Mark Fleming; Charles Lanman's "The Hermit of Aroostook"

Mark Fleming

Professor Coronado

English 226

12 December 2012

An Introduction to Charles Lanman’s “The Hermit of Aroostook”

In the infinitely overflowing source of written word, anthologists and historians are posed with a problem. That is, what texts should they choose to remember and choose to include in the larger bequeathed narrative? American historians’ selections have marginalized the state of Maine—making the “Down Easters” feel as if they belong to the “least important state” in the Union.[1] Maine, however, possesses a rich history that includes turbulent 19^th century relations among the Americans, Native Americans, and British. With this specific to their certain territory, Maine and New Brunswick area writers express individual opinions that are supported by their location-based needs. In this tradition, Charles Lanman’s 1847 text “The Hermit of Aroostook” addresses both the aforementioned relations and opinions. The following paragraphs shall consider how Lanman’s story exemplifies the Aroostook Valley’s important involvement in international conflict, national literature, and Native American relations.

Charles Lanman (1819-1895) was a nineteenth century author, government official, artist, librarian, and explorer. With a grandfather who served in the United States Senate, Lanman studied art and developed a critical insight in journalism and writing. This allowed him to serve in organizations such as the Cincinnati Chronicle, the New York Express, U.S. War Department library, and the U.S. House of Representatives library.[2] At the age of 28, Lanman left his mercantile career to explore the rapidly expanding United States of America. He documented his encounters, observations, and struggles; a compilation of these writings later published in an 1854 collection titled Adventures in the Wilds of North America. “The Hermit of Aroostook,” was included in that compilation; however, it was initially published in The American Whig Review seven years prior.

The autobiographical tale—of an encounter with an eccentric recluse who lives on a plot of land a considerable distance from civilization—mentions three real-world characters. The titular character and subject of the observational piece goes by the name Roger Egger. “The Hermit of Aroostook” explains Egger’s life in more detail than any other historical text. The reason for this is that Egger was a citizen who contributed very little to the advancement of society; he kept to himself. Regardless of his public functions, he still possesses a valuable opinion that perpetuates the piece so greatly. In explaining himself, Egger mentions his renowned brother-in-law who goes by the name Mr. [William] Jerden. Jerden, in contrast to Egger, is well remembered and revered as an English literary editor. Critic William Bates summarizes Jerdan’s career in the following passage, “Reputations were thought to depend upon [Jerdan’s] nod; he could make, or unmake, the fortune of a book … [But] he held his sceptre with a feeble grasp, and made but a poor use of the power which his position afforded him. Thus he and his magazine … went down, after … thirty-four years.”[3]

“The Hermit of Aroostook” occurs in both Aroostook County, Maine, and Victoria County, New Brunswick. Roger Egger’s house falls on the shores of the St. John River. In other words, Egger’s house is located directly on the United States border, but an 1851 Canadian census identified Egger as a lodger that had lived in the same New Brunswick residence for 42 years.[4] In both Lanman’s story and the 1851 census, Egger declares that he specifically lived in the same residence since 1809; holding true, this would make him one of the earliest settlers to the area. Moreover, the United States did not name or declare the stated colonies until 1839, so many settlers were not certain if they lived in the United States or a North American British Colony.[5] This confusion led to the 1838-1839 conflict between the Americans and English titled the Aroostook War. President Martin Van Buren readied 10,000 troops and secured 10 million dollars in case of battle.[6] The resolution came when United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster helped commission the 1842 Webster-Ashburton Treaty that established the country’s current boundaries. With such actions by the United States government, the territory was of significant value. Egger states in “The Hermit of Aroostook,” “An extensive lumbering business is now carried on in the valley, but its future prosperity must depend upon its agriculture … The soil of this valley is rich … Rye, barley, and oats all flourish hear, but much more buckwheat is raised than any other grain besides wheat.”[7] Here, Egger and the United States government think on the same level. While the United States government wanted to acquire as much of this potentially profitable land as possible, Egger wanted to wait out the sale of his land until it appreciates to its maximum value.

“The Hermit of Aroostook” is such an encompassing piece of text because it confronts more than just political problems, national relations, and international conflict. It documents the contrasting opinions, interests, and ideologies of nations; particularly, Lanman highlights these aforementioned opinions when discussing Egger’s view on literature. That is, in 1836, Ralph Waldo Emerson published Nature, and the world received its first major taste of both American Transcendentalism and uniquely American literature. In the subsequent decades, an American literary renaissance flourished as figures such as Henry David Thoreau, Herman Melville, and Edgar Allen Poe published their early works. The anthologized history analyzes these author’s narratives; however, Egger’s views on literature show a conflicting viewpoint. Egger was an Englishman who spent most of his adult life in the United States. In his literary discussion with Lanman, he states, “The earth-born men, with whom I hold daily communion, are the mighty Shakespeare, the splendid Gibbon, the good and loving brother poets Thompson and Wordsworth, the gifted but Wayward Burns, the elegant and witty Addison, and the ponderous Johnson.”[8] Why does Egger only read English authors? America had a developed literature.  In 1840, only one of every 579 United States citizens was illiterate, so the vast majority of adults could read.[9] Egger’s perspective provides a unique insight; though he left England with no intention to return, he still limits himself to English literature. Why can only English authors provide Egger with such satisfaction? The answer rests in the fact that American literature had not established the same credibility as English literature. Perhaps, this was because major critics like Jerden were back in London, deciding what is and what should be considered substantial literature.

