Give Me Liberty!: Volume 1

“Because the word Indian, despite its limitations, is so widely understood, a major organization demanding change in the 1960s intentionally chose to make the word part of its title: the American Indian Movement. This is not the only example of people turning a term considered insulting into an expression of pride.”

While the authors acknowledge the limitations of the word “Indian,” they also point out how activists strategically employed its widespread recognition to garner wider visibility and impact. This reclamation of a derogatory term by Indigenous groups once more reflects The Significance of Diverse Groups in America.

“When Europeans first arrived, many Indians saw them as simply one group among many. Their first thought was how to use the newcomers to enhance their standing in relation to other Native peoples rather than to unite against them. The sharp dichotomy between ‘Indians’ and ‘white’ persons did not emerge until later in the colonial era.”

Initially, Indigenous peoples did not view Europeans as a common enemy but as potential allies in inter-tribal dynamics, an ironic twist given the later widespread conflict and colonization efforts by Europeans. Secondly, “[t]he sharp dichotomy between ‘Indians’ and ‘white’ persons did not emerge until later in the colonial era” highlights a historical shift, revealing how initial perceptions evolved into rigid racial divisions and pointing out the constructed nature of racial identities in colonial contexts. This shift in perception reveals the development of systemic inequalities and stereotypes that would shape the interactions between these groups for centuries to come.

“Europeans considered Indians barbaric in part because they did not appear to live under established governments or fixed laws or have the proper respect for authority. ‘They are born, live, and die in a liberty without restraint,’ wrote one religious missionary. In a sense, they seemed too free, lacking the order and discipline that Europeans considered the hallmarks of civilization. When Giovanni da Verrazano described the Indians as living in ‘absolute freedom,’ he did not intend this as a compliment.”

The European emphasis on the Indigenous peoples’ supposed lack of “civilization” speaks to The Evolving Concept of American Freedom, in which the very traits Europeans might have valued in their philosophies (such as Rousseau’s “noble savage”) are used to denigrate the Indigenous and “other” them. The European standard, which equates freedom with a lack of civilization due to the absence of “order and discipline,” reveals a deep ethnocentrism. Europeans saw freedom, a typically positive concept, as negative when it did not conform to their structured societal norms, thus presenting an ironic twist on the value of liberty.

“Freedom and lack of freedom expanded together in seventeenth-century America.”

This quote captures the complex development of American society and The Evolving Concept of American Freedom. This short, seemingly contradictory statement encapsulates the dual expansion of liberty and enslavement, pointing to the ironic reality that the growth of freedom for European settlers often directly correlated with an increase in the oppression of other groups, such as enslaved Africans and Indigenous peoples.

“The early English colonies in North America and the West Indies were known as ‘plantations’ (that is, communities ‘planted’ from abroad among an alien population); the same term was originally used to describe Protestant settlements in Ireland.”

The authors compare the establishment of colonies in North America and the West Indies to earlier Protestant settlements in Ireland, all under the term “plantations.” This analogy provides a historical link that frames colonial efforts as extensions of European dominion and criticizes these efforts by highlighting the invasive and disruptive nature of “planting” new communities in foreign lands. The choice of the word “plantation,” originally linked to agriculture, emphasizes the cultivation of new societal structures in conquered territories, reflecting both growth and the forceful implantation of foreign systems.

“Social and political tensions boiled over in sometimes ruthless conflicts between rich and poor, free and slave, settler and Indian, and members of different religious groups. At the same time, struggles within and between European empires echoed in the colonies. Colonists and Native Americans got dragged into one another’s wars. Aggrieved groups seized upon the language of freedom to advance their goals.”

By placing “rich and poor, free and slave, settler and Indian, and members of different religious groups” next to each other, the passage highlights The Significance of Diverse Groups in America. These groupings, representing varied and often conflicting interests, underline the social and political instability of the era. The phrase “boiled over” gestures toward the inevitable and explosive conflict resulting from these deep-seated tensions, while the use of the rhetoric of freedom highlights the adaptability of ideological concepts according to circumstance.

