Analyze the impact of mechanization and the market revolution (1815–1860) on American workers in the Northeast.

Between 1815 and 1860, the progression of mechanization and the revolutionizing of the economic market caused the United States to experience drastic societal development. These advancements in American technology allowed society to further collaborate in order to create a complex system of trade that began regional specialization within the workforce. Advanced methodologies of efficient mass production, in factories especially, shaped the lifestyles of citizens living in the Northeastern region of the United States. As production shifted completely in order to serve the extensively growing nation, many benefits and hardships were to be reaped. Under-represented citizens, such as women, were able to gain opportunities in big businesses searching for low-priced labor. This also allowed African Americans to gain more civil rights due to reduced popularity of slavery as Caucasian workers wanted to avoid competition for employment. However, independent merchants faced monopolized competition that exposed employees to horrific conditions. Ultimately, new techniques to enhance inexpensive, timely production and the supplying of goods created hierarchies, both socially and financially, that dictated new matters of freedom and reliance for American citizens in the Northeast. 

As manufacturing became more prominent in America, the country became much more self-reliant. In the Northeastern region, cities like New York quickly emerged and thrived by hosting large factories. These factories provided the ability to quickly produce materials that were needed among the states. Efficiency and capability became increasingly prevalent for American entrepreneurships so that quantities of products could be easy attained without the importation from foreign nations. Vast amounts of materials were able to be processed in small, compact spaces. With production occurring primarily within the Northeast, the area became a very strong international trade hub. Quickly the United States gained a city, New York, which had the same potential and rank as Rome or Paris. The region developed to be much more cultured and iconic for the United States, which gave citizens a more sophisticated and elite persona. The city lifestyle raised levels of intellectual stability and created a center for the young country. Bankers became more prominent because of the stimulation and need to monitor the expanding economy, reflecting the development of new careers in general to keep up with the pace of the industrialized society. As the market in America became stronger, the Northeast served as a center of big business and international relations. 

Factories began monopolies within the American manufacturing market. Since mass amounts of products would easily be produced in one location, large corporations formed and began to dominate the market. Machinery contributed to the effectiveness of production, furthering the control wealthy companies could hold. Independent merchants were much less likely to hold a stand in producing the same quantity of goods. Due to the more individualized creation, prices were much higher, which made them undesirable to the masses. This served to commercialize industries in America as it became easier and inexpensive to get lower quality, mass produced products. Transportation exceeded in importance to deliver products throughout the states. They were able to provide products to the entire nation, with little expense. As a result, the owners of such production businesses thrived. This created greater social divides between successful businessmen and the average industry worker. The playing field lost its sense of equal status that existed when the colonies originally formed. Some citizens now were able to make plentiful livings rather than beginning together at the bottom of the social ladder. Choice of endeavors became crucial in determining the fate of Americans, though the competition was fierce to attempt to break through. 

While dependence on an international level declined, within the nation it rose. Citizens started to become reliant on corporations for products and for employment. Within Northeastern cities, the most likely jobs to hold had to do with the factories. In some ways, this seemed like a wonderful opportunity for Americans. There were many factories that provided a surplus of jobs. Businesses accepted the work of nearly anyone, making it more likely for women and children to join the labor force. In a sense, it could be said that this made a huge stride for women’s rights by allowing them to earn their own wage and gain independence from a male counterpart. It also relieved pressure for African Americans in the Northeast. Since so many people were after jobs, no one wanted to have to compete with the inexpensive work that slaves could provide. As a result, slavery was generally unsupported in the Northeast, giving African Americans their first chance at more equal rights. However, these jobs also created great lengths of abuse from employers. There was no true monitoring of the factories, which allowed big business owners to get away with poor work conditions and low salaries. In order to feel capable in society or make enough finances to live, employees went along with mistreatment. In the Northeast, employment was fairly plentiful, yet left many to endure abuse simply due to the lack of options. 

Overall, the Northeastern region of the United States experienced many of the most noticeable effects from mechanization and the market revolution. The early to mid-1800’s proved to be a breaking point that launched giant strides of progression for the American economy. While the Northeast could not have done it without the Southern and Western regions of the country, it very easily could be considered to be the center of the American economic action. Not everything ended up as intended, nor was everything beneficial to American society. Some things, such as the hierarchies, still prove to be national conflicts that are still faced today. However, the impacts that this phase of industrialization had on the Northeast and the future of the United States are extraordinary. In this region, the financial elements blossomed, the entire stock market began to form, and civil rights truly began to take shape. Many conflicts were faced that have led the nation to develop into a stronger force and increase unity. Greed and ambition were truly sparked among Americans to change the ideal American Dream from focusing on freedom to focusing on wealth and success. Without the impact of mechanization and the market revolution, the United States would lack its greatest economical center, as well as much of its Northeastern culture.

