who became the first president of the United States after having been General of the Continental Army.
1. The London Agent could influence what the colonist read because he is responsible for bring books over to the colonists. The colonist would request books to the London Agent.
2. Virginia was the most populated colony of all on America. Philadelphia had strong Quaker influences that stressed inwardness. They were never able to maintain a large government. It did however, become the center of book trading
3. Men would rather listen to other peoples experiences than buy a book to read about the same thing.
4. Franklin suggests that people did not write more literature because there were to busy with other things.
5. America didn’t form a literary aristocracy which could be beneficial to later history. It was because there was a vernacular language that all the books were in that allowed all people to read them if they wished to do so. This helped not separate the literary class from the rest of the population. It helped keep everyone in the society because they all had the chance to read.
6. The Star Chamber decree was when the King of England was able to get rid of enemies of the state. Although I understand what the decree is, I don’t see how it is connected to the printing in America.
7. Everyone in America was relatively equal in wealth and didn’t need to ask for money from the nobility like the writers in England. Boorstin is trying to show that in America the colonists did not rely on the wealth to make there country work properly.
9. American printers were free to print what there community needed. Also, most of the things that were printed were legal documents. The first document that was printed in America was the Freeman’s Oath of 1639. Almanacs were the most important item in print because they told the growing system for farmers. It included the amount of sunlight, cycles of the moon, and prospects of weather.
10. Magazines were not popular. The magazines never lasted for more than several years because they would copy all their information from pamphlets, newspapers, and other magazines. They also imitated European magazines. They all lacked creative abilities.
11. In order to have a printing press, and print papers one must attain a license. This meant that there was strict control on who could print pamphlets. This became a large debated issue in Massachusetts, and was still an issue during the revolution.
12. John Zenger’s case brought up the issue of who was allowed to regulate the press. Zenger became a hero for all people trying to gain freedom of press.
13. Printers had to be on good terms with the government so they could continue to print their newspapers. They also were suppose to hold the nation together, and continue to serve them the news of the region and state.
15. When boys were growing up they played with toys that prepared them for really weapons. By the time it was their turn to fight; they had practiced all their life and knew the ‘ways of the Indians.’ This seemed to prepare the boys much more than the British soldiers because they had spent all their lives doing this instead of a couple of months.
17. The American militia was purely for defensive purposes, and would never be used for personal selfish reasons. The Americans did not have a problem leaving there homes unoccupied while they were out defending their land or their neighbors. The militia was a local defensive group. In England however, the army moved around to knock down peasant rebellions or to stomp down a neighboring army. They did not use their army for strictly defensive purposes.
18. The militia that fought against the British in the last battle was driven by the want of their own freedom. In contrary, the British soldiers weren’t driven by anything other than there pay. It caused the militia to beat them in battle.
1. One example of the “London Agent’s,” or “factor’s,” role was that they would decide for a planter what books should be sent (pg 302). Boorstin mentions agents when a decision needs to be made and people are unsure of what route to take. This shows American’s lingering dependence on England, their decisions, and their commerce.
2. In Virginia, there were “lead planters.” And they controlled the book s in the colony, much like the New England clergy. Virginians had to rely on planter-aristocrats they served, as the clergy and laity roles were reversed. Although a unity had developed, Virginians also did not want to accept a cultural leadership from New England. Pennsylvania believed they were set apart due to their “Quaker tone” and “bookish culture.” “Pennsylvania Quakers looked less into sacred texts than into their hearts and sins of the community.” Pennsylvania took a community and inward approach to religion and used books in order to gain knowledge and also for entertainment. Pennsylvania also had more religious tolerance than many other areas. Also, Philadelphia became the center of the book trade and the trade prospered, and Boorstin alludes that Philadelphia could qualify as a “cultural capital” in the last paragraph of the chapter.
3. “Purposeful reading” practiced by colonists refers to the “Social libraries” and “Subscription libraries” that were started by Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia, 1727. Participants paid a fee in order to borrow and read a book and then after discussed the book. These discussions were more of debates on topics. For example “Is it justifiable to put private men to death, for the sake of public safety or tranquility, who have committed no crime?” (pg. 310)The social libraries gave people means to question and discuss the country and its motives.
4. The colonists still included literature in their lives, even with a “lack of literature” of their own. Boorstin puts this well when he states “The seaboard cities, each for its own reasons, sifted the bookish culture of the mother country for a widely literate but not strikingly literary people.” (pg. 313). The colonists had “London Agents” for receiving the books, libraries, and social libraries in order to read and discuss. They did not have a literature “of their own,” but were able to focus on their practical reading, learn from it, and merely focus on their reading materials. Ultimately, the colonists were not “held back” from their lack of literature. They embraced it and made use of it.
5. The last paragraph in chapter 48 discusses the distinction between classes in Philadelphia and why literature was an important part. “Such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind, that almost every man is a reader; and by pronouncing sentence……puts himself upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors.” (pg. 316). Men could share their knowledge, discuss, and question due to books. Literature put men on an equal playing field, so to speak.
6. The reference about the “Star Chamber Decree” sounds a bit familiar, but I don’t remember it being referenced in World History. Boorstin states that “In England the supply had been limited as part of the control of the press; a Star Chamber Decree of 1637 allowed only four persons, each with a limited number of apprentices, to operate type-foundaries at any one time.” It limited press from England and limited what Americans received to “discarded copies.”
7. The quote “The sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who bought and paid for his complements, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean,” seems to say that there was little financial backing in America in books and less diversity. This shows America’s lack of an aristocracy. In England, the book-printers would put a dedication in their books to a “Lordly patron,” who then paid a sum of money for their “complement.” In American volumes, this was “rarely found.” So book printers in England looked to the aristocracy for financial support while in America, publishers were free from this.
8. Georgia was the last colony to get a printing press because Georgia was already considered to be a “victim of its own benefactors” and was struggling with that. The people in the colony had already been taken advantage of and it could just as easily happen again. Georgians did not have a firm government or bureaucracy, and still looked to England. This prevented Georgia from getting printing presses, as they still relied on England. Again, they were victims of their “benefactors.”
9. Newspapers in the colonies outnumbered newspapers in Great Britain, because the presses turned out things dealing with business and government. “Larger income and future lay with the newspaper” (pg 326) Newspapers were entirely American, free of English influence unlike their literature. Newspapers in America were printed long before newspapers in England, so that may also be why their production rate was higher. “In the early 18th century, when the first English provincial newspapers were being printed, newspapers had already become a familiar institution in the American colonial capitals” (pg 326). American newspapers, being fully American, were unique and driven by things such as growing literacy and existence of capitals.
10. Magazines were less essential and less practical than newspapers, and due to this they were slower to get out to the American scene. It did not flourish for another century and ½. Their material mainly focused and was based off of the English magazines.
11. Censorship in the colonies developed because materials such as paper and ink had to be imported and no one could own or operate a printing press without knowledge and appraisal of the government. The appraisal of the government was needed because they knew how powerful the written word could be and were concerned about those attaining that power. A Massachusetts law developed deciding press restrictions stating that all copies of Manuscripts had to be censored before publication. Once more liberal presses were established, censoring became more difficult for the government.
12. John Peter Zenger impacted the press by winning a case when he was tried for going against the printing press laws. By winning the case, he received a title of “Public Printer” in 1737. The impact he had on the press was because he was freed from his trial, examples were set in the legal system. The jury, common place people, had been the ultimate deciders of the case, and by granting his freedom, it showed they had more power in the legal system than originally thought. The jury was able to decide if the government was too outrageous in its cases. This showed that in libel cases and in the printing laws in general, that the government could only censor to an extent.
13. The impact printers had a large impact on the colonies due to being a large part of society and dealing with politics. Printers were able to make a living off of keeping people informed as the printing business began to flourish in the colonies. This provided more jobs. “Publick Printers” delivered news on politics and the government and information to the community. “The print shops became forums and post offices, centers for news and government, to discover sources of news, and to find ways of distributing their commodity quickly” (pg 336). Printers served a number of purposes and therefore had a large impact due to this as well. Eventually printers spread all across America and even went to London, Oxford, and Cambridge. Boorstin refers to “publick printing” as “an American institution” (pg 338).
14. Indian summer, as defined by dictionary.com, was “a period of mild, dry weather, usually accompanied by a hazy atmosphere, occurring usually in late October or early November and following a period of colder weather.” “Indian Summer” refers to the end of fall when there is a warm streak when the Indians would raid or attack in other words. Due to these Indian summers, settlers enjoyed a peace in the winters, when the Indians were unable to travel to settlements of the colonists. Settlers went to their cabins during the winter full of joy and prepared for winter. Indian summer gave the Indians another chance to “visit the settlements with their destructive warfare.” (pg 349).
15. The colonists were better prepared than the British Regulars because firearms were in the hands of even common people due to survival necessity such as self-defense or hunting/food gathering, unlike in Europe. Europe could not prevent this because they were too far away to place much restraint. By 1680, militias were allowable in the Americas. The Americans took up the Assize of Arms for fighting tactics and used this against their enemies. By March 1631, everyone was required to have arms. Being less organized and battling with Indians also helped prepare their fighting tactics. The Americans were better prepared than the British Regulars for these reasons and because they knew their home territory better than the British-they had lived there after all.
16. Just because Americans fought against the Indians and the British gave them practice in fighting and in using the element of surprise, but this caused them to live in fear of being killed. “Colonists saw no sense in sending men off to fight in some distant place, while leaving their own homes unprotected,” (pg 357). They worried about the welfare of their homes and their lives. This caused a reluctance to send a militia to fight. Although the people were prepared to fight, they were just as ready to stay where they were and protect the things that mattered to them or not fight at all. As most of the men were “minute-men,” more of unprofessional soldiers, they were not prepared for every or endless fights. They were ready to be home and live their lives.
17. One example comparing the militia to the British regulars is their uniforms. “The militia was a most unmilitary outfit by European Standards. It wore no uniform.” (pg 355) In the minds of the Europeans, this made them unprofessional. Another comparison is that of electing officers. Without real formal elections, it “produced informality between officers and men, which weakened the force in combat. It also reminded the soldiers they were fighting for themselves and encouraged them to desert when service became inconvenient.” (pg 355). This alludes that the British were more loyal to their causes and officers than the Americans.
18. The Americans succeeded because they used their informal preparing to their advantages. They chose to fight using surprise tactics and fought in ways a trained army would not expect. The British were unfamiliar with their fighting tactics because the British had had formal and professional training. The Americans had not. The fighting tactics were completely different than they knew. As for winning the final battle, the British were on unfamiliar territory, had to have supplies shipped to them, and the Americans were too devoted to their cause for independence. This combined with the American fighting tact caused the British to lose, their well-organized army and prided military power failing in unfamiliar circumstances.
19. Cincinnatus was “the American military ideal. He fought for his country even though he had to unwillingly leave his tobacco fields behind. Washington also, fought for his country when he was needed. Near the end of the war, officers wanted to set up a commemoration to the memories, tradition, and comrades, it was called Society of Cincinnati, which Washington became leader of. These two men were not formally trained, but achieved status through their efforts and could serve as examples to the militia of why and how they should fight.
1. The London agent/factor was the instances in which the colonies were at a developmental standstill, not because they chose to stop moving, but because they were unsure of the next course of action that would spur them on to greatness. The colonies wanted to set their own future but were unsure about what would help them progress and what would lead to demise.
2. The middle colonies had a larger volume of books being distributed, this mainly happened in the colony of Pennsylvania. Due to Pennsylvania's basis on the Quarker religion, the inhabitants had no reason to stop people from enjoying whatever kind of book they wanted. The more Anglican, Evangelical, and Puritan colonies were government much more by the Church, which forbade the masses to delve into any subject that would distance them from God. In the non-Quaker colonies, the only books read by those who could read, was the Bible so they could heighten their possition and knoweldge of God and his miracles. Bookstores were common in the "middle colonies" and some even sold only a specific type of books, thus books were popular enough for stores to apeal to only one kind of reader and still stay in business.
3. Boorstin said "purposeful reading" was prevelant in the colonies because of the libraries initialized by Benjamin Franklin which were more social debates than libraries. A group of men would gather and order books to read and later debate upon. These groups were not based upon a man's social standings, so it was anyone who wanted to debate could join. This provided an easily accessible outlet for people to debate not only the books but also the direction the colonies were headed in (to a certain degree).