In addition to international and literary happenings, “The Hermit of Aroostook” exemplifies the relationship between Native Americans and the state of Maine. While American relations with, and depictions of, Native Americans have been largely negative in American writing, “The Hermit of Aroostook” shows that Aroostook Valley was different. That is, Native Americans and whites occasionally collaborated with one another, but all together, they were usually segregated. Two Native American territories span Aroostook and Victoria Counties; they are the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet tribes. Many European travelers and local residents confused the two tribes since their structures allowed them to interact closely with one another.[10] Current historical records, however, indicate that the Maliseet people’s headquarters were located on the St. John River, the setting for Lanman’s story. Therefore, there is a greater probability the “Indians” that assisted Egger and Lanman in the exposition are Maliseet people. The friendly relations that exist in the piece were common during the time. Smallpox nearly obliterated the Native American population upon contact with Europeans, but the early 1800s marked a change for these tribes. Eastern states provided a system of state-based care for the Maine Indians; thus, this support encouraged and allowed a rapid growth in the 1850s.[11] At the time of Lanman’s story, Native Americans thrived in tourism, consumer crafts, logging, and other lucrative industries. “The Hermit of Aroostook” exemplifies the positive growth for the Maliseet people. That is, the Maliseet people are willing to help Lanman and Egger, who are respectful and appreciative of their assistance. All in all, this exemplifies how the state of Maine was one of the few states that effectively implemented government assistance to Native Americans.

In general, Egger interests Lanman so greatly because he possesses such a contrasting viewpoint. Lanman comes from an established American family and Egger from an established English family. As so explicitly defined in the conclusive paragraph of “The Hermit of Aroostook,” Lanman hails from New York City while Egger has spent the last two years alone. The two men are from different worlds, yet they can both identify as Americans. With this, Lanman’s text is greatly an account of untold and new perspectives that captivate our author. To consider Maine the “least important state” is a travesty. Such statement is not in line with the current anthological trend where perspectives from underrepresented times, places, and peoples are essential. In addition, these uncovered voices are the last steps in completing the narrative of a certain time and place. With its views on international, literary, and national occurrences—“The Hermit of Aroostook” is a valuable piece of text that triumphantly counters the general overflowing source of written word.

---

[1] Swett, Sophie. Stories of Maine. New York City: American Book, 1899. Print.

[2] The State Historical Society of Missouri. Lanman, Charles (1819-1895), Collection, 1826-1869. The State Historical Society of Missouri. The State Historical Society of Missouri, 4 Jan. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2012.

[3] Bates, William. The Maclise Portrait-Gallery of Illustrious Literary Characters. London: Chatto and Windus, Picadilly, 1883. Print.

[4] New Brunswick Census Bureau. Public Archives of Canada. New Brunswick Census Return 1851: Victoria County, Andover Parish. By New Brunswick Census Bureau. 6,  1851. Print.

[5] Crouse, R. "The Early History of Crouseville, Maine 1800 - 1875." Crouse Family History, Second Edition. Seattle, WA: Rogue, 2000. N. pag. Print.

[6] Crouse, R. "Crouseville Border War” Crouse Family History, Second Edition. Seattle, WA: Rogue, 2000. N. pag. Print.

[7] Lanman, Charles. ""The Hermit of Aroostook"" Adventures on the Wilds of the United States and British American Provinces. Ed. Charles Lanman. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Sen. John W. Moor, 1856. 312-24. Print.

[8]  Lanman, Charles. ""The Hermit of Aroostook"" Adventures on the Wilds of the United States and British American Provinces. Ed. Charles Lanman. Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Sen. John W. Moor, 1856. 312-24. Print.

[9] Gatto, John Taylor . "Eyeless in Gaza." The Underground History of American Public Education (2010): n.p. Print.

[10] Redish, Laura. "Native Languages of the Americas: Maliseet(Malecite, Malecites, Malisit)." Native Americans: The Maliseet Indian Tribe (Malecite, Malecites, Skicin, Maliseet Indians). Native Languages of the Americas, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2012.

[11] "Native American Culture Timeline: The Story of Maine" The Story of Maine Timeline. Maine Public Broadcasting Network, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2012.