In what ways did the Second Great Awakening in the North influence temperance and abolitionism?

The Second Great Awakening was a very moving revolution within nineteenth century American culture and philosophy. During this period, Americans began to truly question and explore new ideas of a devout lifestyle. Traditional customs were generally rebelled against, with many citizens challenging common beliefs that remained throughout the immigration from Europe. Religious beliefs during the Second Great Awakening greatly relied on reflecting what one believes to be morally correct. Expression within such environments mimicked societal ideals of increasing civil rights, and sought purity by avoiding misbehavior from intoxication. As a result, movements such as those against alcohol consumption and slave ownership became a controversial part of the search for utopia. The Northern region of the United States brewed these concepts to higher levels than in the South. This was partially due to the elite universities within New England, specifically Harvard which served as the birthplace of transcendentalism, a leading force for American enlightenment led by Ralph Waldo Emerson. The spread of the Second Great Awakening also was affected by the economic differences between the North and the South. Americans in the North embraced ideas of a social revolution during the Second Great Awakening to better their lives by becoming more sophisticated, family-oriented citizens who could interact peacefully in a nation of individualism. 

Religions gained great momentum during the Second Great Awakening. Unitarians, Methodists, Deists, Baptists; it did not matter which group you fell under, opinions were rapidly becoming more prominent in attempt to shape political governing of states. The market revolution invoked great emotions of greed and corruption that easily could be scrutinized for the lack of morality that was present. While the initial basis of religious reformation was certainly personal salvation, the greater idea of setting standards of life for the masses of society and the United States dominated the motives of many great leaders from the time. Lyman Beecher, Peter Cartwright, and Charles Finney all served as strong spokesmen for their religions and preached their message to attempt to convert the many immigrants that were attracted to the thrill of America’s new industrial industry. Faith-based organizations felt that their beliefs should be the framework for American society. At this point, laws and regulations were still fairly unset and many wished to impose their opinions upon writing the details of the United States government. New extremes in restrictions and ideals were expressed to constantly outdo another group at being the most innocent, perfect civilian. This fueled desire to build new movements, especially about abolitionism and tolerance. 

The temperance movement truly began to blossom due to striving for a perfected state of morality during the Second Great Awakening. Many felt that alcohol demented the mindset of consumers to a degree that prevented them from being civilized members of society. With mental “corruption” from the “demon rum,” as it commonly was referred, people forgot their duties to the community and their families. Since people were not able to appropriately present themselves, liquor was viewed to be the cause for many evils in society. Temperance groups, such as the Daughters of Temperance, formed by the thousands under the American Society for the Promotion of Temperance. In 1851, Maine became the first state to prohibit the consumption and sale of alcohol statewide. Neal Dow was known as the “Father of Prohibition” and is responsible for sponsoring this legislation. The new ideals being developed in America further created conflict with immigrants from Ireland and Germany. In European countries such as those, the view of liquor was much more liberal and immigrants were not always in favor of the temperance standpoint. The overall popularity among the lower class, such as laborers and new immigrants, lead the more elite members of society to attack and try to eliminate the more disliked groups. In the South, vineyards also were an important industry for citizens, so it was more illogical for them to want to destroy part of their economical market. Temperance movements were fueled by the desire of serving a God and reaching perfection; alcohol was seen to be a distraction from the goal. 

Along with temperance, abolition movements were also greatly fueled by religious motives. The expanding religions that became more expressive and influential during the Second Great Awakening began to condemn the idea of slavery. With Christianity especially, the Second Great Awakening had its biggest strive toward abolition as citizens wanted the perfect Christian republic. It was theorized that God would favor the United States if the country was based upon his values and avoided sin. However, slavery became a very moral debate as the mistreatment and neglect of slaves made their owners “evil.” People felt that with these kinds of citizens composing America, America would not be graced by God’s blessing. Over 250,000 members joined William Lloyd Garrison’s American Anti-Slavery Society in favor of the universal and immediate abolition of slavery. Many abolition leaders felt that in order to overcome the troubles of slavery, the key to success was moral inducement and disobedience. John Brown led his movements with violence in order to show rebellion against slave ownership. He felt that if some citizens, primarily Southerners, were in favor of slavery, then he was sent from God to destroy them. Others decided that evangelizing slaves was the way to convert the ideals and values of their owners. African Americans also began to have their impact on expressing the need for spreading abolition. Frederick Douglass published his memoir which explores the struggles of growing up and living in slavery. The Second Great Awakening provided many moral conflicts through the increase of religion which questioned traditional social norms. 