4. The "lack of literature" had no basis to coment on the amount of literature present in the lives of the people in the colonies. Even though the colonies produced very few pieces of literature, they still possesed literature from Europe. Also, along with the literature the colonists got from England, they got the luxury of not having to print, copy, manufacture, and write any of the books they were reading. Reading became a passtime to many in the colonies and wasn't a neccesity, so reading was purely an indication of wealth and free time.
5. With information available to the public and not just the elites of society, there was no real division of social class. Everyone had access to the same materials. Also because of the lack of formal ceremonies and such, there was no presence, let alone a desire, for a class of superiority. America was very equal in every aspect (other than race, gender, and history).
6. I have no frickin' clue of what a "Star Chamber Decree" is. Boorstin sheds some light on it though. From what I've gathered from him, it's a decree stating that printers in England don't need to produce new copies of books or manuscripts to send to the colonies, rather used or outdated copies of literature were sent overseas.
7. Boorstin means that the American's didn't dedicate books or make blatant references to wealthy "lords" in the colonies when he says "The sycophantic dedication to a lordly patron, who brought and paid for his complements, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean." In England, it would be common for a writer to write a long series of thanks within his book to a donator of a large sum of money for the book. This didn't occur in America because those who couldn't afford to produce their own books didn't do so.
8. Georgia was the last colony to obtain a printing press because of it's almost obscene dependence on England for virtually everything. Georgia didn't need a printing press when it's inhabitants could get hand-me-downs from England for cheap. Georgia was also corrupt in the fact that England pretty much ran it. England had a "finger in each pie" and didn't want Georgia to become independent in any way.
9. America had more newspapers than England because of it's flourishing economy and much of the population was literate. The colonies were a haven for newspapers. The colonies were mostly unique from eachother and citizens might want to know what was up elsewhere. American's didn't need to read novels and manuscripts daily. But they did need to get an occasional paper announcing a new technology that helped to cultivate land more efficiently or news of law changes. The newspaper reached the mojority of the people and thus everyone was aware of what was happening around them; nobody want's to be left in the dark.
10. Magazines in America were innitialy based off of those in England. They were intended only for the aristocrats and those with deep pockets. Their topics had no concern with those living in the colonies because they offered no tips on daily survival. American's only wanted to spend time doind things that would benefiet them, and reading tabloids would not fill their hunger for knowledge.
11. Under English rule, the colonies practiced harsh censorship in their newspapers. The English government didn't want their subjects (colonies) to become roudy and want reformation. The government wanted for the people to hear only what would offer no consiquences against the government. Even when the colonies weren't under direct English rule, they still practiced somewhat strict censorship in the hopes that the common-folk wouldn't get ideas of a better life into their heads. The English didn't want the potential revolutionaries to be able to spread propaganda about the colonies and issue a call to war against the government.
12. John Peter Zenger was the first person to win a case against the government. This unprecidented event did little to the government, but it gave those who either faced charges against the government or charged to government with a charge hope to succeed. Before Zenger's case, it was unthinkable to imagine that the government could lose a case, but after Zenger's victory, the government didn't appear to be all powerful anymore. His cased proved that the government could only censor to a certain degree before they had to withdraw and allow people to voice their thoughts.
13. The Public Printers in the coloines were the forces that united them all. The Public Printers would distribute their papers all across the coloines, and some also became mail delivery systems in addition to delivering papers. They worked with the public to keep laws and news updated and readily available to the public. The Public Printers also wrote anything they could about the works of the government, whether it be secret (and illegal) deals being made with another or just news, the press would try to make as much know to the public as they could. Benjamin Franklin became the first Postmaster of the colonies and made a very quick and efficient (at the time) method of delivery. He was the first to completely unite the colonies from end to end.
14. An "Indian Summer" was a summer near the edges of the colonies closest to the west, closest to the Indians. During the summer (whenever there wasn't snow on the ground), the Indians would attack the colonies with strong force, which they couldn't during the winter. The colonists lived in fear, viewing winter as the only time when they were really safe from the Indians, who were only trying to regain their land.
15. The colonist were better prepared for battle than the English regulars for many reasons. Even though the Brittish were trained formally and had modern weapons and larger numbers, they were still not a match for the colonists. The Colonial Army knew the land much better than the English and used it well to their advantage by being able to plan their methos of attack more effectively. The colonist had also spent their entire lives with their weapons, hunting and fighin' off the Indians, and thus had much more experience in defending from Indians than the English did.
16. The myth of American's being more war-ready wasn't busted. The American militia always responded quickly and fought effectively in the Revolutionary war. It is also true that they settled for peace too quickly bacause that's what they wanted, after gaining independence. In addition to assembling quickly, they also desperced quickly (which is bad). As soon as the immediate threat ended, the militia would depart and head back home before everything was cleared.
17. In comparison to the English army, the American militia was just a bunch of rabble. The had no uniforms, their camps were jumbled and not tidy, there was not a harsh punishment for desertion. And most of all, each militia answered to a different authority. There wasn't one set authority the militia's all reported to, and thus the militias were very hard to coordinate if need be.
18. The American's can be awarded victory for few reasons. One was their determination and reason to fight: hope and fear. What if they didn't win? What would happen? The second reason was their knowledge of their own land. They could utilize guerrilla war and defeat an English regiment easily when outnumbered 5 to 1 if they planned accordingly. Their guerrilla tactics also gained small bits of land with each success, and over time, they managed to reclaim large expanses of land. The third and most important reason was allies. Without the French and their impressice navy and loans, the Amercians would never have been able to emerge victorious over the English hounds.
19. Boorstin's reference to Cincinatus was that the newly liberated Americans didn't want to be ruled by one all-powerful man and the military. They didn't want to become a military dictatorship ruled by George Washington and his generals from the Revolutionary War, which is what might have happened if they had really banned together to took the country.
1. A "London Agent" is a way to show how the colonies turned to England for support when they were undecided. Books would be ordered from a London Agent who chose what to ship to America. The agents were there to help set up the colonies' futures because they didn't know how to do it themselves.
3. "Purposeful reading" was when Boorstin was talking about social libraries, started by Franklin. Men would gather to debate and read, and anyone was welcome if they paid the opening admission. Sometimes, they would question something that they didn't have an answer to, and would pool money to get a book that addressed that topic.
4. The colonist's "lack of literature" ment that they didn't have any great works of literature from themselves. They had many books, and most of it was from England. Americans didn't have to deal with prontmaking, binding, advertising, etc. with making books, they simply ordered books through a London Agent.
5. (I'm not one of those that hadn't commented yet but I still will here) This paragraph is showing how equal America is, that "the poorest labourer" can discuss what he wants with as much freedom as anyone else in the higher classes. "Riches give none" is another example from this. Since everyone had access to the same mterials everyone had a right to their opinion, that "almost every man is a reader"
6. I hadn't heard of the Star Chamber Decree but since it censured things I would assume there were problems at the time with the government; normally press is censored only when they (correctly and for a reason) criticize their government.
7. Boorstin ment that there wasn't any large tributes to a patron in American books. Instead of writing pages upon pages dedicated to the Lordly patron, probablly because everyone was their own patron in America when it came to making books.
8. Georgia was England's little pet, and didn't need a printing press when it could beg from the table and get all the scraps it needed (that too mean?)
9. America had more newspapers because it was the perfect place for them. There were differnt colonies, so people wanted to know what was oging on with everyone else (solution: newspapers). Bookstores wanted a way to advertise to a very literate country (solution: newspapers). Americans didn't want English literature and influence (Solution: newspapers...about only American news.)
10. Magizines were for instruction AND entertainment (instead of currety culture, like today's) though they didn't sell as well as newspapers because they lacked everyday news.
11. With the English ruing, they didn't want people to rebel or harshly criticize them, so they put restricions on AMerican newspapers. One needed a license to publish and those that broke this came under persecution.
12. John Peter Zenger was the first to win a case agianst the government, giving hope to those that had other cases against the government and showing that there is a limit to how much you can restrict the freedom of the press.
13. Printers were important because without them there wouldn't be newspapers or books. There were important because it gave places for people to meet (the social libraries of Franklin's) and gave them new ways to spread curretn information to help people.
14. I hadn't heard of an "Indian Summer" before, but that was when the Indians would come out and attack (aka reclaim land from) the colonists, during the warm season before winter
15. Americans knew the land, so they knew where to hide and ambush from, along with some experience from the skirmishes with the Indians. They were used to harsh conditions and living on the land, so they were more prepared to fight then the British, who didn't know the land.
16. Americans fell into war easily because they were fearful of attakc, but they were efficient and won several battles. However, they would quickly disperse once the threat was over, and would forgive in order to get peace too quickly.
17. The British were well regulated and knew the rules, following one leader. The Americans, on the other hand, were like peasants to the British, with no official uniforms or new weapons or marches or one specific leader.
18. The Americans won because they knew the land and how to survive. They also had so much to fight for (as did England, losing a supply center but) because the Americans lived there and wanted independence so badly they had a stronger morale to fight and win. They also had help from the French, who also had the strong desire to fight the British.
~Chris Sogge~
7. Boorstin was describing the printers of England when he said that quote. In England printers had to have patrons in order to have enough money to print a book. If a printer in England did not have a patron, they could not afford to publish. In return for the patronage, the printer was morally obligated to dedicate the book being printed to its patron. In this manner, a patron "bought and paid for his compliments."(pg. 323) In America however, printers were able to print newspapers and magazines because people had subscriptions. With the introduction of subscriptions, the printer no longer had to rely on a benefactor or patron. A monthly subscription by a large amount of people could sustain the printer to print their literature as well as make a profit. Thus, "The sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who bought and paid for his complements, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean."
8. Georgia would be the last colony to acquire a printing press because they were an incredibly poor colony. The original planning of Georgia set it up for failure. As we have already discussed, Georgia had incredibly restrictive laws that virtually stopped any ideas of a free market system. Then the planners of Georgia abandoned the colony after they ran out of money. Most of the colonists who went to Georgia ran away to the greener pastures of South Carolina and other colonies. On top of being out of funds, the Georgians were also out of people. This meant that the colony was doomed to poverty up to the revolution. This poverty is the reason why Georgia was the last colony to acquire a printing press.
9. The newspaper was important in America because it reported on government activities. Such as, colonial government happenings, statues, and laws; these all were important to the American people so the printers printed it. The newspaper also created a sense or equality. Every literate man could read the newspaper from the farmer to the gentleman. All were equal and all knew what was happening in their community.
10. Magazines were not originally well received in the colonies. Americans also did not view the magazine as practical and as useful as the newspaper. A magazine was more for entertainment than anything else. In addition, American printers mostly copied the magazines from England. Boorstin states, "[magazines] seem to have been composed primarily with the scissors rather than with a pen."
11. The censorship that existed in the colonies was acted out through the printing press. Printing presses were expensive and hard to transport. A community could only get a printing press if the government subsidized it. This let the government have control of the publications that were in their colony. Few radical anti-government papers were printed during these times. The government also chose the printer, the person who ran the machine. Franklin worked very hard to become a printer. This was how his works became printed. Colonial governments had complete control over what their people were reading. That was the censorship of Colonial America.
17. The colonial "militia" and the British regulars could not have been more different. For the British regulars fighting away from their homes was a standard practice. According to Boorstin, "battles tended to take place on large open fields, where the customary rules and formations could be obeyed." However, colonial Americans preferred to protect their homes and their communities. In addition, there was no sense of "America" at this time. All of the colonies were fiercely independent and never thought of helping their neighboring colony with Indian attacks. These two styles of fighting reflected the differences in America and England. England was highly dogmatic and overly formalized while America was community oriented
19. Cincinnatus was a roman who left his farm to serve the roman army and protect Rome. Once protecting was done, Cincinnatus became the dictator of Rome but made his dictatorship as short as possible because he was not an ambitious man. George Washington was exactly the same way. He was not ambitious and disliked being in power too long. Washington left his presidency after only one term. He wanted the presidency to be brief so that the presidency would not turn into a monarchy. In these respects, Washington and Cincinnatus were very similar.
1. The London agent was a person in London who would decide what would be sent to the colonies. In this way, the colonies were still dependent on England for many things.