FULL TEXT 

The Early American Insanity Defense

Alyssa Kay
Dr. Coronado
ENGL 226
10 November, 2012

The Early American Insanity Defense
“If anyone be insane, let him not be seen openly in the town, but let his kinsfolk watch over him as best they may under penalty of a fine,”
-Plato, Laws

In 1848, there was an inevitable, dated presence of British law that permeated judicial decisions in the Post-Revolutionary United States of America. Despite their attempts to break free from British influence, United States constituents were subject to legislation guided by the framework of their transatlantic mother.   This held particularly true with the insanity defense.  “Insane” was a loose term used to describe people who would be classified in 21^st century terms as either mentally disabled or mentally ill. The insane were generally isolated within their homes at the care of their family, locked in cellars away from civilization.  Any acts committed outside the home would be left for judgment of the United States court systems.  If an individual did not fit narrow criteria in manifesting lack of moral reasoning, he or she would be incarcerated or put to death.  By the mid 1700’s, insane British and American citizens were placed into a version of Dutch Dr. Boerhaave’s “gyrating chair,” also known as the “circulating swing” (Foerschner, par.6).  The gyrating chair unsuccessfully intended to restore any internal imbalances by shaking its patrons at a speed of 100 revolutions per minute.  The insane were often left unresponsive after the treatment (Noll 97). 

This is a portrait of the insane in 1848.  During a time when little was known about the brain and its functions and dysfunctions, I. Edwards, a little known author to the 21^st century American reader, published a progressive text in the American Whig Review that was ahead of his time in its ability to comment on the fallacies of the United States’ legal system.  Edwards contended that dated systems dictating the mortality of individuals undermines the United States promise of life and liberty.  Moreover, Edwards argued that attempting to understand the mind of any other individual and then sentence him or her to death was unethical, as was the process of trying to define “insane” so narrowly.   Thus, Edward’s “Insanity—How Far A Legal Defence” is imperative to understanding American culture before 1865 in its ability to demonstrate how far Americans had come in understanding their own legal system, and yet, how little the system understood about the people it served. 

            In the 21^st century, doctors are able to discern between schizophrenia and autism; however, in the 19^th century, individuals with either illness were lumped into the category of "insanity."  There were two categories of insane that largely dictated the repercussions of an individual’s actions.  The first loosely hinted at an idea of mental retardation, or underdevelopment, while the second alluded towards a mental illness        

          The first degree of insanity, or partial insanity, distinguished between development and illness.  That is, a man deemed partially insane was thought to display the reasoning and developmental skills of a child.  People of the time often described partially insane as infantile or drunkards, who are rendered incompetent in civil affairs (Edwards 269).  Partially insane people were thought to be incapable of managing personal finances and passing the reasonable judgment essential for day to day functioning.  These standards, however, were defined in 1680 by English jurist Lord Matthew Hale (Crotty 108).  During the time Edwards completed this text, the standards for partial mental illness had remained utterly stagnant for over 150 years

            French Psychiatrist Jean-Etienne Esquirol, however, was a pioneer in defining and discerning between the mentally ill and the mentally challenged.  In his 1845 publication Mental Maladies: A treatise on insanity, Esquirol stated that "idiocy is not a disease but a condition in which the intellectual facilities are never manifested or have never been developed sufficiently to enable the idiot to acquire such amount of knowledge as persons of his own age reared in similar circumstances are capable of receiving" (Human, par.3).  This speaks true to the court system’s definition of partially insane.  Defendants who were considered partially insane were free of their civil crimes based on this idea of idiocy.   By the time Edwards’ “Insanity—How Far A Legal Defence”  reached the printed press, terms like idiocy and lunacy were used to characterize the two groups.  The parameters of lunacy, or the second category of insanity, were subject to change with the trials that arose. 

The second definition of insane, or lunacy, insinuated the individual was dangerous to society or self.  These individuals were considered totally insane.  Appraisal depended on the individual’s inability to remember committing the crime, as well as their moral inability to distinguish right from wrong. Dating back to 1581, the insanity plea excused the defendant of any responsibility on the basis of their mental illness (Frontline, par.1).  Mental illness was merely defined by an inability to distinguish good from evil. British courts called this “the wild beast test,” which stated, “If a madman or a natural fool, or a lunatic in the time of his lunacy do [kill a man], this is no felonious act for they cannot be said to have any understanding will.” (Frontline, par.1)    If it was apparent that the defendant lacked reasoning, the individual was deemed totally insane and sent home, thus acquitted of his crime.  The problem with this test, as pointed out in Edward’s text, is that discerning good from evil, or right from wrong, is not always definitive of mental illness, as more needed to be taken into consideration.
  As Edwards pointed out, the legal system noticed, more needed to be considered in the insanity defense.  In the year 1800, James Hadfield attempted to murder King George III of the United Kingdom (Moran 493).  Hadfield, a former prisoner of war, insisted his attempt to assassinate the King was to inspire the crowd to attack him. Hadfield believed Christ was coming for him, and he thought assassinating the King would lead to his own execution.  Hadfield wished for death, but was unable to commit his own suicide (Moran 493).  Hadfield’s case required a restructuring and reconsideration of insanity.  Chief counsel Thomas Erskine, thus added to the definitions of insanity.  Erskine contended that in order to be acquitted of a crime, the defendant must lack both moral reasoning skills and recollection of the actions (Moran 504).  Because Hadfield attempted to assassinate the king, Parliament needed to reconsider the danger of allowing the mentally ill back into society.  Therefore, after acquitting Hadfield, the Parliament of Great Brittan saw it necessary to pass the Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800, which forced all acquitted criminally insane persons into incarceration (Moran 513).  

