I'm new.
I've opened this new blog because my father thought it would be a good idea for me to post some of my history essays. So I've posted one I did for English 102 due tommorow! You all get to grade it before my teacher.
I wrote on this topic hestiantly, and I don't want it to become a commentary on all colonial thought as Jefferson had a mind of his own. So read it with a grain of salt, given that these are my first explorations into this topic of Jefferson.
I've learned a lot from this essay, especially that no kingdom on earth is perfect, and only God's kingdom will be perfect. He has taught me to look at history with honesty even if it hurts.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Circumstantial Similarities, Philosophical Differences
Both America and India were under British control and gained independence from Britain. Thomas Jefferson and Mahatma Gandhi played critical roles in their countries to bring their independence. Jefferson helped author the Declaration of Independence for the thirteen American colonies, while Gandhi pursued India’s freedom for many years until Britain finally granted her liberty. Although both fought a common enemy and a common cause, autonomy emerged from distinct procedures: the American colonies engaged in war while India fought through non-violent resistance. For the historical record, it is useful to consider what could be the possible influences on each man leading to such dissimilar operational procedures. To fully comprehend and compare both cases requires presenting the historical background and examining the political circumstances, their religious heritage, and any philosophical influences in their lives.
From the 1600’s to the 1700’s thirteen colonies formed on the eastern North American coastline. Paul Johnson in A History of the American People notes Britain supervised colonial affairs through a Privy Council but exercised minimal control over the colonies during the earlier years (103). When the colonies prospered, Britain, seeking material benefit, sought to enforce their authority. The colonists not only deplored Britain’s oppressive acts but also opposed Parliament’s attempts to rule them. According to United States History: Heritage of Freedom by Michael R. Lowman and others, at the First Continental Congress, colonial delegates authored the Declaration and Resolves stating only the King held authority over them according to their charters and compacts and no other authority could remove their rights as British subjects (94). Although the King refused to accept their pleas threatening to subject them with force, the colonists continued seeking reconciliation. Even after Lexington and Concord, where British troops fired upon colonial militia, the Continental Congress wrote the Olive Branch Petition. It asked the king to hear their pleas for justice. Despite this, King George III pursued in subjecting the colonies and hired the Hessian troops to help subject them. The king had rejected honoring the original relationship between him and the colonies; therefore, the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson along with a committee helped write the document. Britain and the colonies went to war for seven more years until the Americans defeated the British army.
Having seen America’s past, let us consider India’s history. During the age of exploration, the British established the East India Company in India. Through several wars, treaties, and arrangements, the company gained power within the nation’s political structure. Jerry H. Combee in History of the World in Christian Perspective and Louis Fisher in The Life of Mahatma Gandhi relate the British crown took over the company’s established power in 1858 and continued to institute its presence in India (416) (167). Years later in the early 1900’s Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian national, began seeking India’s independence. He joined the congressional party in India which according to the essay Mahatma Gandhi from India site it, “used both parliamentary and nonviolent resistance and non-cooperation to achieve independence”(India site). Those British laws that they considered unjust they defied in non-violent ways. Gandhi traveled, wrote, and performed many symbolic acts to resist British control. The movement and his influence grew having him portrayed as a hero in the papers (Gandhi movie). Although the British resisted through legislative acts and military action the cause continued. Finally, in a great symbolic act, Gandhi marched to the sea where he made salt. This symbolically declared India’s independence from Britain since it controlled salt’s manufacture and outlawed any Indian salt production. Gandhi continued his efforts through civil disobedience until the British at last granted India her freedom. By 1947, India became an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. (Combee 509) India gained her independence without an organizing an army, rather, with non-violent acts of civil disobedience.
Having reviewed the historical accounts, examination of the origins and extent of English power in each country may reveal factors contributing to Jefferson and Gandhi’s differences of action. Often an individual may approve use of force only in particular circumstances. Perhaps the different political structures caused each one to use different methods. Perchance Jefferson only espoused force when the colonies joined as a national entity and Gandhi used non-violence because India delayed in declaring its independence.