3. The colonies practiced "purposeful reading." This meant that they didn't read for pleasure or appreciation on the whole, but read what was going to have a practical application in their daily lives. Frivolous literature that would not further their knowledge interested them very little. They also appreciated literature that was debatable, as shown by Ben Franklin's book group that discussed literature that had a topic to debate, not "polite literature."
5. This quote didn't make much sense to me, but the general idea that i got from it was that every man considers himself equal to the scholars and expects that one day he will be just as wealthy as anyone. It also says that when people read, whether get the right idea or not, still puts them on a level to equal them with the authors of the very books they read, based on the part that reads, "...and by pronouncing sentence, right or wrong... puts himself upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors."
7. In the colonies it was rare for someone to support a venture for a piece of literature. The authors wouldn't fawn over their patrons as they did in England. Instead it was more common for there to be no patron at all, but copies of the book to be published would be bought before it was printed by individuals.
8. Georgia might have been the last colony to acquire a printing press because it was a charity colony that had failed so it had a weak economy and industry. A printing press, at the time, would have been frivolous when they needed first to establish a stronger economy. People might not have been able to afford a printing press or what it produced until later.
9. The colonies printed more newspapers than Great Britain because they found it was more beneficial, instead of printing books, to print newspapers instead. Books required too much money and time, and could be imported. The books made in the colonies were shabby compared to those imported. Thus, newspapers were printed more often instead.
10. Magazines didn't really publish anything new, they often just plagiarized other works and didn't have the same popularity as newspapers did. They also had a similar publishing process to books and so were more difficult to publish, making them less common.
11. In the beginning, the colonies were so strictly censored and nothing that the people in control of the colonies didn't want to get out into the public could. I found it interesting that during the revolution, when people were fighting for freedoms, they censored the Loyalist material, making it almost the same as what they had before, just a different side being oppressed. I also found Sir William Berkeley's comments to be rather like those of a dictator. He approves of the illiterate population because it keeps them under control and prevents disobedience and "libels against the government." He likes the population brainwashed so they will follow him no matter what.
13. Early printers were controlled by the government and could only print what the government thought was acceptable to print. They affected society and politics then because it seems like, at least in the beginning, they were a source of propaganda for the government. They couldn't publish ideas that would promote the "disobedience" spoken of by Berkeley.
14. Boorstin's description of an "Indian Summer" seems really racist! From his descriptions, the Native Americans were just raving settlers because they could. He never bothers to mention the naive Americans that were massacred and pushed off their land, and that was why they were attacking.
15. The colonists were better prepared because they used tactics that the British Regulars were unfamiliar with and would have difficulty fighting. There was also the rumor that almost every American was an expert shot and so the Regulars probably carried a good deal of fear. The colonists we also treated better and better paid than the British, and morale can win or lose a war.
16. The Americans thought that they would always be prepared for war, but really the citizens were just prepared to defend what they had to and stop after that. They had no motivation to fight a war far from their homes. Once a spurt was finished they would return home and continue being citizens, they wouldn't go on to the next battle in the war.
19. In the colonial militia, "military men" weren't the well trained Caesar.They didn't look up to people like Caesar for all his military strategies and tactics, but to those like Cincinnatus (hence the reference), who was pulled into dictatorship, fought a war but prevented unnecessary bloodshed, resigned his dictatorship and returned to his home just 16 days after being made dictator. This demonstrates the colonists desire to get the war over as soon as possible and return to their daily lives. Washington, like Cincinnatus, didn't strive to be a great leader, he wanted more to return to his home, Mount Vernon, but remained for the good of the country.
1. In the New World, it was impossible to produce all the comforts of life which many colonists desired. It was in circumstances which colonial manufacturers were lacking when wealthy colonists turned to their London agents/factors. London agents represent an important connection between American colonial life and the persistent style of England. Through their London agents, Americans remained tied to English ways of life as they depended upon them for goods such as influential books, as well as English niceties of food and clothing.
2. Despite a cohesive language and common ancestry of England, the middle colonies of America also possessed many differentiating characteristics from New England. Perhaps the most contrasting aspect of Virginian society from New England was the control of plantation owners over the clergyman (it was vise versa in New England). In Virginia, it was the planters who controlled the flow of which books were available, instead of the New England clergy strict hold on books of wholesome religion reaching the public. Virginians detested would be cultural leadership of the New Englanders. Likewise, Pennsylvania failed to follow the footsteps of New England culturally in their bookish culture. Whereas New England Puritans decreed men to read the books they put out, the Quakers equally ordained that men should abandon the earnest reading of texts and instead turn to experience. Also, the Quakers possessed an uncompromising spirit which set them apart from New England. Despite Quaker warnings against religious literature, Philadelphia became a center for book-trade in the 1700s. However, unlike New England in this aspect, the trade of books in Pennsylvania was more diversified rather than simply allowing religious or theological texts to flow. Philadelphia also gave birth to the American institution of the book-auction by the enterprising Robert Bell. While Virginia and Pennsylvania simply held a different interest in books than New England, New York possessed almost no interest at all.
3. Benjamin Franklin was the benefactor of the “social library” which encouraged “purposeful reading” in America. This new American library was seen as a center for self improvement and learning which was achieved by thoughtful reading and debate. The members of Benjamin Franklin’s Junto were never hindered by a lack of stimulating books, as they themselves would contribute to the purchasing of literature which they deemed necessary to further discuss their topics of debate. It was through this “purposeful reading” by which the American institution of the library was born.
4. “The apple does not fall far from the tree,” which is true of many aspects of colonial American and English life. It is also true of literature: America’s dependency upon England resulted in their ability to “make much form their lack of literature.” Wealthy Americans (the only ones who could actually afford books early on) relied on their London agents for literature, or just foreign imports of books in general. It was this import of books, rather than the need to manufacture books which first factored into colonial America’s lack of books. Also, the American emphasis on practicality and survival decreased the want, labor, and necessity of books as well. It was impractical to carry heavy printed books around, it was a general waste of time to print books that could be easily purchased, and many colonists did not have the leisure time to devote to reading books that would not help them in the New World (at least in the early days).
5. Colonial America’s novelty in equality is expressed in the closing paragraph of chapter 48. The purely American thought that anyone could become wealthy and successful held true in literature. Any ambitious man took it upon himself to read and become knowledgeable as a means to “be upon a footing with his wealthiest neighbor.” In America, vernacular equality and feelings of equality made knowledge available to anyone who wished it. It was quite shocking to an upper-class foreigner to come upon “the poorest laborer” and have him express his thoughts on religious or political issues.
6. I do not recall ever learning about the Star Chamber Decree. Its implications however, can be assumed by Boorstin’s description of the decree. Firstly, its tight control of type in England meant that type in the colonies would be even scarcer. The type that the Americans did receive was in small amounts and in poor condition. This resulted in colonial America’s lack of books, as printers preferred small jobs which could be accomplished quickly and with little type. Also, the Star Chamber Decree would explain the tremendous ordeal of the American Constitution’s “freedom of the press” as one can now see how press in England was not only censored, but the materials to produce it were rationed as well.
7. The book market in England was flourishing, and thus English printers could feel more secure about publishing books without prior subscription. American printers, however, had much more to lose. Type, paper, and ink were all scarce and expensive in the colonies. The desire for printed books from America was also much less fanatical than in England. For these reasons the American printer attempted to secure his time and monetary investment by advance subscriptions to the book he would be publishing. The subscriptions, however, were held by public officials or the governing class of the colonies, rather than the single wealthy patron. Thus, “The sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who had bought and paid for his compliments, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean.”
8. Due to the rocky foundation of the colony of Georgia and its extreme dependence on its philanthropist benefactors, it is not surprising that she was the last colony to acquire the printing press. Geographically, Georgia was the southernmost colony, isolating it even further from technologies such as the printing press which were taking hold in more northern colonies. Its lack of a metropolitan center and heavy handed influence of England also restricted its access to a printing press as exchanges of goods and ideas could hardly occur without its benefactors consent. Additionally, it would make sense for the English controllers to want to limit Georgia’s acquisition of a printing press, simply to enforce loyalty to the motherland (not Russia). Allowing the settlers their own printing press would mean allowing independence from England as they would be producing their own ideas without the censoring of the English.
9. The emphasis of practicality allowed the newspaper to flourish in America more than in any other country. The qualifications of a newspaper as we know it today are just that, practical. They are not literary works of art, they apply to the majority of the community, and they are printed on less valuable paper than books, and take less time to produce as well as read. Colonial Americans’ want for a practical means of information thus allowed the newspaper to prosper.
10. While magazines are play a large factor in the acquisition of knowledge in America today (whether it be about celebrities in tabloids or politics in Time), the magazine was not a huge hit in early colonial America. Due to its similarity to English books, likeness to book printing which required a more defined literary form, a specific following, and commitment from the printer, the magazine was not widely popular in the colonies. The production of a magazine was also characterized more by plagiarism (before the days of the copyright) than by thoughtful composition.
11. As a nation which now takes much pride in our freedom of the press, the colonies of America were on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. It was well known that the liberty to express thought in print was a very powerful tool which could lead to dissention, and was thus strictly monitored in the colonies. It was hard enough to acquire the tools to print, and the restrictions on printing made it even more difficult. No man in the colonies was permitted to operate a press without the acknowledgement of the government. The English benefactors proclaimed that “that any book pamphlet or other matters be printed without your especial leave and license first obtained.” While the English government cemented the thought of censoring the press, it continued even after their influence began to wear thin. The Massachusetts legislature passed an Act which enforced a board which would censor all material before it could even make it to the press. This censorship in the colonies would continue some 40 years after 1685. Censorship remained prominent, even into the Revolutionary war which was, hypocritically, fighting for freedom. The revolutionaries even used mob tactics to dissuade writers and printers from supporting the English. Surprisingly, the want for a “well-regulated” press over a “free press” was still in favor even after peace from the War. Although in an unstable nation it is somewhat reasonable for the leaders to limit press freedoms in an effort to maintain as much order as they could in the tumultuous time. While freedom of the press is a proud American staple today, printers were considered to divulge from the government and were often in trouble with the law for printing disagreeable articles.
12. The case of John Peter Zenger gave a black eye to the government case of censorship. In respect to the printing community, Zenger’s innocence in the trial not only earned him the title of “Public Printer”, but showed that there were limits to what the government to censor. The jury’s role in the case, exemplifying that the more common man had ability to decide law, proved that there were boundaries to what the public would deemed appropriate to censor. Additionally, Zenger paved the way for other printers to be tried in court, such as Hugh Gaine and James Parker. While these cases did not always produce favorable outcomes, Zenger’s case still provided a glimmer of hope in the ongoing case for freedom of the press.
13. The Public Printers of colonial America played not only a monumental role in early America, but their legacy still rings true in present-day America as well. The printers were active and influential members of society. While at first they were more craftsmen, they evolved to become much more. They began to appear at legislative assemblies and the marketplace in order to capture news for upcoming stories. This position is still seen today as the press is extremely active in politics, shedding light on political views as well as keeping our leaders in check. Their shops soon became centers for exchange of ideas and the most up to date news. The Public Printer would also come to hold the important position of postmaster. The postmaster could not only control the flow of newspapers and mail, but used his title to his advantage as he sold many commodities from cough medicine to fiddle strings as well. The printer played a pivotal role in ensuring communication throughout the colonies. Benjamin Franklin and William Goddard were two pioneers in the formation of the familiar postal system of today.
14. The term “Indian summer” is used to refer to peculiar stretches of warmth during winter. While warmer weather in winter today is sometimes a pleasant surprise, “Indian summers” in colonial America were anything but. Winter, in the colonies, was a relief to the settlers. Winter provided harsh conditions during which Native American attacks were relented. However, in the case of Indian summers, the warmer weather allowed a prolonged onslaught upon the settlers, according to Rev. Doddridge. These frequent skirmishes with the Native Americans, however, would produce well trained marksman of the backwoods boys as well as ferocious women to protect their children.
15. Several factors gave American colonists a significant edge over their British enemies. Firstly, their adaptation of backwoods living which encouraged a sure marksman simply to put food on the table, gave the colonists a reputation of “every American to be a sharpshooter” (a mental edge always helps, right Mr. Elder?). Besides holding the mental upper-hand, the colonists also had the improved rifle, which allowed greater accuracy than the British musket. Also, the colonists had the benefit of normality. It was engrained in them from the time of their childhood to have to defend themselves and their family from Native Americans, the wilderness, and the British regulars. Finally, the British regulars also lacked passion. The Americans were fighting for their homeland, rather than simply being ordered to fight by a general.