Shortly after the insanity defense considered Hadfield and the cognitive inability to remember a crime, courts adopted the M'Naughten test.  In 1843, Daniel M'Naughten attempted to murder the prime minister (Crotty 117). Instead, M'Naughten murdered the prime minister’s secretary, Robert Peel.  Initially acquitted after pleading the insanity defense, M’Naughten’s case was reviewed again by a verdict under orders from Queen Victoria. After review, the jury decided that M’Naughten was not only unable to distinguish right from wrong, but unable to comprehend his actions as he was committing them.  This came be to known as the M’Naughten rule, which was adopted by the United States.   It stated, “in all cases that every man is to be presumed to be sane…until the contrary be proved…and that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Lee, par.4).   This would later be challenged by irresistible impulse, or the challenge that one can be conscious of his or her actions and their implications; however, their mental illness renders them unable to fight that impulse.

            While some of the mentally disabled and mentally ill were distinguished between and acquitted of crimes, the categories for defining these people were limited.  Mental disorders were not fully accounted for in the early legal definitions of insanity; thus, many individuals, who were mentally ill or inept, waived responsibility for their crimes.  Therefore, Edward’s lamentations on America’s congruence with the United Kingdom’s treatment of the insane seems to speak to a larger idea of reformation.  He argues insanity is multifaceted and complex; moreover, Edwards recognized the intangible complexities of mental illness and the array of individual cases within one type of illness.  He argues that a judge’s observation of moral judgment alone cannot conclusively identify illness. This speaks directly to the legal systems dichotomy of preponderance of evidence and clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence, which Edwards seems to desire in cases regarding the criminally insane, bases itself off of substantial, complete evidence, rather than probability. Probability of insanity is what Edwards sought to reform, as his documents call for a closer examination of mental disease and an individualized structure.

            Thus, the aforementioned cases, which Edwards speaks against in 1848, are the same that paved the constitutionality of John Hinckley Jr.’s 1982 acquittal for shooting President Ronald Regan (Linder, par.1).  Soon after, the United States Congress noted the fallacy in the court’s ability to define insane.  The United States passed The Insanity Reform Act of 1984, which required clear and convincing evidence from the insanity defense, where it had before required a preponderance of evidence, or the probability of lack of moral reasoning (Linder, par.53). 

            Edwards, though he did not lead a well documented life, certainly documented the erroneous nature of the acquittal process in its earlier stages.  “Insanity—How Far a Legal Defence” serves as a beacon to preserve legal individuality; it seeks to eliminate legislative ignorance against unique cases that exist at biological levels.  The text elicits a response from judges and jurors, showing the problematic nature of using a moral compass as the conclusive, definitive diagnoses of mental illness.  Moreover, the following text lends itself as a mirror to the U.S judicial system, recognizing the court rooms’ underserved constituents and the United States’ transatlantic umbilical cord.

                                                           

Primary Text

Works Referenced

Crotty, Homer D. "History of Insanity as a Defence to Crime in English Criminal Law." California Law   Review 12.3 (1924): 104-23. Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository.  Web. 9 Nov. 2012
Edwards, I. "Insanity--How Far a Legal Defence." The American Whig Review 8.3 (1848): 269-275. Cornell University Library. Web. 25 Sept. 2012.
Foerschner, Allison M. “The History of Mental Illness: From ‘Skull Drills’ to ‘Happy Pills’." Student Pulse Online Academic Student Journal. 2.9 (2012). Web. 9 Nov. 2012
"Human Intelligence: Jean Etienne Esquirol." Human Intelligence: Jean Etienne Esquirol.  Indiana University, 26 Jan. 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2012.
"Insanity." National Paralegal. National Paralegal College, 2012. Web. 03 Nov. 2012.
"Jean-Etienne-Dominique Esquirol". Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 03 Dec. 2012
Lee, Stephanie. "The M'Naghten Rule." The History of the Insanity Plea. n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012.
Linder, Douglas O. "Account of the Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr." Famous Trials. University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) School of Law, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2012. 
"Mental Illness." Mental Illness, Information about Mental Illness. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2012.
 Moran, Richard. "The Origin of Insanity as a Special Verdict: The Trial for Treason of James Hadfield (1800)." Law & Society Review 19.3 (1985): 487-519. Print.
Noll, Richard. The Encyclopedia of Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders. 3rd ed. New    York: Facts on File, Incorporated, 2007. Print.
"Notorious Insanity Cases." Frontline: A Crime of Insanity. PBS, 2002. Web. 07 Nov. 2012.