“But although legal avenues to liberty receded, the desire for freedom did not. After the suppression of a slave conspiracy in 1709, Alexander Spotswood, the governor of Virginia, warned planters to be vigilant. The desire for freedom, he reminded them, can ‘call together all those who long to shake off the fetters of slavery.’”

Spotswood’s warning after the suppression of a conspiracy by enslaved persons uses the language of freedom—typically associated with noble, virtuous ideals—to discuss the very human and relentless desire of enslaved people to escape oppression. The phrase “fetters of slavery” is an allusion to the physical and metaphorical chains that bind enslaved individuals. The rebellions by enslaved communities also speak to The Impact of Social Movements and Political Conflicts on Liberty.

“It should not be surprising that for large numbers of free colonists and Europeans, freedom meant in part the power and right to enslave others. And as slavery became more and more entrenched, so too, as the Quaker abolitionist John Woolman commented in 1762, did ‘the idea of slavery being connected with the black color, and liberty with the white.’”

The statement that “freedom meant in part the power and right to enslave others” presents a paradox that challenges the conventional understanding of freedom. This contradiction reveals the hypocrisy within colonial and European societies that espoused liberty for themselves while perpetuating the enslavement of others. Woolman’s observation further deepens this irony by noting how racial perceptions became entangled with these concepts, showing how many white settlers manipulated the definition of liberty to justify and sustain systemic oppression.

“On both sides of the Atlantic, every political cause, it seemed, wrapped itself in the language of liberty and claimed to be defending the ‘rights of Englishmen.’ European writers dissatisfied with the lack of liberty in their own countries looked to Britain as a model.”

The authors here emphasize the ubiquitous adoption of liberty as a political tool across various movements and geographies, highlighting its versatility and central role in political discourse. Additionally, the mention that these causes claimed to be defending the “rights of Englishmen” alludes to a specific set of legal and political rights that had long been celebrated as a cornerstone of English identity and governance. This connection between liberty and a distinctly English tradition illustrates how national identity and political rhetoric often intertwine, reinforcing each other.

“As the coexistence of slavery and liberty within the empire demonstrated, British freedom was anything but universal. It was closely identified with the Protestant religion and was invoked to contrast Britons with the ‘servile’ subjects of Catholic countries. It viewed nearly every other nation on earth as ‘enslaved’—to popery, tyranny, or barbarism.”

The authors here discuss how the British conception of liberty was a very exclusive one, denying liberty to any non-English, non-Protestant persons, highlighting how both national and religious biases informed and limited the British understanding of freedom. By labeling other nations as “enslaved” to various negative forces, the British not only elevated their own sense of national superiority, but also rationalized their imperial and colonial practices, thereby employing freedom in a paradoxically oppressive way.

“As to internal affairs within the colonies, the British government frequently seemed uninterested. There was no point, one official said, in worrying about the behavior of colonists who ‘plant tobacco and Puritanism only, like fools.’”

The quote employs irony through the dismissive attitude of the British official who saw no point in concerning himself with the internal affairs of the colonies, suggesting an underestimation of the colonies’ economic and ideological contributions. The British metropole’s detached attitude would later contribute to The Evolving Concept of American Freedom, as the colonists became increasingly resentful of the demands of their distant but demanding British overlords.

“The right to resist oppressive authority and the identification of liberty with the cause of God, so deeply ingrained by the imperial struggles of the eighteenth century, were now invoked against Britain itself, by colonists of all backgrounds.”

This passage illustrates the merging of religious zeal and political liberty, a potent combination that inspired many revolutionary movements and contributed to The Evolving Concept of American Freedom. The invocation of these principles against Britain also suggests a form of situational irony, as the colonists used the very principles that underpinned British imperial rule to justify their resistance to that rule.

“The Declaration of Independence changed forever the meaning of American freedom. It completed the shift from the rights of Englishmen to the rights of mankind as the object of American independence. In Jefferson’s language, ‘the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,’ not the British constitution or the heritage of the freeborn Englishman, justified independence […] liberty had become a universal entitlement.”