Given such possibilities, let us consider the rise of British rule. England played a critical role in forming the American colonies while in India, it slowly gained power over an established country. India, therefore, retained more right as a sovereign nation to take up arms against the invaders than the colonies. True, many local leaders gave away India’s self-rule as they gave in to bribes but on the other hand, English power grew through several unethical means. Louis Fisher writes, “Gradually, by means mostly foul, but considered normal in that age and place, the British established themselves throughout…the vast Indian subcontinent”(165). Despite this justification of engaging in war, Gandhi chose a different avenue. He writes in a piece chronicled in The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi edited by Raghavan Iyer, “is it not time for us to declare our changeless faith in non-violence of the strong and say we do not seek to defend our liberty with the force of arms but we will defend it with the force of non-violence?” (Iyer 248). Here he called for the Congress to resolve to non-violence as its firm course of action. The colonies, on the other hand, were willing to employ arms against the British even before declaring independence and gaining national sovereignty. Henry Steele Commager in Documents of American History documents that the Continental Congress approved the final draft of the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms that both John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson helped write (92-95). The document states their justification on defending themselves against British aggressions.
Looking into each governmental structure reveals neither man based his actions on the principle that only a nation has the right to bear arms. Jefferson apparently believed people unaffiliated as a national entity could defend themselves with force. Gandhi started his campaign for independence through non-violence before the salt march. Though the salt march only symbolically declared independence, the quote reveals Gandhi believed in non-violence as the only method. Whether the people formed a national entity with national sovereign rights to bear arms did not affect his belief in non-violent means. So their separate beliefs on how to “fight” must originate from something different political technicalities.
Having seen political circumstances let us consider the religious backgrounds of the day. Christianity underpinned colonial society in Jefferson’s day influencing colonial thought and action. Mr. C. Gregg Singer in A Theological Interpretation of American History notes that Puritanism (a conservative, Bible-rooted, Christianity), “permeated colonial life…not only in New England but in the colonies to the South as well”(7). Because of this early influence, Christian beliefs remained dominant in the late 1700s. The Declaration clearly expresses belief in God. For example, it condemns oppression because it debases humanity’s dignity as created beings. Christianity clearly teaches nations have a right to employ arms to defeat evil. Concerning the government it says, “it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Romans13:4). This may be the origin of Jefferson’s belief of a national right to bear arms; nevertheless, despite this biblical principle, there lies within the Declaration of Independence a concept alien to Biblical teaching. It is the theory of government expressed in the sentence, “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”(Jacobus 78). The Bible teaches government derives its power from God not the people. In this aspect, Jefferson adhered to a governmental philosophy inconsistent with the Christian religion. He appears to derive principles from his Christian background and mix them with other orders of thought.
Although Gandhi grew up in India and adhered to Hinduism throughout his life, it was not the only religion forming his thinking. Throughout his life, he sought to decipher the truth and integrate whatever he found in other religions. He describes his introduction to different religions and his assimilation of parts in his beliefs. “But the New Testament produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount….I compared it with the Gita….My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, The Light of Asia and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly”(Iyer 61). Here he read from three religions and sought to take what he could from each. Ultimately, he clarified in a speech at Bombay that he followed Hinduism and the reforms Buddha had brought to it (Iyer144-45). In one of his writings he said, “My life is dedicated to the service of India through the religion of non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism”(Iyer 239) This statement raises a question on interpretation. Did Gandhi deciding to follow non-violence, chose Hinduism? Or, did Hinduism cause him to embrace non-violence? According to Stanley Wolpert author of Gandhi’s Passion: The life and legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi read the Gita (Hindu religious text)under the influence of the Sermon on the Mount. This led him to re-interpret portions of the Gita to fit the principle of turning the other cheek (23). Conclusively, while Hinduism became his main religious practice, he absorbed ideas from any religion that underpinned his personal belief in non-violence.
Within cultures, there are philosophical influences having significant power in their season. In 1690, Englishman as I think in 1907 or later when I was in the think of passive ressitance struggle."s actions. In his commentary on John Locke wrote Two Treatises of Civil Government. Though historians debate on the extent of their influence on colonial thought, they held enough to justify their consideration. Locke espoused the concept of government as a social contract, where the people grant authority to the government forming a pact. If either part defies the contract, it is broken. Locke in Second Treatise of Government writes,
“Sec. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavor to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.”