16. The myth that “Americans are always better prepared for war, however their weakness is that they fall as readily into peace,” proves to be entirely true in colonial times. While their backwoods training supplied them with the skills necessary, it was their individual fervor for defense which ruined them. A militia was readily assembled, but dispersed even faster. The backwoodsmen were more concerned with defending his own homestead than that of the entire community. There was also a fundamental lack of communication and no central command which held back the militia. Their lack of continuous supply for the militia men along with this loosely controlled group made surprise attacks virtually impossible to defend against as well.
17. A great deal separated the American militia from the British regulars. The first was a sense of nationalism. While the British regimen was faithfully loyal to England, the colonial militiamen held loyalty only to their own separate province, and especially to his family. Another distinction lies in basic military order. The British were supposedly very neatly kept and held in tight order. The Americans, on the other hand, enjoyed an extremely lax disciplinary system along with extraordinary benefits. For example, most men in the colonial militia died of disease due to poor sanitation, men who deserted were only slightly punished (in contrast to the British soldier who would be held for treason), men slept while on duty, and the election and hold of officer position was more of a popularity contest. The American militiaman received over two times as much pay as a British soldier, was allowed possession of his hatchet, blanket, and knapsack after only one summer of service, as well as three times the allowance of a British regular, among other benefits.
18. It seems contrary that an “ill armed, ill clothed, and worse disciplined” militia of deserters could possibly beat the well trained army of England. It was however, this disunity and unconventional disorganization which allowed the Americans to succeed. The fact that the colonies were so vastly spread out and without unity that made it nearly impossible for the English to completely control the Americans without vast expenditures in fees and military on their part. Their disorganized state and American ingenuity also gave the Americans the element of surprise against the British who were accustomed to a certain type of warfare. Home-field advantage also worked to the colonists’ favor as their knowledge of the strange land gave them power over the defenseless British. Finally, the support of the French gave the final push which allowed the Americans to triumph over England.
19. The Society of the Cincinnati represented colonial America’s aversion to dominant militaristic rule. Washington, the group’s leader, only came to leadership unwillingly, expressing his distaste of a strong military organization. Likewise, colonial society saw the Cincinnatus as a harboring ground for military aristocracy and a ploy to return to monarchy.
1. In Chapter 46, Boorstin mentions the “London agent” in connection with Virginian planters; the planters would send these agents a list of all the goods they required from England, the agents would gather these items, and then send them to the planter. However, Boorstin does not make it clear if these agents were the actual buyers of hogsheads of Virginian tobacco and were sending the goods to pay for the tobacco or if they were simply the middlemen who handled the business of shipping the tobacco and goods across the ocean for a fee.
2. Boorstin writes about Boston (which represents New England), Virginia (which represents the southern colonies), and Philadelphia (which represents the “middle colonies”) in his descriptions of the literary tastes of America and so gives us an insight into some of the differences between the three groups of colonies. For example, religious books were the most common in Boston at the time, which reflects on the strict Puritan beliefs of the colonists there and the focus on religion, while at the same time the amount of people who were literate in New England reflects the Puritan belief in educating the community. In Virginia, roughly half of the white males of the colony were illiterate and three-quarters of the women, while the aristocracy chose their books depending on what was popular in England at the time, which shows that the southern colonies were the closest to England of all the colonies. However, Virginian planters still urged each other not to read too much, and the overall book trade was quite poor in the southern colonies. The most thriving book trade in the colonies was in Philadelphia, headquarters of the Quakers, where the emphasis was still on practical reading but the restrictions were much less and did not only limit books to religion. Books of different languages and from different religions could also be found in Philadelphia, reflecting the openness and tolerance of the Quakers.
3. “Purposeful reading” reflects the belief the colonists had that reading should be practical, such as many other aspects of their lives, in the form of guides and manuals to improve on daily life. They had no use for works of fiction or romance novels. They also wanted to steer clear of too much reading to avoid “the squint of the specialist” according to Boorstin and because “much Reading is an Oppression of the Mind” in the words of William Penn.
4. The colonists’ “lack of literature” was one of the main criticisms English men had against the colonists; the fact that many learned men by American standards had not read the “Greats” of Greek and Latin or other works of theology was so different from the English tradition where the “standard training for the English class has long been the ancient classics.”
5. This paragraph accurately describes the “widely literate but not strikingly literary people” who were found in America, and the lack of social barriers. The “poorest labourer upon the shore of Delaware” read the same material as the very richest gentleman because there was a chance, as well as a hope, that he could one day rise up through the social classes to the very top, which was an opportunity not given in many other areas of the world. There also existed in America the equality to allow such a poor worker to openly speak his mind.
6. I did not know what the Star Chamber Decree was before I read this, but Boorstin does explain a little of the background of the Decree so the reference is understandable.
7. In England, a printing job was usually funded by a very rich gentleman who in turn wanted a “flattering dedication.” In America, however, these printings were usually funded by government officials or bodies of legislature instead of private people, and were used in the workings of law and the government; so the printer did not need to satisfy the supporter by writing these dedications, he simply had to print the books.
8. The early printing presses were established mainly to publish materials for the governments of the colonies through subsidies; however, the colony of Georgia was basically ruled from England by the Trustees until they turned over the colony to the Crown in 1752. Up until this point, Georgia had not really had its own government that would benefit from printing materials, they relied on their strong tie with England for all their books and pamphlets. The population of Georgia was also made up of many poor families brought over from England, and it is probable that very few of them were literate and so the want and need for reading materials in this colony was much less than in the other colonies.
9. One reason why newspapers in America flourished much more than those in England was because the colonists were so much more literate than their English counterparts. Literacy was widespread in the colonies; it was not only the upperclass who could read and write, and so most anyone could pick up a newspaper and enjoy it’s contents.
10. It seems that magazines were slow to flourish in the colonies because they resembled books in many ways; their subject matter was more specific than that of newspapers and they were quite as demanding to produce as books were for the printer. However, when they did become popular, long after the newspaper was already well-established, their popularity was “unprecedented.” This could be contributed to the fact that they stopped being near-copies of British magazines and gained an American touch.
11. It was surprising to find out how much censorship existed in the colonies; every printing press and publication had to have the government’s, and even to some degree the English government’s, approval. This control was simplified due to the fact that many of the printing presses until around 1763 were found in Boston and a board was established there in 1662 to censor all documents. If officials decided that a printer had crossed the line, they would be prosecuted and maybe put in jail. Between 1683 and 1730, no printing press was allowed in Virginia following an offense by John Buckner; after 1730, the only printing press was under the control of the government until the Revolution, and even after this, free press did not fully exist.
12. Boorstin does not go into detail with the John Peter Zenger trial, but it seems as though Zenger was accused of publishing something that the government did not approve of and even then, a jury acquitted him. It must have been very rare for a jury to rule in favor of the printer in cases such as these. He was given the monopoly and title of “Publick Printer” in New York in 1737. Even though this case did not change the rules of censorship in the colonies, it made Zenger “a hero in later histories of freedom of the press.”
13. Printers held important roles in society because of the many different aspects of their job. Many printers owned their own newspaper and were also the postmasters of their cities. They therefore controlled the news that came into the city as well as the news that was distributed. The majority of printers, especially the earlier ones, followed the rules of the government and did not publish anything that might be censored because much of their jobs entailed publishing government documents. However, there were some printers, such as William Goddard, who used their influence as a printer-postmaster to go against the government. Goddard did not agree with the English post-office’s system of taxation, and so he set up his own post-office system. In fact, the American postal system which was established in 1775 and went against the English post-office, was based off of his model.
14. The term “Indian Summer” actually did not have any meaning for me before I read this, but it was definitely a real and frightening term for many of the colonists. It seems quite backward that the winter should be welcomed and the summer feared because the winter was also a dangerous, though maybe less frightening, season. This term shows the special circumstances of the colonies that they should dread summer and the quote on page 349 describes that Indian attacks were quite frequent and happened whenever possible.
15. The colonists, as shown in the term Indian Summer, were constantly faced with warfare. Their daily lives included always being ready for attack. Therefore, every colonist had to be ready and most were ready before they were even adults. Young boys were always busy hunting or practicing throwing their tomahawks and this constant practice prepared them for war against the British Regulars. These Regulars had grown up in relative safety without many threats. They were also fighting for a cause their king was very invested in but they might not have been, while colonists were fighting for their own homes and to keep their freedom. Colonists also had home-field advantage seeing as they knew the lay of the land while everything was quite foreign to the British.
16. It is in a sense a myth that “Americans are always better prepared for war” even though they were a country of minute men. It is, however, true that the colonial armies disbanded almost instantaneously because all of the men wanted to return to their farms and families as soon as possible. As soon as they had returned home, they almost entirely forgot about their military duties and towns lacked sufficient supplies and a communication system to warn them of attacks. This resulted in the colonies being susceptible to surprise attacks, especially on the coasts.
17. The colonists were not trained when it came to war, and this was definitely shown in the way they ran their camps. Military officials who inspected Fort William Henry “saw a hundred graves dug in a day for men dead of disease,” that was how great the spread of infection was. This comes as a sharp contrast to the British Regulars who were all required to wear matching suits and were used to waging war against other uniform-wearing European armies that played by their rules. In spite of these differences, the colonial soldiers were payed more than 10d sterling a day while the British soldier received a mere 4d.
18. Boorstin describes the victory of the American militia over the British Regulars as not so much based on the successes of the colonists but rather on the fact that the English government decided to stop pursuing a victory in America. Other factors include that the colonists were scattered over a very vast territory and that there was no dominant center of the country that the English could effectively take over to beat the colonists. The American alliance with France was also a factor in making the English abandon their efforts.
19. Boorstin describes Cincinnatus as “the planter who had unwillingly left his tobacco field,” which accurately describes the vast majority of American citizen-soldiers. Most soldiers would serve their time in the militia, excepting those who defected or mysteriously disappeared, and would leave on the exact day their term was up, regardless of whether they were desperately needed or not. They were most unwilling to leave their farms and their families to protect their country. However, it seems that Washington fit the Caesar mold more because he was a skilled general and really wished to unite the colonies to defend America.
1.) The "london factor" was the Americans response when they were unsure what to do next. The london factor was a clear indication of the colonies reliance on England despite their best efforts to separate. It shows that Americans still viewed England as the alpha country, and looked to it to make some of their difficult decisions. the "london agent" was mentioned when the Americans were ordering books, and they went through a london agent to make their decisions, clearly displaying their lasting reliance on the mother country.
3.) This quote again emphasizes the colonists' focus on practical writing over great literature. This time, he talks about the reading aspect rather than the writing, and demonstrates that reading was also mostly done for practicality. Their "purposeful reading" was intended specifically for learning and helping them overcome obstacles they experienced in everyday life.
5.) Well seeing as almost everybody seems to be answering every question that qualifies me as an under-achiever. So the last paragraph in chapter 48 discusses the equality of men in America compared to anywhere else around the world. As the paragraph states, there is less distinction among the citizens of Philadelphia, than among those of any other civilization in the world".
8.) Georgia gained the printing press later than any other colony probably because Georgia was charity colony and it got everything it needed from England. However, Georgia's purpose was as a money maker for England, so the English had no good reason to want to give Georgia a printing press because it would probably deliver no money and distract Georgians from making money. Also, Georgian's didn't really need a printing press because their society was totally agriculturally based.
9.) Newspapers were a more important factor in America than they were in Europe because it was a good way to quickly get ideas from one person/place to the entire country. In America, where the colonies were often very segregated, it was still important to read other peoples ideas to help the entire country function properly. Newspapers were also important in America because it was some of their only "literature". All other books they had were English, but the newspapers were all American and an important way to show national pride.
11.) Censorship in America was because England did not want Americans to print rebellious or revolutionary ideas, or basically anything that would make them look bad. So in order to publish, you had to get a license, which became a major issue later on in the American revolution.