The authors present the Declaration as possessing the power to change The Evolving Concept of American Freedom. The transition “from the rights of Englishmen to the rights of mankind” demonstrates how freedom was now conceived as something inherent instead of something constructed only within certain national and legal contexts. Jefferson’s reference to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” draws on Enlightenment principles that sought justification from natural law and divine will, rather than from any man-made system.

“To be sure, the men who led the Revolution from start to finish were by and large members of the American elite. The lower classes did not rise to power as a result of independence, nor did patriarchy and slavery end. Nonetheless, the idea of liberty became a revolutionary rallying cry, a standard by which to judge and challenge homegrown institutions as well as imperial ones.”

The authors here acknowledge the gap between revolutionary ideals and practical realities, highlighting the incomplete realization of revolutionary ideals. The authors address the limitations of the Revolution, acknowledging its transformative rhetoric while recognizing its failure to fully actualize those lofty ideals. This juxtaposition invites reflection on the complexities of historical change, where ideological progress may not always translate into practical advancements for all sectors of society.

“In 1784, a delegation of 260 Cherokee, Shawnee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Delaware, and Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) representatives told Spanish officials in St. Louis that the creation of the United States was ‘the greatest blow that could have been dealt us.’ Now that the colonists were no longer part of the British empire, the delegates at St. Louis explained, the Americans were ‘extending themselves like a plague of locusts.’”

The simile comparing the expansion of American settlers to “extending themselves like a plague of locusts” captures the devastating and overwhelming impact of colonial expansion on Indigenous lands and communities. The simile emphasizes the destructive nature of this expansion and conveys the fear and loss experienced by the Indigenous populations, who viewed the newly independent Americans as an existential threat similar to a natural disaster. The repercussions of American independence for Indigenous groups also speaks to The Significance of Diverse Groups in America.

“The words ‘slave’ and ‘slavery’ do not appear in the original Constitution—a concession to the sensibilities of delegates who feared they would ‘contaminate the glorious fabric of American liberty.’ As Luther Martin of Maryland wrote, his fellow delegates ‘anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious to the ears of Americans.’ But, he continued, they were ‘willing to admit into their system those things which the expressions signified.’ The document prohibited Congress from abolishing the importation of slaves from abroad for twenty years. It required states to return to their owners fugitives from bondage.”

By avoiding explicit terms, the framers sought to obscure the harsh realities of enslavement, which Martin sarcastically notes did not prevent them from including provisions that protected and perpetuated the institution. This use of euphemism, intended to avoid offending certain sensibilities, ironically highlights the glaring contradiction between The Evolving Concept of American Freedom and the hypocritical realities of enslavement embedded within the nation’s founding document.

“In her essay ‘On the Equality of the Sexes,’ written in 1779 and published in 1790, Murray insisted that women had as much right as men to exercise all their talents and should be allowed equal educational opportunities to enable them to do so. Women’s apparent mental inferiority to men, she insisted, simply reflected the fact that they had been denied ‘the opportunity of acquiring knowledge.’ ‘The idea of the incapability of women,’ she maintained, was ‘totally inadmissable in this enlightened age.’”

The authors explore the influence of the early feminist movement, drawing attention to The Significance of Diverse Groups in America. By calling the era “enlightened,” Murray contrasts the progressive potential of the period with the regressive attitudes still prevalent, thereby advocating for a reevaluation of women’s capabilities and roles in society. Her argument is structured to dismantle the biases holding women back, advocating for educational reforms as a means to achieve true intellectual and social equality.

“The whip which brings us to Lowell is NECESSITY. We must have money; a father’s debts are to be paid, an aged mother to be supported, a brother’s ambition to be aided, and so the factories are supplied. Is this to act from free will?…Is anyone such a fool as to suppose that out of six thousand factory girls of Lowell, sixty would be there if they could help it? Everybody knows that it is necessity alone, in some form or other, that takes us to Lowell and keeps us there. Is this freedom?”

