Talk:American Enlightenment

untitled

I didn't write this. It was originally the whole article at "American Enlightnment" (sic), straight up, no jokes: haha--66.193.131.48 (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Many believe that the American revolution was directly linked to the enlightenment and that is was an eneviable outcoume. I find no supporting evidence of such a statement. While it can be said that a child will eventually leave thier parents there is nothing that states that the child weill rebel against those pareents. This is something done by the childed based on the way they are treated and shown how to treat issues. I believe that the American colonies can be seen as such a child. America was destined to leave her mother country, enlsnd, hoever it was not enevitable that she do so with such violence and rebellion. Much of the reasons behind the rebellion were based on the way Britain began treatin the colonies, much as a mother would as she becomes menopausal. Based on teh way the relationship began with the conlinoines and britain , the things could very well have reqmined as they were for a lot longer. Eventually the americans could have separted themselves as a free nation, but without all the violence that ensued.

I think I have an idea for a PhD thesis: Great Britain as Post-Menopausal Mum: A Canadian Perspective! Teehee. QuartierLatin1968 00:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

This is a very good start! Here are my comments - they might seem overwhelming at first, but I really do think that this is an excellent beginning!

The Enlightenment in America, Britain and France

• I would add a few more sentences explaining the moderate Enlightenment and the revolutionary Enlightenment as well as what in particular American thinkers took from both. For example, rather than just saying the "pluralist constitutional politics" of Hume, perhaps you could discuss the impact on Madison and the constitution?
• This section needs citations to the historians you cite in the text.

Republicanism

• The first paragraph is not very intelligible to those who haven't read Pocock, Bailyn, Wood, and Kramnick. I agree that the narrative you are telling is the most common one told, but the terms of that narrative need to be explained more fully to the reader. I would give a paragraph to each theory. Pocock's view, in particular, is difficult to explain, as the words "republican" and "liberal" mean different things in his argument than they do to the average American reader - and here we have to consider readers all over the world.
• Rather than quoting large swaths of text, I would urge you to paraphrase. It is easier for a reader to follow one style of prose.

I think this paragraph needs to be changed. As it is written, it implies that republicanism and liberalism were opposing sets of ideas. Republicanism (as the word meant at the time) was more *related* to liberalism (as the word meant at the time) than opposed to it, because it was about a form of self-rule as opposed to monarchy. Republicanism and liberalism were different ideas but mainly because they were about different things. Republicanism referred to the way a government should be formed, and liberalism referred to a philosophic outlook and a political philosophy that flowed through it. Republicanism was the form of government that liberals tended to like. Bailyn's point had to do with what set of priorities most strongly motivated people in bringing about the Revolution, not that Revolutionaries would agree with one set of ideas and not the other. As it is written most readers would associate the terms with Republicans and Democrats, which they have nothing much to do with. Rlitwin (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

• This section is basically a prose list of phrases related to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". This needs to be changed into a series of paragraphs that tell a story. I would turn to the scholarship on Jefferson to do this.

Deism

• The opening two paragraphs of this section need citations. While what you have presented is common knowledge among historians of the period, it is not to the average reader.
• The last paragraph needs to be greatly expanded - I would suggest expanding it into several paragraphs. Explain to the reader exactly how the thought of these men was deistic. Considering most Americans think the Founders were Christian, this is particularly important to explain in detail! :)

Religious Tolerance

• Like many of the other sections, this one has more on the background philosophy than on its effect on American thinkers. I would urge you to expand the paragraphs on the Americans and the effect Locke had on them as well as their own ideas.
• The first paragraph needs more citations to scholarship.
• The second paragraph needs to be cited to scholarship rather than to primary sources.

Separation of church and state

• This section could do with a bit more history about the development of church and state, specifically with the history of Jefferson in Virginia, for example.

See also

• "See also" sections are for links that do not appear in the article.

Other

• Should there be a section on science? There has been a spate of books recently on the founders and science.

I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why so much on religion?

There are three sections dealing with religion: Deism, Seperation of Church and State, and Freedom of Religion. This seems to give an inordinate amount of attention to these facets of the subject, while so much else is either barely scratched or not touched at all. Shoreranger (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism and Republicanism: Government of the People, by the People, for the People: unbalanced tag

Stubbing thread as don't see a discussion corresponding to the tag. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC) --Baxter999 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC) The source of the "life,liberty, property and pursuit of happiness" needs more work. The Massachusetts declarations in the 1640,s had almost these exact phrases. They were derived mostly by 2 people (Cotton and another) who developed their ideas from the Bible and English common law principles. But they were basically an American invention in this form. Locke and Blackstone wrote decades later than the American documents.

Also, the influence of Deism is way overstated. Much more important were the basic religious beliefs and the Bible. Studies of the sources of the ideas of the founders show very few Deist influences vs. lots more of the Bible and religious writers like Grotius. Deism was a popular idea for a few years but is decreasing in importance with the latest studies and easy availability of source-checking from computers. One needs only include a few quotes from the founders often associated with Deism to see how little Deism affected their ideas. (Paine would be the exception but his later Deist writings were really not influential in American political thought.)

As is, this article is almost unintelligible and lacking in basic information.

Also important would be the idea of the American Enlightenment being quite different than much of the European enlightenment. The French Revolution was considered almost an opposite of the American Revolution by Burke and many founders.

And of course 4 citations in the Declaration of God being sovereign and the source of our rights can't be over-estimated.--Baxter999 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Europeans have their own articles

I deleted long passages on Europeans (like Locke and Deism) not tied directly to the American Enlightenment. They are covered in their own articles. I alse emphasize that republicanism has a long American history before 1776 (says Bailyn, Wood, Pocock). Rjensen (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)