15.) One of the largest advantages that the American soldiers had on the British was that the fighting was on their homeland. They knew the areas where they fought well and could easily make a hasty retreat if necessary. Also, Americans were better fit to fight because they were accustomed to the harsh nature of America, whereas the British found it hard to cope with the land. So in a way, the Americans were training their whole life to fight, adjusting and getting to know the land.
17.) There were many differences between the Colonial and British fighting styles. First, America basically only fought when need arose. It was a defensive war for them, all on their own turf and protecting their own communities. Also, the militia were a much more uncoordinated group. They didn't really have a specific game plan or ranks, which highly contrasted the British fighting style, which was very coordinated. They had a specific leader, formations, fighting tactics etc.
1. Unless the colonists had brought books over with them from England, The New World did not have a prosperous book trade. This is where the role of the "London agent' comes into play. Living in the wilderness, the Americans liked to cling to old English ways which also included their literary tastes. In order to get English literature, the colonists would call on their "London agents" to either send them the books they requested, or decide for them a book that would be to their liking.
9. The newspaper was not like a book; it was practical and relevant, it did not require any long study or concentration, and most of all was literate. America was not a fan of great literature and because of this, the newspaper's popularity was much greater than in England. It wasn't until the 18th century that the newspaper was printed in England; whereas in America it had already become a familiar institution during this same time. the New England newspaper became a symbol of how, once again, broke down the distinctions of social classes. 10. During this same time, the magazines came into existence. However, it was less essential to conveying everyday life unlike the newspaper. It was most like the book in that it was a mixed form of literature containing random entertainment and instruction. Although, until the Revolution era, the magazine had a short-lived life. Many were impressed that it seemed to be made "primarily with scissors rather than with pen" (pg. 328).
11. Censorship took a big part of the colonial printing presses and even discourages some printers from going into the printing business. The government controlled the printing presses through censorship and by threatening libel prosecutions; and since no printer dared to go against the government, the printing press became a supporting prop for local institutions. This meant that most of the material that came out of the printing press were the government's proclamations and laws, copies of debates and decisions, and legal forms. Well into the the era of the Revolution, there was no such thing as what we know to be "freedom of the press."
12. John Peter Zenger impacted the press in that his case opened up the question that although the press should be regulated, who had the power to enforce the regulation? This trial eventually made him a hero in the histories of the freedom of the press.
16. The American colonies established the concept of "armed citizenry" where every man was armed and prepared to fight on short notice. This novel concept was the most sensible in America for food gathering and self defense due to the constant threat of running into an Indian while in the woods. However this did not prove to be most effective method. Since the armed citizenry fought in small groups or even alone, war was never fought through a centrally-directed operation, lacked a formal leader and communication. And as quickly as the men prepared for battle, they were just as fast to disband and opt for peace.
3) Boorstin refers to purposeful reading as a practice that the aristocracy, especially on plantations was beginning to develop. Many plantation owners were reading very little or none at all because they “would rather learn directly from experience that from books.” Some plantation owners took on the strategy of only learning what was absolutely necessary, which would mean only reading books if they had a purpose to a farmer’s everyday life.
5) It seems that Duché is referring to the sense of equality books bring. If one is literate, anyone can be a reader, regardless of state of wealth or educational status. Duché adds that by reading a book and deciding for oneself whether the views expressed in it are right are wrong puts the reader at the level of knowledge of an author. So I suppose, then, Mr. Elder, you are suggesting that those this question is addressed to can never join the holy kingdom of authorship? Thank God I posted at least one word in the comment section…
8) Compared to the other colonies, Georgia had it pretty bad, considering in had been thrown down the hell-hole that is known as failed planned communities (or colonies I guess) later to be joined at the bottom by Stalinist Russia and the early 21st century housing market. The Londoners had attempted at their best to assemble a colony that lived up to the standards of the promotional literature written about it, but unfortunately they could not rely on the colonists to stay away from the temptations of corruption. The truth was, Georgia needed quite a bit of reform before it could be considered stable again. Luckily someone eventually threw a printing press down the failed planned communities hell-hole.
14) During the summer in the backwoods of America, settlers would retreat into forts in order to be defended from attacks from Native Americans. This period was not enjoyed by the colonists, because they were much cooped up in the forts, and felt like prisoners. When winter rolled around, settlers would leave the forts overjoyed to be able to return home while the weather was too harsh for Indian attacks. However every now and then there would be a short burst of favorable weather in the winter that allowed for another attack. This term was deemed “Indian Summer” and was the worst of a colonists fears.
17) The British Army and the individual colony militias each had their strong and weak points. One main point about the British Army Boorstin makes clear is that the Army was very organized as a whole and there was a respect for authority for fear of punishment. However, many of the British Regulars did not receive a great amount of pay, only receiving 4d sterling a day. American militiamen on the other hand, received 10 and 1/4thd sterling a day, a much larger pay than the British Regulars. However, the Americans were pretty much opposite from the British in terms of organization, the chain of command was broken with lack of respect, and also their was a lack of good health in camps which caused death from diseases. George Washington would later find out that Americans usually favored the colony militia as opposed to the national army.
19) Boorstin uses Cicinnatus to demonstrate the kind of leader that the colonists wanted at the time of the revolution. Whereas George Washington was a highly skilled general, he was also an aristocrat, who had time to entertain himself with education. Troops in the national army were not satisfied, because in their old militias, they democratically voted for generals. Washington being appointed, they received an aristocrat as opposed to their favored Cicinnatus or brother in arms. Instead of a wealthy higher class person, the troops favored a “planter who had unwillingly left his tobacco fields.”
1. The London agents/factors were very important to early colonial America because they supplied the colonies with supplies, and in this case supplies of books. For instance, in Virginia the spread of literature and books was not as vast as it was in other colonies, and because the planter-aristocrats were the main provider of books to clergy sometimes planters would request books in and among their other supplies from their London agent.
3. When Boorstin writes that the colonists practiced “purposeful reading” he meant that the colonists read for knowledge that would help them in creating a political system and other important aspects of the community. As stated several times, the American way of thought was to learn something first by experience, so books were only collected and libraries were only created when the amount of things learned by experience started to decline. New debates of morals increased and the new knowledge of subjects like anatomy and chemistry were collected and offered more to the public, and the intelligence of the average American rapidly increased.
4. One cause of colonial American lack of literature is the fact that America had a very different focus because they had a reliable supplier. In 1813 Jefferson said that, “Every man is engaged in some industrious pursuit, and science is but a secondary occupation, always subordinate to the main business of life. Few therefore of those who are qualified, have leisure to write,” and meant that the focus in American was in the institutions which was too busy an endeavor for there to be a definite class of authors and writers. As well, all the books that America did receive were shipped over from Great Britain who remained a main supplier of the colonists’ needs which caused the need of that writing class to never really be prominent.
5. The last paragraph on page 48 written by Jacob Duche supports the fact that American literature worked well because there was no literary aristocracy and there we no real center. People everywhere in America knew the language so they could understand what was being written about and discussed. Even the poorest people could find ways to access knowledge, and through learning the language and having a greater chance to be educated they could move up in the world. For once you didn’t have to be rich to have the riches that came with knowledge.
6. To be perfectly honest I’ve never heard reference, or don’t remember any reference to the Star Chamber Decree.
9. One of several reasons that newspapers in the colonies surpassed the numbers in Great Britain was because it was simply easier to profit off of. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rode Island, Pennsylvania and Maryland all had newspaper systems that sometimes were even printed more than once a day. Newspapers became a good source of every day occurrences and it was an easy way for new like that to spread. Because the newspaper was more a collection of events and advertisements it became less literary which also helped its popularity.
10. Interesting to note about the magazine, which Boorstin describes as a “mixed” literary from because its style is that of a book but its information is more that of a newspaper, is that it didn’t become big in America until the late 1800’s. Also, in the beginning the magazines borrowed heavily from England and were just a collection of cut outs from other newspapers and books (before plagiarism).
11. The system of English censorship of the press was brought over to America and became more effective and intense. Every printing press and everything the printing presses printed had to be known and approved by the government to make sure no radical systems or ideas were being spread. It was basically a system put in place to keep the social order. No printed matter in Massachusetts could be in concern of the discontented, and the press was supervised by not only the clergymen but also Harvard College. In all of the colonies the idea of the press was just to be a prop to the already existing institutions, and by 1723 censorship had turned into threats of and actual prosecutions against slander of the government. Really, the idea of “freedom of press” was lost in the colonies and was replaced by the idea of a “well-regulated” press.
12. John Peter Zenger, like many others, was put onto trial for his failure to adhere to the regulations set in place. However, during Zenger’s case the power that juries had in slander cases was affirmed which set up base for legal doctrine. The juries were also allowed the power to decide the law and facts of a case because of Zenger. Still, the regulations on the press were not really questioned by the community who was worried more about who should have the power/monopoly over the press.
13. Printers in the colonies became very influential in both society and politics, and set ground for new systems. Politically the printers were in luck because since every colony had its own government with its own laws and acts the newspapers were able to create a certain focus on the subject and make it more public. As well, since each colony had its own Public printer he held an important and needed public post which created a strong tie between the press and politics since he was the one that had to print all the laws and proceedings. Socially, the printers flourished because of their close tie to the postal office. More often than not the printer would become postal master which allowed him to deliver more papers and get the latest confidential news quicker because he was handling the mail. This hold over both printing and the postal system would become the first basic general store, where people would gather to receive news and other random trinkets. As well, with competition between newspapers increasing, the first fees for newspapers were introduced which gave even more profit to the system.
14. While Boorstin is completely racist in chapter 53, the mention of the “Indian summer” and other times of war fare between the Indians and the colonists are important to note. According to several accounts the summer was when the colonists were faced with, as Boorstin says, “the Indian menace.” Even thought the colonies had set systems of war, and rules as to where and how it should take place, the Indians stuck to their tomahawks and their skills to defend their land from the colonist. The ‘Indian Summer,” however, didn’t occur in summer, but was a break in winter that sometimes occurred and allowed the Indians another window of opportunity.
16. One of the main factors that allowed the Americans to be more prepared for war was the necessity for everyone to be able to defend themselves. In England the cost of fire arms were very high to dissuade revolts and riots and didn’t allow weapons to reach most of the community. However, in America the need for self-defense and the use fire arms had in hunting caused the necessity to outweigh the danger of chaos. Acts and laws were set in place n America that forced all men in the community to be well armed, and the reliance lay with the citizens rather than a professional military. Still, the ‘Minute Men” of the country couldn’t be ready for every peril that had potential of threaten them especially since they were preoccupied with daily life. The people of colonial America would spring up in arms in short amounts of time and would just as quickly scatter from the fight. The colonists were caught unprepared for war in several occasions because there was no safety net provided by the other neighboring colonies which caused their system to not be reliable enough.
(Sorry I deleted the first one I posted, it wasn't spaced right.)
1. The London Agent is mentioned in Chapter 46 in this fashion: "Each planter had to decide for himself---or more commonly let his London agent decide for him---what books should be sent." People in America, despite having moved their roots from England to the New World, still looked back to London as a cultural center for items that would affect their own culture, such as literature. Instead of writing their own books, Americans still looked back to England as their source, revealing either an inbred belief of English supremacy, or a reluctance to loosen bonds with their home country. The London Agent is the link they refuse to let go of.
3. The "purposeful reading" employed by the colonists referred to socities begun by Benjamin Franklin that gathered together, and for a small admissions fee, borrowed from an extensive library of books, which fueled thought for debate. They also pooled money to order selection of practical tomes that were chosen by a specific person, usually educated and well-read, from London. The purpose of this was to expand the literary collections and horizons of the readers: instead of being confined to their own personal collections, which were likely small, they communally shared books they all purchased together, which displayed a greater variety. Also, it allowed them to (aside from learning new things) question and consider the motives of their country in an educated fashion.
4. The “lack of literature” referred not to an actual lack of literature in the New World, in fact, literature of a number was procured from England through the London Agent, and quickly dispersed in the lives of the colonists through Franklin’s book-societies (where they were the cause of questioning and lively debates). The colonists enjoyed literary works without the hassle of being involved in their production: writing, producing, printing, etc., but reaped the benefits any society would have from reading. I believe it refers to the type of literature produced in the New World---“not confined to the measured verse nor in the rounded essay, [it] trickled out of a thousand miscellaneous places: statute-books, pamphlets of political controversy, projects, promotional brochures, sermons, speeches on the floors of legislatures, newspaper-columns, and the staccato proceedings of scientific societies.” Commonly, these modes of writings are not considered ‘literature’. As Boorstin explains, “Such literature could never satisfy the men of letters of the Old World.”