 

The Sotweed Factor: Christine Brown, "An Informative Poem about Early America"

Christine Brown

Teresa Coronado

Eng 226

6 December 2012

An Informative Poem About Early America

            “The Sotweed Factor” or “A Voyage to Maryland” is a historical satirical poem. A satire is: “The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues” (Oxford English Dictionary). Of course at the time it was written, the poem was addressing contemporary issues; the issues which the poem addresses are no longer contemporary, but it can show a useful perspective on voyaging to America, as it gives a humorous, but still realistic, point of view. This poem retains much of the historical information concerning America, but offers a somewhat humorous account of the history. The rhymed poetic style and humor make it interesting and entertaining which makes the poem read more like fiction than the nonfiction account it really is.

            “The Sotweed Factor” or “A Voyage to Maryland” was written by Ebenezer Cooke. Cooke was born in England (Barrett). He lived solely in England until around the age of 27. Cooke’s father had preceded him in coming to America (Richards). His father had purchased land in Maryland, and when Cooke was around 27, his father passed away (Barrett). Upon his death, Cooke’s father left his land in Maryland to his son and daughter who still lived in England (Barrett). When Cooke heard of his inheritance, he went to Maryland to receive it (Barrett). In addition to receiving his inheritance, Cooke was also leaving England to escape some debts that he owed that he didn’t want to have to repay (Richards). Cooke’s plan was to go to the new world and become a tobacco agent (Richards). When he sets out on his journey to Maryland, Cooke is surprised by the many misfortunes that greet him along the way. Cooke is significantly unhappy in Maryland for numerous reasons, and so, he keeps his residence in both England and Maryland, travelling between the two as he pleased (Barrett). As a writer and a man of the law, Cooke used his education to document his voyage in what he thought would be the most effective way. “The Sotweed Factor” is about Cooke’s journey to Maryland and what he finds when he gets there. The poem was originally published in 1708 in England (Barrett). There is still some debate as to whether Cooke wrote the poem after his first trip in 1694, or if he wrote it later, closer to the actual publication date (Richards).

            Whether he wrote it after his first voyage or not, from the beginning of “The Sotweed Factor,” it is clear that, in contrast to many voyagers travelling to the New World, Cooke is leaving England unwillingly: “With heavy heart, concern'd that I/ Was forc'd my Native soil to fly” (Cooke 5-6). He doesn’t want to leave, but because he can’t pay his debts, he has to. This is where his unfortunate events begin. After his hesitancy to leave his homeland, Cooke’s outlook doesn’t improve during the voyage: To Mary-Landour ship was bound/Where we arriv'd in dreadful Pain/ Shock'd by the Terrours of the Main/For full three Months, our wavering Boat/Did thro' the surley Ocean float” (Cooke 11-15). This passage from the poem shows the pains of a long journey. Cooke’s voyage had proved as disappointing to him as having to leave England did.

            Once Cooke arrived at the new world, he immediately begins making fun of the people there: This is important because it explores the differences in lifestyles and luxuries between England and the New World. Cooke states:  “In Shirts and Drawers of Scotch-clothBlue/With neither Stockings, Hat, nor Shooe/These SOTWEED Planters Crowd the Shoar” (Cooke 25-27). The people here look ridiculous to him, because they do not have the nice, luxurious clothing like the people from England are accustomed to. Instead they have had to try to make do with what was available to them. Cooke goes on making fun of the food that they offer him: “In wooden Dishes grac'd the board/ With Homine and Syder-pap,  saying that even dogs would be hesitant to eat it. Cooke’s actions and words show that he has no real desire to be in the new world, and also that he wants nothing to do with it. He wants no part of its clothes, food, or anything else it has to offer.

            After his initial mocking of the people in the new world, Cooke encounters many hardships that come along with a new, undeveloped territory. This information is also useful in a more complete understanding of the early American colonies because it reveals the culture shock of going from a well-developed, civilized land, to a place that is only beginning to be cultivated. Although Cooke keeps the rhymed poetic form, he manages to tell a complete story of many hardships that he faces in this new place. Upon first arrival, he speaks of not having a place to sleep, and being accused of being an escaped slave (Cooke 83-89). He finds this very insulting and rude. His difficult encounters go on to include other rude behaviors and bad manners. So much so that he believes even the people who were formerly from a civilized country are now closer to the savages in behavior than they are to being proper and civilized (Cooke 695-703).