The phrase “[t]he whip which brings us to Lowell is NECESSITY” utilizes metaphor to equate economic compulsion to a whip, illustrating the coercive forces driving women to work under harsh conditions. The workers emphasize the lack of true choice or freedom they experience, despite the façade of voluntary labor. The repetition of various familial obligations emphasizes the external pressures and responsibilities that dictate their decisions, rather than personal desire or free will. The rhetorical question, “Is this freedom?” serves to provoke thought and challenge understandings of what constitutes The Evolving Concept of American Freedom.

“In effect, Douglass argued that in their desire for freedom, the slaves were truer to the nation’s underlying principles than the white Americans who annually celebrated the Fourth of July while allowing the continued existence of slavery.”

Frederick Douglass critiqued the hypocrisy of American society by pointing out that the very individuals who celebrated the Fourth of July—a celebration of American freedom and independence—were the same ones perpetuating or allowing the enslavement of African Americans. This irony underscores an inconsistency between the nation’s principles and its actions, highlighting how enslaved persons, in their struggle for freedom, were more aligned with American ideals than those who were already free but ignored the injustices before them. Douglass’s activism also reflects The Significance of Diverse Groups in America.

“Whatever proslavery writers asserted and ministers preached, Blacks thought of themselves as a working people unjustly deprived of the fruits of their labor by idle planters who lived in luxury. ‘We bake the bread / they give us the crust,’ said a line from one slave song.”

The metaphor in the song lyric “We bake the bread / they give us the crust” illustrates the exploitation of enslaved individuals’ labor, where they perform the substantial work but receive only minimal benefits. This emphasizes the economic exploitation and invokes a moral critique of the disparity between the effort given and the compensation received, reflecting broader themes of injustice and inequality in the antebellum South.

“Tocqueville had noted that in a democracy, individual dissenters found it difficult to stand up against the overwhelming power of majority opinion. Americans valued free speech, he wrote, but he did ‘not know any country where, in general, less independence of mind and genuine freedom of discussion reign than in America.’”

While Americans professed to value free speech, Tocqueville noted a paradoxical lack of “independence of mind and genuine freedom of discussion.” His observation emphasizes the contrast between The Evolving Concept of American Freedom and the societal pressures that actually constrict open debate and dissent, particularly due to the overpowering influence of majority opinion. Tocqueville’s commentary exposes a critical tension within democratic societies, wherein the dominance of majority opinion can inadvertently suppress minority viewpoints.

“The Seneca Falls Convention, a gathering on behalf of women’s rights held in the upstate New York town where Stanton lived, raised the issue of woman’s suffrage for the first time. Stanton, the principal author, modeled the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments on the Declaration of Independence. But the document added ‘women’ to Jefferson’s axiom ‘all men are created equal,’ and in place of a list of injustices committed by George III, it condemned the ‘injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.’”

Stanton’s decision to model the Declaration of Sentiments on the Declaration of Independence is a direct allusion, using a foundational American text to lend authority and historical continuity to the women’s rights movement. By adding “women” to Jefferson’s phrase, Stanton expands the Declaration’s original scope to advocate for gender equality. The replacement of grievances against King George III with those against male oppression toward women further adapts the structure and purpose of the original declaration to address the specific injustices experienced by women, thus aligning women’s rights within the broader narrative of human rights and The Evolving Concept of American Freedom.

“The dichotomy between freedom and slavery powerfully shaped early feminists’ political language. Just as the idea of ‘wage slavery’ enabled northern workers to challenge the inequalities of the market revolution, the concept of the ‘slavery of sex’ empowered the women’s movement to develop an all-encompassing critique of male authority and their own subordination.”

The term “wage slavery” equates economic exploitation of workers with the conditions of actual enslavement, suggesting a similar level of coercion and injustice. Similarly, the phrase “slavery of sex” compares women’s subjugation under male authority to the enslavement of individuals, highlighting the severity and totality of gender-based oppression. Such rhetoric was instrumental in articulating the feminists’ critique and in mobilizing support by drawing emotionally charged comparisons to widely acknowledged forms of injustice.