5. I feel like this question doesn’t apply to me, so I will underachieve for the underachiever question and not answer it. =)
6. The Star Chamber Decree was passed in 1637 and limited the number of English printers in England to about twenty.
7. In England, in order to secure funding for a book, a printer must first secure a patron with money to spare, most likely “public officials, governors and legislative bodies”. In return for the patronage, the printer was expected to insert into his tome a “flattering” and likely wordy dedication. When the idea of subscription---patronage by many---appeared in England, it loosened the hold the “Lordly” class had upon the literature. In America, as Boorstin states, though longer books were still patroned by the rich, that “sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who had bought and paid for the compliments is rarely found”, showing how Americans disliked attachment to a single large financial backer, and especially compromising their integrity by bowing and scraping. This is also shown when Boorstin later notes that American publishers, more than English ones, “tried to cover his investment by advanced subscriptions” more numerously in the 18th century.
8. Since even the initial foundations of Georgia were a shaky failure and heavily invested in by England, it is not difficult to see how they were the last to break from literary dependence on England and start printing their own books and papers. Being a “philanthropist” colony and a “victim of its own benefactors”, Georgia, over-planned and underachieving, was supported by England. Geographically, Georgia was also extremely isolated from the other colonies, being the southernmost colony. This means they were generally unexposed to the fervor of the literary masses in the northernmost colonies, the ones with most access to both the English literature that fueled the fervor and freshest printing technology.
9. Colonial newspapers outnumbered those in Great Britian for a multitude of reasons, one of which was the widespread literacy in America that did not have a contemporary in England. In England, as previously stated numerous times, literacy, literature and language were defining factors separating the higher classes, who could afford an education and had free time, from the laboring masses, who did not. As Boorstin explains, “A newspaper has to be useful and relevant, but it cannot require long study or concentration; it must be literate, but it cannot separate the artistic and expressive from the commercial and productive areas of living. It must mix public and private; it must take the community into account, but with a view to action and the specific event rather than to the universal principle.” Newspapers were an invention for the everyday people to be aware of daily goings-on, of local and national news, and sometimes purely for entertainment purposes. In America, where there was no distinction of literacy between a lord and a sailor, anyone could read a newspaper: and everyone did, precisely for the reason that it allowed one to be aware of major issues occurring in places far away, and nearby, and permitted a sense of being informed and included (and it was the newspaper that Benedict Anderson accredited as a tool of nationalism in Imagined Communities). Therefore, the newspaper was much more widespread in America than in England, where the target audience of the newspaper, the common people, did not possess the tool of literacy required in its indulgence. The accessibility of the newspaper was redundant where it could not be read.
10. Magazines in the colonies were significantly less popular than newspapers. As Boorstin states, “Their lack of literary invention was impressive; they seemed to have been composed primarily with the scissors rather than the pen.”, referring to the copy-and-paste pieces that were stolen from newspapers and unceremoniously plagiarized into magazines. They were also near copies of British magazines, referred to as “little more than British magazines published in the colonies”, and did not flourish in America until 1741, when the first continuous magazine was printed.
11. The censorship in the colonies is easily summarized: “In none of the colonies was there anything that would today be recognized as ‘freedom of the press’.” It was believed that “liberty of printing” would cause “great inconvenience” to the government, and in 1686 the English government was dispatching specific instructions to the provincial governors detailing that they were to “provide by all necessary orders that no person keep any printing-press for printing, nor that any book pamphlet or other matters whatsoever be printed without your especial leave and license first obtained”. Because of the widespread popularity of the newspaper, any uncontrolled, angry protest in the hands of a printer could turn explosive. If spread across the colonies, or even a single colony, an “attack” on the government or governmental proceedings that had not been at the foremost mind of the people could be brought to light and cause widespread remonstrations against the government. Thus, newspapers were censored for protests to try and keep public dissent at bay.
12. The case of John Peter Zenger had Zenger, the printer of ‘The New York Weekly Journal’, charged with seditious libel for printing the work of a man criticizing the New York Governor, William Cosby. The defense case challenged the law was incorrect, instead of the charge, and the jury returned with a decision of ‘not guilty’, as Zenger’s lawyer argued that the accusations printed against Cosby were not libel as they were based on fact. This verdict was surprising, because the judges presiding over the case were hand-picked by Cosby. Zenger became a hero in the cause of freedom of the press.
13. Printers were important because of their control over what people knew and what they didn’t. They controlled what came into the newspapers and what went out to the people, and because of the fact that there were always several large newspapers circulating in big cities, brought light to many governmental and political issues that the people could otherwise be unaware of. Printers were also often the postmasters, giving him access to the social workings of the community via their letters---as Boostin stated earlier, the scarcity of paper often caused people to disregard envelopes in the mailing process---as well as an easy way to both distribute and promote their papers. Newspapers in general, as well, are often conduits of both political and social issues.
14. ‘Indian summer’ is a name given to a period of sunny, warm weather in autumn, not long before winter. However, Boorstin uses the term instead to describe a period of warfare between the colonists and the Native Americans, whom he constantly refers to as a “menace” and is incomprehensibly racist towards. According to him, the American Indians “lay in wait” for the colonists, and “[only] when the few remaining Indians had been removed to Indian Territory or to reservations, did the Indian threat disappear”. I am baffled by Boorstin’s attitude towards the Native Americans. It is utterly boggling to me how a modern historian can speak of any culture of Native, invaded people in the fashion he speaks of the Natives.
15. American colonists were more prepared and advantaged than the British soldiers simply because they had the benefit of fighting on home turf, and knew the land significantly better than the British soldiers. After all, the geographically difficult terrain of America is pointedly different from the flat battlefields the British soldiers were accustomed to. Colonists had to be armed to face the challenge of a new land, so the British government could not prevent them from owning weapons, meaning the colonists also had plenty ways to practice on home soil, whereas British soldiers did not.
16. Americans weren’t ever really ‘prepared’ for war, they walked into war with the right tools already by their side: every colonist was armed and used to shooting on the rough terrain, because he was a colonist. Whereas in Europe, rulers were wary of arming the populace in fear of “[placing] the means of revolt into the hands of the populace”, and where self-armament was discouraged because of the high price of firearms, in America, there had to be laws and orders passed in order to force every colonists to bear a weapon. In 1631, the Court of Assistant of Massachusetts Bay ordered that within two weeks, every man should be supplied with arms “approved by their militia officers”. However well-prepared and well-armed the colonists were, however, President Timothy Dwight of Yale supports “Americans are always better prepared for war, however their weakness is that they fail as readily into peace” most readily with his words: “The difficulty, here,” he writes, “has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” Americans would rather put aside the entire issue of war and armament than willingly pick it up.
17. The British Regulars were well organized and well-trained, uniformed and the perfect European Army. The American militia, however, was quite the opposite. They didn’t wear uniforms, rarely commanded, drilled or trained by a professional soldier, and employed the “unprofessional practice of electing its own officers”, as well as living in encampments more likened to sties than actual human residences. However, the British Regulars, despite being uniformly superior in training and organization, only received the small amount of 4d sterling a day while crude, untrained American militiamen received 10¼thd sterling a day.
18. First of all, Americans had home-turf advantage. They knew the land, and better than that, they knew how to use the land. They knew how to hide in it, where an advantage could be obtained, how to traverse it, and how to fight on it. To aid in this, organization was useless on a land as tumulus and untamed as America. How is one to march across a field and shoot if there is no field, and none of your opponents are fighting that way? Also, there was no one way to cut the American “jugular vein”---there was no center to storm and take and win. Secondly, the Americans had a fervent cause to fight for: their independence. British soldiers, poorly paid and in a foreign land, were much less likely to risk their lives to stand their ground. As Boorstin says, “The most persuasive answer is not that the Americans won but the British gave up.” The hopelessness of fighting in a geographically unstrategic foreign country for almost no reason, whose people are so scattered that the only solution would be to occupy every shanty was enough cause for British retreat.
19. “The American military ideal was not Caesar but Cincinnatus, not he skilled general glorying in the tasks of warfare to which he gave his life, but the planter who had unwillingly left his tobacco fields.” As Boorstin says, “the political power given to a military leader meant something very different here from what it might have meant elsewhere.” Washington was not a glorious military general who lived for war and honor, but just another man pulled from his home to fight for his country, leading a colonial raggle-taggle militia of other Cincinnati. This “American ideal” is evidenced when the veterans organized a society to “perpetuate their comradeship, their memories, and their tradition”, and chose to name it the Society of the Cincinnati.
1. The London “agents” were, quite simply, agents of the Virginian planters back in London, to whom they would send bequests of goods which could not be had in the New World, except by import from England. In this way, colonial America still remained highly dependent on England, as for many semi-essential items, such as clothing, they needed trade with England for. This however, it must be noted, is partially due to the fact that England had put vetoes into effect on trade with other countries, wishing to remain the proprietary power in control of trade with America. Though this would not last indefinitely, it did, until independence, keep the colonists reliant upon English goods, often which were to be gotten only by trades which favoured the English.
2. One of the most notable differentiations between the three groupings of colonies, Middle/Southern et cetera, was that of their approach to literature and books in those colonies. In the lands of puritans, such as Massachusetts, there was almost an embargo on non-religious books. However, in Middle colonies, notably Pennsylvania, the book trade flourished even in terms of non-religious books, mainly due to the tolerance brought to those areas by the originally predominant Quaker settling. Here, books were prized, and book stores flourished. In sharp contrast, the southern colonies farmers would encourage one another not to read books, and obviously this caused a lessened book trade.
3.
As mentioned innumerable (well, perhaps a number could be set to it) times, life in the colonies was based upon practicality. Therefore, reading, for most of the populous at least, was based upon its purpose in life, not due to pleasure. Therefore, it was dubbed “purposeful reading,” and the pleasurable reading of literature, such as Pride and Prejudice (a most wonderful novel) which was flourishing in England, was not as present in their colonies in America.
4. “Lack of literature,” to my mind, is a misleading phrase. It is not that the literature was lacking, or negligible, merely that the literature was not a carbon copy of the literature present in Europe. Due to the lack of a highly set apart aristocracy, with their own dialect of language, they did not have literature purpose built for that aristocracy, instead the literature, or at least the written works if one deems it not deserving of the title of literature, was based for and on the common man, not that of the ruling class. This, most understandably, would not be viewed by the aristocracy of England as being literature, though by today’s standards, looking backwards, this is not necessarily the case. “The most appropriate literary expression of an American life… [a] newspaper has to be useful and relevant, but it cannot require long study or concentration; it must be literate, but it cannot separate the artistic and expressive from the commercial and productive areas of living.” (327) Thus, the practicality of the Newspaper, its usefulness to all due to the high levels of literacy, caused the leading writers of the day to be concentrated upon writing for a periodical instead of for a publishing-house.
5. Though I’d rather not deem myself an under-achiever by answering this question, I still will, as it is to me an intriguing one. I am not sure, however, by your somewhat vague phrasing of the “last paragraph” in the chapter. So, I will first comment on the paragraph, and then upon the quote which finishes the chapter. In the first of the two, Boorstins writings, he speaks of how American printing was based for the common man, that everyone shared in these common words, read the same papers or books, and that all of this was due to “the absence of a strong literary aristocracy.” (315) The following quote, as any good quote should do, expatiates upon this point; namely that the poor and rich in colonial America would be upon equal footing when it came to literacy. All could and would read the publications of the day; they would use them as debating points, and find themselves upon equal footing for discussion regardless of their ranks. All men, common or otherwise, in terms of literature and newspapers, put themselves “upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors.” (316)
6. Sadly, I find my knowledge lacking in this area… I do not remember the “Star Chamber Decree,” however; contextually it suggested that it was designed to limit the power of the press in England. This decree seems to have been lacking in America, where the press to this day still holds immense power, able to swing the public tide of opinion on a matter, regardless of the truth behind the said matter. This can perhaps be best shown by a local case, that of Kyle Garcia, a man whom was, according to the press “shot down” possibly in “cold blood.” This is the power of the press; to take a case, a man who had been in and out of the legal system for years, being in and out of the penitentiary system, who was, at the time of the incident driving whilst under the influence of methamphetamines. He refused to slow down his vehicle, attempting to run over the police officers, who were then publicly criticized for shooting at the vehicle, killing the driver. This epitomizes the power of the press to criticize the government, to change the public tide and warp their opinion even when upon inspection their points are out of line.