            Cooke’s hardships continue in many other areas. One is dealing with the local wild life. The issue with wildlife in the New World is important because Cooke’s inexperience with wildlife shows how urbanized London was at this time. Since Cooke was from London, he was not accustomed to seeing or hearing wild creatures running around freely. As a result, he finds the encounters with the wild life strange and bothersome. He mentions many unpleasant interactions with the wild life in the new world. One of those encounters is with a pack of wolves who are howling after him, and Cooke is frightened that they will eat him (Cooke 71-74). Another encounter is with a rattlesnake. He hears the rattlesnake hissing nearby and climbs a tree to escape from it (Cooke 21-25). Unfortunately, while he is in the tree escaping the rattlesnake bite, he is forced into another unpleasant wild life encounter with mosquitoes (Cooke 230-232). Cooke also complains about the croaking of the frogs in the new world. He said: “A Noise might move their Wooden King/I stuff'd my ears with Cotten white/ For fear of being deaf out-right” (Cooke 215-217). Obviously this is an example of Cooke’s humor in addition to one of his complaints about the local wildlife, because frogs croaking isn’t likely to make anyone go deaf, but it was an annoyance to him nonetheless.

            In addition to these bothersome issues Cooke had with the local wild life, were other grievances he had with the people there. Included in those grievances was theft, as he was a victim of it. Someone stole many of his belongings from him while he slept (Cooke 444-447). In addition to theft, he also was unfortunate enough to encounter a Quaker con-artist. The Quaker refused to pay the debts he owed to Cooke, and at last ran away (Cooke 613-618). When Cooke tried to take the Quaker to court to get what he was owed, the court system also proved unprofitable for Cooke (Cooke 635-655). After this last unfortunate event, Cooke disliked the new world more than ever. These events are important because Cooke was also a thief himself since he was running away from debts he owed in England. The fact that Cooke was frustrated with others committing the same crime that he was guilty of adds even more humor to the poem. By writing a satire, Cooke was trying to point out some of the flaws in the New World that he felt needed to be resolved, but one of the grievances that frustrated him the most was one that he is guilty of himself.

            “The Sotweed Factor” is a unique work for several reasons. One reason is, as mentioned above, it is a satire. As a satirical poem, “The Sotweed Factor” is meant to criticize and ridicule the irony of certain issues in a humorous way.  This feature makes the poem unique, because a historical satire is less common than other more serious types of literature from the colonial U.S. With Cooke’s first-hand experience, the text shows some of the real hardships and challenges of coming to the new world, but it shows it from a more interesting and entertaining perspective.

            Another thing that makes “The Sotweed Factor” unique is its view on religion. Most historical accounts about the founding of America present the pursuit of religious freedom to worship God as they desired as the main purpose of their endeavors. However, Cooke presents a new idea in “The Sotweed Factor.” He compares the acts of the English settlers to the rebellious acts of Cain in the Bible. Cooke suggests that the English settler’s actions against England, their brothers, were no different than Cain’s murderous actions against his brother Abel. An article titled “Ebenezer Cooke” states: “Cooke is using the reference of brother turning against brother to imply that Maryland patriots have turned away from England” (Barrett). This suggestion is a very different view than what most accounts offer. In contrast to their claims to be in search of God’s will, Cooke suggests that by establishing a new colony in competition with England, they are running from God. The reason this viewpoint is different from what most people are accustomed to from early America is because the New England works are more common than the works from Maryland. This alternative view could be valuable in a more complete understanding the settlement of early America.

            In addition to the differing views on religion, Cooke also presents many accounts of hardships in early America from a new perspective. This is no longer a man who is trying to see every hardship concerning the new country as a providence of God, but rather an annoying and unnecessary trial. Cooke has no desire to convince anyone that God is responsible for all the bad things that happen to him. In contrast, he thinks all these unfortunate events have been caused by people leaving God’s will in search of new things. Reading this text offers many contrasts to the history of early America. As most works originating from the New England area have the same general ideas and beliefs, including texts from Maryland offers a broader perspective on the colonization of America. These differing opinions can also be important in understanding early America more completely.

Additional information on “Sotweed Factor” and on Ebenezer Cooke, can be found on a few helpful university websites. These websites offer a lot of historical information both on the satire and on the author. The actual poem itself is found on the Early America’s Digital Archive website http://mith.umd.edu/eada/html/display.php?docs=cooke_sotweed.xml&action=show. Other historical information can be found on the poem and author at a few other websites, which are: The University of North Carolina at Pembroke http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/canam/cooke.htm, Maryland Institute for Technology in the Humanities (but prepared for Old Dominion University) http://mith.umd.edu//summit/Proceedings/Richards.htm, and Lawyers and Poetry http://myweb.wvnet.edu/~jelkins/lp-2001/cooke.html. This poem is not only interesting, but it is also important in showing new perspectives on early America; which is why it should be included in the canon of American literature.