If the governing body, through tyrannical acts, breaches the terms between the people and they, it is dissolved. The authors of the Declaration appear to voice these theories as they define government and argue King George to be a tyrannical ruler.
Within Locke’s exposition, he argues against non-violent methods in standing against an oppressive ruler. They appear illogical to him. He writes,
“He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand, to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance, and will find such a defence serve only to draw on himself the worse usage” [sic] (Locke Sec. 235). He debates passive resistance will not produce anything and will place the person in a worse situation.
In reading parts of Locke’s treatise, there is a striking similarity to the Declaration of Independence. Parts almost match up word for word. It is clear his writings aided the Document’s formation. If Jefferson agreed with Locke’s perspectives to the extent of using his material in the Declaration, his opinions on peaceful resistance must also have greatly influenced Jefferson.
While Locke is significant in studying Jefferson, Henry Waldo Thoreau, the author of Civil Disobedience is source necessary in examining Gandhi’s philosophical influences. Gandhi read the essay and it proved influential. Gandhi commented on its impact saying, “It left a deep impression on me….That essay seemed to be so convincing and truthful that I felt the need to know more of Thoreau…” (Iyer 71). He agreed with Thoreau’s ideas allowing them to formulate his thinking. In his essay, Thoreau feels each individual ought to live according to his convictions even if he disobeys the government to keep them. To illustrate “disobedience” he recounts his refusal to pay a tax and the resulting night in jail. While he does not use the term “non-violence” or describe in detail what form of disobedience one should pursue, his example is non-violent. Although these ideas influenced Gandhi, it is significant to know when these helped formulate his actions. He provides this information saying, “My first introduction to Thoreau’s writings was I think in 1907 or later when I was in the thick of passive resistance struggle”(Iyer 71). Since Gandhi read the essay after becoming involved in passive resistance, his conviction of non-violence must not directly originate from Thoreau’s philosophies though deeply impacted with his ideas.
To conclude, to understand Jefferson and Gandhi’s dissimilar methods in their common cause this study looked over their political circumstances, religious, and philosophical influences. Studying their political backgrounds revealed neither were based their actions on the political standing of their country. Whether their people held a country’s right to defense or not played no part in either man’s beliefs: Jefferson appealed to take up arms before the colonies were free and Gandhi called for the use of non-violence as the sole instrument against oppression. Their religious backgrounds provided some light on Jefferson but even more on Gandhi. Although Christianity formulated some of Jefferson’s thought, his adherence to non-biblical principles indicates it didn’t shape the whole of it. With Gandhi though, religion played a major part in shaping his perspective. He studied many religions, integrating portions from each into his life. He seemed to approach each with a desire to learn yet with a predisposed belief in non-violence. Consideration of theoretical influences revealed great similarity in Jefferson’s writing in the Declaration to John Locke. It disclosed Locke’s feelings on non-violence versus force providing a compelling answer to the source of Jefferson’s own views. With Gandhi, Thoreau proved quite influential but not the inspiration of Gandhi’s passive resistance. Taking the results in all areas examined, it appears a combination of Christian principles and Locke’s theories shaped Jefferson in his conviction on bearing arms; on the other hand, Gandhi’s passion for non-violence is rooted in his religious background. It is truly remarkable to compare the circumstantial similarities between these men yet discover deep philosophical differences leading each to pursue independence in their own way.
Works Cited
Combee, Jerry H., History of the World: in Christian Perspective. 3rd ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 1997.
Commager, Henry Steele. ed. Documents of American History. 8th ed. New York: Applton-Centry-Crofts, 1968.
Fischer, Louis. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi: The Story of a Man with a Message for Our Times. New York: Harper & Row, 1950.
Iyer, Raghavan., ed. The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Jacobus, Lee A., ed. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. 7th
ed . Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2006,
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “On Education.” Jacobus 254, 258.
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise Of Civil Government. 1960. Oregon State University. 27 Nov. 2007.