7. In short, the Aristocracy in England would often pay an author, giving them the monetary backing to write a novel. In turn, the authors would put in kind references towards their benefactors. In America, this was not present, due it would seem to two main factors: 1) The lack of a high level of literary culture, excepting that of newspapers/periodicals, and 2) The lack of a true Aristocracy spread through the colonies. In the colonies, then, free from the reign of aristocratic funders, there was a higher freedom of press for authors, as they no longer were forced into doting onto the benefactors.
8. Very simply, the poor state of economy, due to the follies of its setup, made for a tightened situation in terms of expenditures. Couple this with the southern colonies general lack of enthusiasm for literary works, and it provides the perfect explanation for the lack of a Printing Press in Georgia colony until after its widespread appearance elsewhere. Furthermore, the fact that the colony was still heavily influenced by their benefactors in England meant they were easily pushed around, possibly contributing to their late deliverance of a printing press.
9. As previously mentioned, and somewhat explained, Colonial America highly valued Newspapers, partially due to the fact that it allowed all men, common, rich, farmer or lawyer, to feel that their opinions were valued and it put them on equal grounds, allowed them a topic of discourse no matter their location. Coupled with the desire for information exchange across the colonies, and due to the lack of the presence of telegraph machines, periodicals, most notably newspapers, became the main source of spreading news across the borders of colonies. Further, newspapers required rather low overhead and thus all sorts of groups could have their own, differing between cities, religious groups, and political organizations.
10. Magazines didn’t originally gain much popularity in colonial America, most likely due to their being modelled (British spelling) closely upon the Magazines of England. They, like the magazines of England, were written predominantly for the rich upper echelons of society, and not for the commoners, the exact antithesis of Americans ideals.
11. /*Answer censored*/
12. John Peter Zenger, in being the first in America to win a Libel case, began the craze of freedom of the press which became so important and stressed as to be the first amendment to the constitution years later. In winning his case, Zenger created a situation and proved to the public that henceforth, the government could censor his and others writings only limitedly, and didn’t have the high level of censorship control which in England still existed, powerful enough as to ruin my previous answer, which I assure you was most eloquently written originally.
13. Politically, printers had a great influence, keeping knowledge of the laws and statutes up to date for the citizens, and allowing them sight into the political actions and goings on of their governmental body. This in turn led to the semi-transparency of our government today. I use the prefix “semi” here, due to the fact that in time, the populous will be made aware (even if rather quietly) to most of the governments involvements in certain undertakings, however this knowledge is usually somewhat restricted to protect governmental identities. Further, it is often not made public until after the parties which would be incriminated are safe, either in their demise, or in some other haven. In terms of society, some printed newspapers gained enough of a following and capital as to be able to afford private delivery at a lessened cost to that of the Postal Service otherwise in place. This caused delivery to be more accessible to all, and created a situation in which more and more of the populous would be made aware of goings on by their favourite newspaper as verse as that which was least expensively
available.** (That was cut off from the last one.) 14. That’s nice! I’m quite glad; however, I didn’t have such an experience.
15. The reason for the colonial soldiers being perhaps more tempered for battle than the British regulars can be summed into the simple statement that they, unlike the British, lived in an area that was not yet completely under their control. On the frontier, they were subject to attacks by Native American tribes often, and were forced to be aware in the woods, as well as travelling between colonies, especially when that involved going through Indian land. As the revolution was not fought in the simple style of ‘Line up both armies and let them charge each other,’ but was, for the most part, a collection of backwoods fights, this training, though unintentional in nature, was invaluable to the colonial soldiers.
16. The revolution gives some substance to this “myth.” They colonial militias were quick to assemble when needed for battle, but then once disbanded after the war, they failed to keep very peaceful, as most would be fearful of attack, be it by Indians or others. Further, most soldiers who survived the war would return to their previous lives of farming or whatever other professions, and thus left the colonies somewhat unprepared for other hardships.
17. In the fore, the colonial army was more used to surprise attacks and woodlands fighting due to many of their soldiers having dealt with Indian attacks and fighting in the woods. Besides this though, they were marked by chaos, disorderly, badly led, with little organization to their supplies and the distribution thereof. Illness was also rampant in the soldiers of the colonial armies, due possibly to the proximity of the slaughtering of cattle and food meat to the camps of the soldiers. In the English regiments, they were used to fighting armies whom were trained in very similar conditions to theirs, not used to fighting actions in the woodlands, and were also used to fairly orderly camps, well distributed and controlled supply trains and so on.
18. We cannot. The French, can. Perhaps that is too simply put; maybe it should be pointed out that it was a concatenation of many favourable circumstances which conspired to allow victory for the colonies. The assistance of the French armies - their usefulness and skill in such manoeuvres, as they were just as well trained in war craft as the English – was one of the most notable. Furthermore, England realized that to subdue it’s largest colony, America, it would require more troops that would be forthcoming at the time. Even though they won a majority of their battles and some victories were very telling of their superior skill and power, they still didn’t have the manpower to win overall.
19. Cincinnatus, known to be the “model of simple virtue,” thus, he was the ideal leader to the colonial soldiers at the time. Whilst Washington was a formidable general, he was a far cry from a model of “simple virtue” as he was at the same time an Aristocrat, who had much prestige, wealth, land, and power depending on the outcome of the revolution. He was not necessarily invested to its success due to an overwhelming desire to have America free, more that he might have power and prestige in a free America, and thus it was the outcome he wished to see happen. This is not to suggest that it was only he with this somewhat selfish motive, for many of the colonial generals were thus motivated.
End Questions
1. I believe that a London “agent” served as an outside source for a colonist. One could communicate with this agent and receive books and other items needed in colonial life. However it seemed that these agents had the upper-hand and could choose what specific items to send. For example on page 302 a planter requested a book from his agent but the agent actually got to decide which book exactly to send.
2. NEW ENGLAND
City upon a hill
Puritans
Orthodoxy
Half-way Covenant
Resisted Utopia
Focus on practical problems
Commercial capitals- Boston
Colleges
Community-building
Focus on devout and useful books
Bray library
Newspapers
Quick disintegration of militias
MIDDLE COLONIES
PA- Quakers
Pacifism
Major issues with Native Americans
Obsession of martyrdom
Commercial Capital- Philadelphia
Colleges
Newspapers
PA, NJ, NY- Bray library
SOUTHERN COLONIES
GA- philanthropy but planned to much
Last to get printing press
VA- Tobacco/ wastefulness of land
Created just for earthly efforts
Bacon’s Rebellion
Weakness of representative government
“Practical Godliness”
Carolinas- Freer movement from GA to Carolinas often by poor
Bray library
Fear of slave uprisings
3. “Purposeful reading” refers to the attitudes of the colonists. They read for applicable purposes and read to improve their hard lives in the New World. Books on subjects such as religious theology and doctrine, navigation, history, and medicine were read at this time. This was purposeful reading- knowledge that was relevant to colonial life.
4. Boorstin refers to a “lack of literature”. This was said of the colonists because literature was an urban commodity. Colonists, who did not live on the coast, especially, did not read or receive literature.
6. The Star Chamber Decree of 1637 was an act made by Parliament to censor works of writing. It limited the number of works of writing to control the press. That is all I understand about this reference.
8. Georgia, which was established by acts of philanthropy, was the last to acquire a printing press for obvious reasons. Firstly, the population of Georgia was the lower and uneducated class of England for this reason perhaps the press was not as immediately needed. Secondly, the planning of Georgia became arbitrary and the colonists barely had enough rations, so it would be safe to assume that there were more pressing matters on the colonist’s minds than a printing press.
9. The reason why newspapers grew more common in America than GB was because of its practical usefulness. Newspapers were perfect for colonial lifestyles. They were informative, but to the point as to not lose time that was needed to be spent working. Also, in the New World it was important to be connected to the other colonies in news or even competition. Newspapers helped this too.
Taylor Oster 2009
Continued End Questions
10. Magazines in America created the new profession of journalism. This job still remains a major part of society today and encourages daily, current, and consistent research of events.
11. Censorship in the colonies restricted radical ideas. Topics had to be approved and free from startling or controversial issues. This censorship was most likely made a priority due to the newness of the colonies. In such an early establishment in the New World it was important to try to connect the colonists and build the country up. Radical articles would have created smaller groups to break down and from their own communities.
12. John Peter Zenger was appointed by the government to enforce censorship on the press. He determined the regulations and was in major connection to the government in 1737 and the “Publick Press”.
13. Printing presses in the colonies were very important for politics and society. Every government had to have a press to circulate proclamations, to print laws, make recorded copies of court cases and votes and debates. In society, printing played an integral role with the colonial life. Printing provided colonists with local news, almanacs, psalms and religious books, and also periodicals. Printing in society helped to connect the colonists to one another through effective communication.
15. The colonists were more prepared for fighting than the British Regulars. The British were unprepared to the conditions of the New World. Colonists knew that the decentralization of military force would be inevitable for the British and they would have a better chance. Also, colonists, by living in the New World, had adapted to the climate and ways to get food. The British had come into a completely new and unknown environment to fight the people living there. Also, the colonists had the quality of citizenry which connected them deeply to one another and gave them a more passionate reason to fight in unity and uniformity than the British Regulars who were just doing their jobs.
16. The myth that “Americans are always better prepared for war, however their weakness is they fail as readily into peace” actually sounds nice. This insinuates a defensive stance on wars. There would be enough fighting to get the job done and then move on from the situation. I wish all countries could do this however that is not probable. The truth in this quote speaks of the consequences of early America’s nature in war. Moving on from war so quickly is naïve and leaves you open and vulnerable to other attacks.
17. The greatest difference between the colonial militia and the British Regulars was their organization. The militia had no distinct leader and the groups were citizen-based which gave the people a more deeply rooted passion to fight. The British Regulars on the other hand were extremely structured with appointed leaders and fought because they were pawns in the greater schemes of the British government.
18. I believe that the colonists won for several reasons. They had more passion for the cause than the British and believed it was their duty to protect American values. America was able to think outside the box in fighting in the New World and was not as restricted as the Regulars. It is also thought by historians that the British just lost and that the Americans did not win. The colonist’s victory was only by the British beating themselves. Also perhaps it was destiny and God’s will for the colonists to win and lay the foundations for the later United States. I don’t know if this question can truly and undoubtedly be answered.
Taylor Oster 2009
1. In Chapter 46, Boorstin defines the the "London agent", or sometimes refereed as the London "factor." Be familiar with the agent's/factor's role in colonial America.
The “London Agent” was anyone from England who was in an administrative position in the colonies, (i.e. governors, company executives, etc.) and the role they played in Colonial America was one of control; constantly maintaining order and making sure that the charter of each colony was fulfilled.
3. Boorstin mentions that the colonists practice, "purposeful reading." What is meant by this quote?
“Purposeful Reading” describes the American taste in practical literature such as manuals, handbooks, and dictionaries; that can still be seen today. (i.e. The Dummy Books, How-To-Do-It Books, How to Lose Wait Fast Books, etc.)
4. Much is made of the colonist's "lack of literature." Please give an example of what Boorstin means by my quote.
The colonist’s “lack of literature” means the lack of American written literature. This can be explained through the fact that the colonists were on the very fringes of the Empire and had no time during the day to write poetry.
5. For those of you under-achievers, who have not ever read anything, nor posted anything in the comment section, then please read the last paragraph in chapter 48 and comment.
This explicitly explains the American sense of individuality and opportunity. The hope that with enough hard work anyone can achieve the level of the intellectuals or ruling classes.
6. Boorstin mentions the Star Chamber Decree and I would like to know what your world history background might provide. Do you understand Boorstin's reference?
The Star Chamber Decree completely escapes me. I would assume it has something to do with astronomy.
7. Comment on what Boorstin means when he says, "The sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who brought and paid for his complements, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean?"
This says that the ideals of Feudalism could not be found in the American conscious nor in American produced literature, this exemplifies the American sense of individuality and opportunity.