 

Works Cited

Barrett, Tammy. Ebenezer Cook[e]. University of North Carolina at Pembroke, 1998. Web. 25 September 2012.

Cooke, Ebenezer. Sotweed Factor; or, a Voyage to Maryland. Early Americas Digital Archive, 1707. Web. 25 September 2012.

 “Ebenezer Cooke.” Strangers to us all.  Lawyers and Poetry, n.d. Web. 25 September 2012.

Richards, Jeffrey H.. Ibero/Anglo Early American Conference. Old Dominion University. May 2002. Web. 25 September 2012.

 “Satire.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2^nd ed. 2012. Web.

 

Link to The Sotweed Factor

 

 

Samson Occom's Sermon on Temperance and Morality

Samson Occom's Sermon on Temperance and Morality

Casey Baumeister

Dr. Teresa Coronado

English 226

13 December 2012

Samson Occom’s Sermon on Temperance and Morality

            Samson Occom’s sermon on Temperance and Morality is a sermon that is much like what we would hear at church. This one in particular was made for Moses Paul to be said before he was hung. Before the explanation of the importance of “Samson Occom’s sermon on Temperance and Morality” it is imperative to know just who this man is. Only by understanding the struggles he has faced in his life and the choices he made in the end can it be understood why this particular sermon is so important. Occom used this sermon as a way to discuss not just Moses Paul’s actions but the prices that come with them, prices that everyone will have to pay in the end. He also uses this sermon as a way to offer hope of change, saying that each person has the power to fight the individual devil that lives inside them.

            Occom was born in Heathen in 1723, brought up in Heathenism up until around the age of 16 or 17, than moved around to New London, Connecticut, and New England (“Because I am Poor”). His father was Aukum, which can be loosely translated into Occom, founder of the Mohegan which is located on the western bank of river Thames. His mother was Sarah, a descendent of Uncas and a Groton Native American and probably part of the Samson family, explaining where Samson Occom inherited his name. When Occom was 10, Jonathan Barber came among them and attempted to start a school, a project that failed in the end. Then during the summer times David Jewett would come once a fortnight and hold a sermon to which the majority of the Native Americans would participate in only because of the blankets handed out that would be useful when it started to get colder (“Because I am Poor”). Around the age of 16 Occom recognized that the way he was living his life was wrong and knew he needed to change. He spent 6 months struggling out of the darkness and by the age of 17 he was finally able to reach the light and feel free. In that new found light the desire to read and write and learn so he could pass the Word to his people bloomed inside of him, it took him 6 months to read without spelling but that would prove to still not be enough (William Love).

            By age 19 Occom was able to read some of the Bible but still sought out Mr. Wheelock, hoping he would accept him as a student and teach him how to read. Mr. Wheelock did end up accepting and tutored Occom and had him help him for four years. By the end of the four years Occom’s health was not good and he was weak, his eyes were strained to point he had to quit his studies (“Because I am Poor”). By the winter of 1747 he began to teach school on Long Island and continued to do that for 12 years. By November 1749, Occom’s influence in the tribe had spread and he became a school master, counselor, judge, and preacher, these duties also spread to the neighboring tribe the Shenecock’s. In 1751 he married Mary Fowler who is a daughter of the Montauk tribe and gained brothers; David and Jacob Fowler. And later a future son-in-law named Joseph Johnson, all of which became the Native American heroes of New England and were the ones that helped give birth to Brothertown. On November 29, 1787, Occom became minister in Brothertown of the first Presbyterian Church that was set up without the help from white men (William Love and “Because I am Poor”).

            Samson Occom only wanted to take care of his people and be true to his faith; he did not judge or gossip and spread negative words about others, because to do that would be un-Christian. The sermon on Temperance and Morality is about Moses Paul; a Native American man that was hanged for murdering a person while under the influence of drink and claimed because of the drink. Moses Paul knew that he had sinned and wished that Occom would pray for him. He asked for help, hoping Occom would allow him a way to repent even though he believed he was not going to be able to be saved by God. He did not even think that he could repent or pray because he was so full of sin. He thought there was too much sin to even try. Occom believed that the greater the sin the greater the need to repent and that God was willing to save every person who asks for forgiveness. And it was this belief that prompts his sermon on Temperance and Morality.