Lowman, Michael R., George Thompson, and Kurt Grussendorf. United States History: Heritage of Freedom: in Christian Perspective. 2nd ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 1996.
Mahatma Gandhi. 2004. Nov. 2007
New American Standard BIBLE. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977.
Wolpert, Stanley. Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Gandhi: His triumph changed the world. Dir. Attenborough. With Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, John Gielud, Trevor Howard, Martin Sheen. Colombia Pictures,1982.
From the 1600’s to the 1700’s thirteen colonies formed on the eastern North American coastline. Paul Johnson in A History of the American People notes Britain supervised colonial affairs through a Privy Council but exercised minimal control over the colonies during the earlier years (103). When the colonies prospered, Britain, seeking material benefit, sought to enforce their authority. The colonists not only deplored Britain’s oppressive acts but also opposed Parliament’s attempts to rule them. According to United States History: Heritage of Freedom by Michael R. Lowman and others, at the First Continental Congress, colonial delegates authored the Declaration and Resolves stating only the King held authority over them according to their charters and compacts and no other authority could remove their rights as British subjects (94). Although the King refused to accept their pleas threatening to subject them with force, the colonists continued seeking reconciliation. Even after Lexington and Concord, where British troops fired upon colonial militia, the Continental Congress wrote the Olive Branch Petition. It asked the king to hear their pleas for justice. Despite this, King George III pursued in subjecting the colonies and hired the Hessian troops to help subject them. The king had rejected honoring the original relationship between him and the colonies; therefore, the Continental Congress issued the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson along with a committee helped write the document. Britain and the colonies went to war for seven more years until the Americans defeated the British army.
Having seen America’s past, let us consider India’s history. During the age of exploration, the British established the East India Company in India. Through several wars, treaties, and arrangements, the company gained power within the nation’s political structure. Jerry H. Combee in History of the World in Christian Perspective and Louis Fisher in The Life of Mahatma Gandhi relate the British crown took over the company’s established power in 1858 and continued to institute its presence in India (416) (167). Years later in the early 1900’s Mahatma Gandhi, an Indian national, began seeking India’s independence. He joined the congressional party in India which according to the essay Mahatma Gandhi from India site it, “used both parliamentary and nonviolent resistance and non-cooperation to achieve independence”(India site). Those British laws that they considered unjust they defied in non-violent ways. Gandhi traveled, wrote, and performed many symbolic acts to resist British control. The movement and his influence grew having him portrayed as a hero in the papers (Gandhi movie). Although the British resisted through legislative acts and military action the cause continued. Finally, in a great symbolic act, Gandhi marched to the sea where he made salt. This symbolically declared India’s independence from Britain since it controlled salt’s manufacture and outlawed any Indian salt production. Gandhi continued his efforts through civil disobedience until the British at last granted India her freedom. By 1947, India became an independent member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. (Combee 509) India gained her independence without an organizing an army, rather, with non-violent acts of civil disobedience.
Having reviewed the historical accounts, examination of the origins and extent of English power in each country may reveal factors contributing to Jefferson and Gandhi’s differences of action. Often an individual may approve use of force only in particular circumstances. Perhaps the different political structures caused each one to use different methods. Perchance Jefferson only espoused force when the colonies joined as a national entity and Gandhi used non-violence because India delayed in declaring its independence.
Given such possibilities, let us consider the rise of British rule. England played a critical role in forming the American colonies while in India, it slowly gained power over an established country. India, therefore, retained more right as a sovereign nation to take up arms against the invaders than the colonies. True, many local leaders gave away India’s self-rule as they gave in to bribes but on the other hand, English power grew through several unethical means. Louis Fisher writes, “Gradually, by means mostly foul, but considered normal in that age and place, the British established themselves throughout…the vast Indian subcontinent”(165). Despite this justification of engaging in war, Gandhi chose a different avenue. He writes in a piece chronicled in The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi edited by Raghavan Iyer, “is it not time for us to declare our changeless faith in non-violence of the strong and say we do not seek to defend our liberty with the force of arms but we will defend it with the force of non-violence?” (Iyer 248). Here he called for the Congress to resolve to non-violence as its firm course of action. The colonies, on the other hand, were willing to employ arms against the British even before declaring independence and gaining national sovereignty. Henry Steele Commager in Documents of American History documents that the Continental Congress approved the final draft of the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms that both John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson helped write (92-95). The document states their justification on defending themselves against British aggressions.