8. Given what we've learned in this book, why might it explain characteristically that Georgia be the last colony to acquire a printing press?
This can be explained by the presence of a planned economy within the colony of Georgia. Everywhere else in the colonies did not have such a planned economy and thus allowed individuals to go about their business their own way, and thus, with the opportunity given, printing presses were developed quicker in the northern colonies.
11. Please comment on the censorship, which existed in the colonies...
The censorship of newspapers/magazines stemmed from the British control and chartering of colonies that required all newspapers to be approved by the government before printing was to begin.
12. What impact did John Peter Zenger have on the press?
Zenger went against the printing censorship laws by printing something that was not approved of by the government and was subsequently arrested, tried, and then released after his trial. He is one of the first to stand up against British censorship in the colonies.
13. Printers in the colonies were very important. Please give an example of their impact on society and politics.
Almost all of the founding fathers owned and operated printing presses which helped fuel the fire of Revolution, such as the leaflet Common Sense.
14. The term "Indian Summer" takes on a whole new meaning for me... at least. Please comment.
Indian Summer was when, during the winter, it warmed up enough to melt some of the snow and stop the biting cold which held both the colonists and the Native Americans back from attacking one another. When an “Indian Summer” would occur, there was a very high chance that there would be an attack.
15. Boorstin goes into much detail about how the colonists were much better prepared for fighting then British Regulars (and when we get to the Civil War many of the same arguments will be used again). How were colonists better prepared than the professional British Regulars?
The Americans were far better prepared for the rigors of warfare in the Americas because of several factors: 1. The Americans were born and raised in the areas they lived in and as a result they knew much of the countryside unlike British Regulars or Hessians who were born in far off Europe. 2. The Americans had gained much experience with fighting Indians and as a result the Americans adapted to Indian technique of Guerilla Warfare to fit their own uses.
16. Comment on the "myth" that, "Americans are always better prepared for war, however their weakness is that they fail as readily into peace."
This myth implies that though militias can be quickly assembled to face a looming threat, they were just as easily quick to disperse once that threat had been defeated, no matter how temporarily defeated.
17. Boorstin gives a great comparison of the colonial "militia" vs. the British Regulars. Could you please provide an example of each?
The British Regulars worked as a united front, each General working according to a plan and moving his army accordingly, whereas there was little or no communication between the local militias and thus they fought on no body’s terms but their own. Hit and run, ambush, not open field combat became the means by which local militias waged war.
18. "How could such an ill-assorted, ill-disciplined, an ill-supplied army succeed against the well-organized forces of one the great military powers? How, indeed, can we account for the final victory?" Comment?
The reasons are numerous, 1. The Americans knew the areas they lived in much better than the British or Hessians did. 2. The Americans utilized guerilla war whereas the British used open field tactics with the assumption that the enemy would be stupid enough to go musket to musket with them. 3. The lack of a centralized government or capital city made any quick and decisive victory for the British impossible. 4. The lack of a stratified command structure within the American armed forces, which allowed for local militias to strike when they deemed it necessary to do so. 5. A cause to fight for, the British Regular or Hessian Mercenary was fighting for the good of the crown and not of the people where as the Americans were fighting for independence from a far off king.
19. The reference to Cicinnatus? What might this have to do with Washington, as well as the rest of the colonial militia?
Cincinnatus is known for being given control of the armies of Rome to fight back an enemy invasion, once the threat was gone, Cincinnatus gave up his power and became a farmer instead of becoming a new Emperor. In the same way, Washington gave up his chance at becoming King of America. “I didn’t get rid of George the Third to become George the First.”
1. In Chapter 46, Boorstin defines the "London agent", or sometimes refereed as the London "factor." Be familiar with the agent's/factor's role in colonial America.
The London agent’s role was as a demonstration of the dependency of the colonies on England. Despite their independence as a colonial outpost away from the mother country, the colonists still saw England as the superior country. The London factor was England’s influence over the colonies when they were unsure of what to do.
2. In class we will be spending much time on comparing and contrasting New England with the "middle colonies" (my quotes, and what I mean here is New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- and during the colonial era, Delaware was a lower county of Pennsylvania -- , and the southern colonies, and here Boorstin goes into great detail singling out Virginia, with earlier discussions of Georgia and the Carolinas). Please pay special attention to his differentiations of these colonies.
Boorstein’s examples of Boston, Pennsylvania, and Virginia accurately break down the colonies by New England, middle, and southern, respectively. Boston is singled out as the most religious, and because of the strict Puritan influence most of the books in the area are religious as well. Boorstin likens Virginia to England, saying that it was the most similar in terms of the aristocracy. Philadelphia, as the middle colony, represents a thriving medium, with the largest book trade and less specifically religious books. There was more openness and toleration in the area because of the Quaker influence.
3. Boorstin mentions that the colonists practice, "purposeful reading." What is meant by this quote?
Boorstin means that the colonists read mostly practical or religious texts, and had little time for pleasure reading. They avoided romances and other literature, and reading these was looked down upon.
4. Much is made of the colonist's "lack of literature." Please give an example of what Boorstin means by my quote.
Boorstin says “Never before, surely, had so far-flung and so populous a civilization been so literate, nor had so literate a people produced less in the way of belles-lettres.” (293) He means that, while the Americans had literacy and intelligence, they failed to produce literature that in any equivalent society would be flowing. This is because, as mentioned many times in this book, the Americans were focusing on practicality rather than enjoyment.
5. For those of you under-achievers, who have not ever read anything, nor posted anything in the comment section, then please read the last paragraph in chapter 48 and comment.
Does commenting here make me an underachiever? Hope not.
The mention of the “poorest labourer” means that, in America, even a poor laborer could read the same materials as a rich gentleman and could therefore, hopefully, rise to his rank at some point. This is another situation that exemplifies the American ideal of equality for all.
6. Boorstin mentions the Star Chamber Decree and I would like to know what your world history background might provide. Do you understand Boorstin's reference?
No, I personally have no background concerning said decree. However, the background he provides was enough to tell me that the Star Chamber Decree was issued to get more control over the press in England.
7. Comment on what Boorstin means when he says, "The sycophantic dedication to a Lordly patron, who brought and paid for his complements, is rarely found in volumes printed on this side of the ocean?"
In England, it was common practice for a “Lordly patron” (i.e. rich aristocrat) (is that redundant?) to fund a book project in return for flatting compliments in the book. Because of the American lack of an extensive aristocracy, this could not happen “on this side of the ocean.” Therefore, printers made money instead by selling advance subscriptions to the books.
8. Given what we've learned in this book, why might it explain characteristically that Georgia be the last colony to acquire a printing press (hey, be nice!)?
Georgia was the poorest of the original colonies, and being the most southern was also very isolated. In addition to that, England’s significant investment in Georgia meant that it was a colony that was easy to push around. In addition to that, Georgia was highly rural with no major metropolitan capital, meaning that the exchange of ideas was more difficult.
9. Give one example of why newspapers in the colonies outnumber those that existed in Great Britain.
Newspapers were ideal for America because, again, they were more practical and useful than long rambling books written in a superfluous manner that resemble Shane’s comments. Newspapers quickly and effectively spread news and were adaptable, whereas literature required intelligence and often aristocratic power in order to have the time to enjoy it.
10. Any of you want to comment on magazines?
No thanks. (Technically I fully answered this question).
11. Please comment on the censorship which existed in the colonies...
At the time, there was no equivalent of our Bill of Rights in the colonies, and therefore censorship of the press was easy. All published works had to be approved by the American government and in some cases, the British one. This was made possible because of the scarcity, price, and difficulty of acquiring printing presses—they could only be acquired through government allowance.
12. What impact did John Peter Zenger have on the press?
Zenger, who was tried for printing materials that were not approved by the government, had a big impact on the press at the time and in the future. At the time, for a jury to side with a printer in a trial like the Zenger one was a rarity, yet Zenger was freed at his. Zenger’s win in an early libel trial paved the way for more freedom of the press.
13. Printers in the colonies were very important. Please give an example of their impact on society and politics.
Printers were able to spread news quickly and efficiently. They were seen as servants of the public, and were on par with other workers rather than an elite class. Printers influenced politics the same was our media does today—the information spread by a printer could affect the opinions of a voting American. Because printers were often also postmasters, they could control the information going in and out of their cities.
14. The term "Indian Summer" takes on a whole new meaning for me... at least. Please comment.
I had never heard the term “Indian Summer” before, so I can’t say that it took on a new meaning for me. However, I can say that it sounds like the colonists were constantly afraid of attack by Indians. It seems the colonists looked forward to winter constantly because only then would the Indian raids stop. Seems like a pity to constantly live in fear, except for the coldest months of the year.
15. Boorstin goes into much detail about how the colonists were much better prepared for fighting then British Regulars (and when we get to the Civil War many of the same arguments will be used again). How were colonists better prepared than the professional British Regulars?
The colonists, as we know, used guerilla tactics against the British. They were trained in this by their constant scrimmages in the backwoods against the raiding Indians. The British fought with an outdated classical line-based fighting style that was useless against flanking maneuvers, small raiding parties, and other guerilla tactics used by the colonists that were largely Indian tactics adapted for battle against Europeans.
16. Comment on the "myth" that, "Americans are always better prepared for war; however their weakness is that they fail as readily into peace."
Because there was no unified country at the time, there was no central government-controlled army. This meant that the militia, although quickly ready for war, owed no real loyalty to their country and therefore was more concerned with defending their own home. And even when the fighting was over, the militia disbanded and the country was left with no standing army.
18. "How could such an ill-assorted, ill-disciplined, an ill-supplied army succeed against the well-organized forces of one the great military powers? How, indeed, can we account for the final victory?" Comment?
The British were an outdated fighting force. Their traditional style of standing in rows and firing directly ahead only works if your enemy does the same. The Americans used guerilla tactics against the British, which at the time proved very effective against an army untrained at facing such forces. In addition to that, the Americans received considerable support from the French army—a well-assorted, well-disciplined, well-supplied large armed force that accounted for much of the American success.
1. In Chapter 46, Boorstin defines the the "London agent", or sometimes refereed as the London "factor." Be familiar with the agent's/factor's role in colonial America.
In this chapter, Boorstin says that the “London Agent” was something the Colonies could rely on if they were having difficulty making decisions or other things. The “London factor simply meant that the Colonies would turn to England for help, demonstrating their continued reliance on the mother country. London agents were important in the literature of the colonies in that the agents from London would send over English literature to the upper-class in the Americas. This caused the literature in America not to develop as much on its own because most of their sources of literature came from England.
2. In class we will be spending much time on comparing and contrasting New England with the "middle colonies" (my quotes, and what I mean here is New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware -- and during the colonial era, Delaware was a lower county of Pennsylvania -- , and the southern colonies, and here Boorstin goes into great detail singling out Virginia, with earlier discussions of Georgia and the Carolinas). Please pay special attention to his differentiations of these colonies.
3. Boorstin mentions that the colonists practice, "purposeful reading." What is meant by this quote?
By this, Boorstin means that people who were interested in reading in the libraries in the colonies would have well educated and well read men select useful books for them to read that would be beneficial. Most of these books did not concern religion and theology, but rather were informational and useful in acquiring knowledge about subjects such as sciences and history. Purposeful reading meant that the colonists read books of substance and the books gave them knowledge about important subjects.
3. This quote about purposeful reading is almost referring to a book club. Groups of intellectuals would gather to discuss books purposefully. They would talk about current issues that were going on.
4. One reason for this lack of literature was because it was rather difficult for the colonist to get the books inland. Boorstin talks about how it is easy to carry five books in the hull of a ship but once on land those five books become a large nuisance. The lack of books could have easily led to a lack of literature.
8. Given what we've learned in this book, why might it explain characteristically that Georgia be the last colony to acquire a printing press (hey, be nice!)?
Georgia's lack of a printing press might be explained by the fact that they were a very poor colony. They were victims of the "philanthropy" of England. They were given land, but could not really grow anything on it, and they did not really have a stable government, which might have helped them get a press.
13. Printers in the colonies were very important. Please give an example of their impact on society and politics.
Printers were very important to society because they published information that helped everyone know what was going on. The press connected the nation. It also had an effect on politics because polititians could now censor the information that was going out to the public.
Mira Schlosberg
Post a Comment