Occom talks about the fact that people govern their own bodies. The Devil has no role there; he doesn’t force us to go to the bar and pour the liquid down our throats. He argues that God has given humans our bodies and neither He nor the Devil owns them, we do. We control our legs that walk us through those doors. We control the mouth that orders those drinks and swallows them down. And we control the hand that continually lifts the glass to our lips. The very act of drinking is only fit for the Devil and his demons because of how ungodly and unchristian it is. Yet there are plenty of Christians that drink, that enjoy liquor every once and awhile. Occom himself has indulged in the act, feeling “…the sensation of intoxication he condemned himself… not from intemperate drinking, but from having a small drink when he hadn’t eaten all day” (William Love). This section of the sermon is his way of saying ‘these bodies are ours, we control them not the devil, and so we must own up to our sins.’ Don’t be afraid to repent because the people who need to repent the most are the ones who need the most saving and God is always listening (“Execution of Moses Paul” and “Temperance and Morality”).

            It’s not just the Native Americans either, English Christians, who where so knowledgeable, were leading the Native American’s down a path that was destined toward Hell. Those white Europeans talked as if swearing was their mother language, like they were born knowing the words. Yet in their “perfect heathenism” the Native Americans had no words for that kind of language. Even before they had Christians to tell them what was good or bad, swear words didn’t exist. Not because they couldn’t be made up but because they are horrible words that serve no purpose. In fact Native Americans hold God’s name in very high regard. Calling him “Cauhtuntootc”, meaning “Supreme Independent Power”, a name so grate that children could not speak it. Occom was not trying to say that the Native Americans were perfect, because they did sin; it was just so much more with the Christians introducing them to all manner of abominations (“Temperance and Morality”).

            The Europeans brought about diseases of the like that no Native American has known before. One such disease being a venereal disease also known as French Pox. Ships would carry it from place to place, spreading it through the tribes. The only redeeming factor being it was just as easy for the Europeans to get it as well. Along with this the Native Americans took up the act of whoredom, an act that was not previously known. A practice that no human being should have to go through, yet the English had whore houses all over their nation. They were supposed to be a Christian nation, a learned nation but still they fought common sense and continued down the path of judgment. And that is something you can be sure of; God will judge you (“Temperance and Morality”).

            Another practice that can be seen in every nation is contention, quarreling, and fighting. Whispering, backbiting and defaming one another, breeding quarrels and wars, but there is no way of controlling that, it is in our blood, in our inner self. Human’s were “condemned by Scripture.” If a person is treated badly it is automatically assumed that they can be treated better by that person, that they have the power to change themselves. That also means we can no longer respond to violence with like violence. Because if we are to believe that they could be better then likewise we can be better too. Humanity must strive for truth. No one will ever speak against another so long as they talk about their true character, they are merely speaking facts. At the same time people need to be sure to speak the truth, gossip will better no man. Another way of speaking against a neighbor is if you see one of his flaws or mistakes and decide to spread it around and make it sound worse then it is. It is in the power of men to treat each other better, we might as well be the first ones to step up (“Temperance and Morality”).

            This document, this sermon, was created for Moses Paul for the day of his death. It explains why he acted the way he did, that it was because of his drinking that he ended up killing that man. But it goes further and explains how it was him who did it, not the devil and how he is the one that needs to take responsibility for his actions and how he is willing to pay the price for his sins. It also talks about what it really means to be a Christian, how it’s not the color of our skin or what side of the ocean we live on but about the way we decide to live and what we do with the life God has granted to us. If the people of this world want to live in a better place then it is up to us to step up and make it a better place. Blame needs to stop being placed on outside sources, people need to step up, grow up and most of all learn how to love and forgive because “it is in our power to hate one another, then there is [also] power to love one another and if [we] don’t love one another, then we are self-condemned…do well, or do better; this is the universal creed of all mankind” (“Temperance and Morality”). This very last lesson is what the world today needs to learn. Bombs attack homes and hearts and we need to be able to join together in an ultimate show of forgiveness and express our love for one another and that is what will finally lead us to peace.

Works Cited

Love, William De Loss. “Early History of the Brothertown Indians: Samson Occom: the Founding of             Brothertown by Christian Indians…” Wisconsin Historical Society”. Oneida Historical Society, 1894. 1-4. Web. 1 October 2012.

Occom, Samson. “I Believe It Is Because I Am a Poor Indian: Samson Occom’s Life as an Indian Minister”. History Matters: The U.S. Survey Course on the Web. Dartmouth College Archives, 1982. 12-18. Web. 19 November 2012.

Occom, Samson. “A Speech by Brothertown Indian Leader Samson Occom, 1771: A Sermon at the            Execution of Moses Paul…” Wisconsin Historical Society. London, 1781. 1-17. Web. 1 October 2012.

Occom, Samson. “Samson Occom’s Sermon on Temperance and Morality”. Early Americas Digital          Archives. Connecticut Historical Society, 2005. 398-402. Web. 1 October 2012.