Looking into each governmental structure reveals neither man based his actions on the principle that only a nation has the right to bear arms. Jefferson apparently believed people unaffiliated as a national entity could defend themselves with force. Gandhi started his campaign for independence through non-violence before the salt march. Though the salt march only symbolically declared independence, the quote reveals Gandhi believed in non-violence as the only method. Whether the people formed a national entity with national sovereign rights to bear arms did not affect his belief in non-violent means. So their separate beliefs on how to “fight” must originate from something different political technicalities.
Having seen political circumstances let us consider the religious backgrounds of the day. Christianity underpinned colonial society in Jefferson’s day influencing colonial thought and action. Mr. C. Gregg Singer in A Theological Interpretation of American History notes that Puritanism (a conservative, Bible-rooted, Christianity), “permeated colonial life…not only in New England but in the colonies to the South as well”(7). Because of this early influence, Christian beliefs remained dominant in the late 1700s. The Declaration clearly expresses belief in God. For example, it condemns oppression because it debases humanity’s dignity as created beings. Christianity clearly teaches nations have a right to employ arms to defeat evil. Concerning the government it says, “it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (Romans13:4). This may be the origin of Jefferson’s belief of a national right to bear arms; nevertheless, despite this biblical principle, there lies within the Declaration of Independence a concept alien to Biblical teaching. It is the theory of government expressed in the sentence, “… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”(Jacobus 78). The Bible teaches government derives its power from God not the people. In this aspect, Jefferson adhered to a governmental philosophy inconsistent with the Christian religion. He appears to derive principles from his Christian background and mix them with other orders of thought.
Although Gandhi grew up in India and adhered to Hinduism throughout his life, it was not the only religion forming his thinking. Throughout his life, he sought to decipher the truth and integrate whatever he found in other religions. He describes his introduction to different religions and his assimilation of parts in his beliefs. “But the New Testament produced a different impression, especially the Sermon on the Mount….I compared it with the Gita….My young mind tried to unify the teaching of the Gita, The Light of Asia and the Sermon on the Mount. That renunciation was the highest form of religion appealed to me greatly”(Iyer 61). Here he read from three religions and sought to take what he could from each. Ultimately, he clarified in a speech at Bombay that he followed Hinduism and the reforms Buddha had brought to it (Iyer144-45). In one of his writings he said, “My life is dedicated to the service of India through the religion of non-violence which I believe to be the root of Hinduism”(Iyer 239) This statement raises a question on interpretation. Did Gandhi deciding to follow non-violence, chose Hinduism? Or, did Hinduism cause him to embrace non-violence? According to Stanley Wolpert author of Gandhi’s Passion: The life and legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi read the Gita (Hindu religious text)under the influence of the Sermon on the Mount. This led him to re-interpret portions of the Gita to fit the principle of turning the other cheek (23). Conclusively, while Hinduism became his main religious practice, he absorbed ideas from any religion that underpinned his personal belief in non-violence.
Within cultures, there are philosophical influences having significant power in their season. In 1690, Englishman as I think in 1907 or later when I was in the think of passive ressitance struggle."s actions. In his commentary on John Locke wrote Two Treatises of Civil Government. Though historians debate on the extent of their influence on colonial thought, they held enough to justify their consideration. Locke espoused the concept of government as a social contract, where the people grant authority to the government forming a pact. If either part defies the contract, it is broken. Locke in Second Treatise of Government writes,
“Sec. 221. There is therefore, secondly, another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavor to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.”
If the governing body, through tyrannical acts, breaches the terms between the people and they, it is dissolved. The authors of the Declaration appear to voice these theories as they define government and argue King George to be a tyrannical ruler.
Within Locke’s exposition, he argues against non-violent methods in standing against an oppressive ruler. They appear illogical to him. He writes,
“He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand, to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance, and will find such a defence serve only to draw on himself the worse usage” [sic] (Locke Sec. 235). He debates passive resistance will not produce anything and will place the person in a worse situation.
In reading parts of Locke’s treatise, there is a striking similarity to the Declaration of Independence. Parts almost match up word for word. It is clear his writings aided the Document’s formation. If Jefferson agreed with Locke’s perspectives to the extent of using his material in the Declaration, his opinions on peaceful resistance must also have greatly influenced Jefferson.
While Locke is significant in studying Jefferson, Henry Waldo Thoreau, the author of Civil Disobedience is source necessary in examining Gandhi’s philosophical influences. Gandhi read the essay and it proved influential. Gandhi commented on its impact saying, “It left a deep impression on me….That essay seemed to be so convincing and truthful that I felt the need to know more of Thoreau…” (Iyer 71). He agreed with Thoreau’s ideas allowing them to formulate his thinking. In his essay, Thoreau feels each individual ought to live according to his convictions even if he disobeys the government to keep them. To illustrate “disobedience” he recounts his refusal to pay a tax and the resulting night in jail. While he does not use the term “non-violence” or describe in detail what form of disobedience one should pursue, his example is non-violent. Although these ideas influenced Gandhi, it is significant to know when these helped formulate his actions. He provides this information saying, “My first introduction to Thoreau’s writings was I think in 1907 or later when I was in the thick of passive resistance struggle”(Iyer 71). Since Gandhi read the essay after becoming involved in passive resistance, his conviction of non-violence must not directly originate from Thoreau’s philosophies though deeply impacted with his ideas.
To conclude, to understand Jefferson and Gandhi’s dissimilar methods in their common cause this study looked over their political circumstances, religious, and philosophical influences. Studying their political backgrounds revealed neither were based their actions on the political standing of their country. Whether their people held a country’s right to defense or not played no part in either man’s beliefs: Jefferson appealed to take up arms before the colonies were free and Gandhi called for the use of non-violence as the sole instrument against oppression. Their religious backgrounds provided some light on Jefferson but even more on Gandhi. Although Christianity formulated some of Jefferson’s thought, his adherence to non-biblical principles indicates it didn’t shape the whole of it. With Gandhi though, religion played a major part in shaping his perspective. He studied many religions, integrating portions from each into his life. He seemed to approach each with a desire to learn yet with a predisposed belief in non-violence. Consideration of theoretical influences revealed great similarity in Jefferson’s writing in the Declaration to John Locke. It disclosed Locke’s feelings on non-violence versus force providing a compelling answer to the source of Jefferson’s own views. With Gandhi, Thoreau proved quite influential but not the inspiration of Gandhi’s passive resistance. Taking the results in all areas examined, it appears a combination of Christian principles and Locke’s theories shaped Jefferson in his conviction on bearing arms; on the other hand, Gandhi’s passion for non-violence is rooted in his religious background. It is truly remarkable to compare the circumstantial similarities between these men yet discover deep philosophical differences leading each to pursue independence in their own way.
Works Cited
Combee, Jerry H., History of the World: in Christian Perspective. 3rd ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 1997.
Commager, Henry Steele. ed. Documents of American History. 8th ed. New York: Applton-Centry-Crofts, 1968.
Fischer, Louis. The Life of Mahatma Gandhi: The Story of a Man with a Message for Our Times. New York: Harper & Row, 1950.
Iyer, Raghavan., ed. The Essential Writings of Mahatma Gandhi. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Jacobus, Lee A., ed. A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. 7th
ed . Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2006,
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “On Education.” Jacobus 254, 258.
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise Of Civil Government. 1960. Oregon State University. 27 Nov. 2007
Lowman, Michael R., George Thompson, and Kurt Grussendorf. United States History: Heritage of Freedom: in Christian Perspective. 2nd ed. Pensacola: A Beka Book, 1996.
Mahatma Gandhi. 2004. Nov. 2007
New American Standard BIBLE. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977.
Wolpert, Stanley. Gandhi’s Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Gandhi: His triumph changed the world. Dir. Attenborough. With Ben Kingsley, Candice Bergen, John Gielud, Trevor Howard, Martin Sheen. Colombia Pictures,1982.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)