The Second Great Awakening opened the eyes of Northern Americans to many different ideas. The market revolution and immigration created very populated areas that were filled with ideas that meshed together. As the ideas competed for superiority, religions thoroughly fueled the basis of how Americans should approach living life. The government was still fairly unregulated, and was open to being influenced and formed through movements at the time. In order to approach being a “free” country where equality and human decency could prevail, many great activists and leaders felt that temperance and abolition were key issues to address. Temperance and slavery were viewed to have evil qualities that would guide the United States down the same path of struggles and malevolence they tried to escape in Europe. Searching for excellence and exploring new approaches to embracing priorities in life were fueled during the period in order to shape the American Dream and build innocence in a setting that would allow everyone to succeed. These movements were designed to eliminate any setbacks such as discrimination or addictions that distracted from friendship and love. The Second Great Awakening awakened Americans to their new freedom to challenge tradition and form a newly structured nation that could excel together as a whole.

To what extent did the debates following the Mexican War reflect the sectional interests of New Englanders, westerners, and southerners in the period from 1848 to 1855?

The Mexican War is often regarded as one of the United State’s most controversial wars. The idea of Manifest Destiny was beginning to consume the minds of many Democratic Americans. They wished for the United States to expand their land to possess a continental control; it was believed that more land would mean furthered economical success. Meanwhile, the Whigs felt that the key to expanding the country was embracing the economical endeavors that were already being pursued. In order for the continent to be dominated by Americans, western expansion would need to occur, taking land from Mexico. Mexicans had long threatened that if the United States decided to impose on their territories and annex Texas, they would begin a civil war with the country. When James K. Polk, a Whig president, agreed to declare war on Mexico, turmoil began to arise. Americans were incredibly victorious and undefeated between 1846 and 1848, while the war was occurring, and accumulated extensive amounts of land that had been under Mexican rule. That is when the true war really began. American citizens in New England, the West, and the South all had very different political motives that greatly challenged the sectional interests regarding state versus federal power, betrayal of political parties, and the ideal plan for incorporating new regions into a very polarized country. 

When the new land was acquired from Mexico, there was a rather heated argument on whether it should be considered a “free state” or a “slave state.” In 1849, Zachary Taylor became the last Whig president and decided in favor of making California and New Mexico automatically admitted “free states.” Southerners, who were pro-slavery, were primarily Whigs and felt that their president was alienating them. Politicians supposedly standing for southern views were instead collaborating with northern efforts. Some southerners took the idea to such an extreme that they were known as “fire-eaters” and met to discuss plans for secession at the Nashville Convention. Since politicians were not staying true to their parties, it became much more difficult for American citizens to truly trust their elected officials. The North and South had such different economical priorities regarding slavery that it was hard for a political figure not to need to take a “side.” No matter which side they would have chosen, half of the country would end up being displeased. The mistrust in political parties began to break-down the two-party system within the United States. New parties such as the Know Nothing Party and the Free Soil Party began to emerge in rebellion. By 1854, the Whig Party has been disassembled entirely, and the Democrats began a split into the two most prominent modern political parties; Democrats and Republicans. The Mexican War really led the beginning of regionalization and political stance interfering with national advancement. 

Between the North and the South, neither side was truly able to settle about having slavery, or not having slavery, within the new states. Each wanted to force their view onto the new western lands. At the time, the federal government felt that during their annexation, they had the ability to choose the status of rights within the states. This brought about the proposal of the Compromise of 1850, by Henry Clay. Basically, the proposal meant that California would be deemed a “free state” by the federal government, but New Mexico and Utah would be granted the freedom to choose being a “free state” or a “slave state” by popular sovereignty. Since most citizens in the western areas were in favor of abolition, the North was generally pleased with this component of the compromise. However, it also worked to suit the South by passing the Fugitive Slave Law, which would allow southerners to pursue the recapturing of their escaped slaves. Abolitionists within the North were very angered by this idea, causing southerners to be more likely to antagonize northerners by invading the North in search of their African American fugitives. While the compromise was intended to give both the North and the South some benefit that they desired, each side still felt the need to overpower the other. This continued throughout the time period and reignited fiercer in 1854, after the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and again allowed popular sovereignty to decide the fate of slavery within Kansas and Nebraska. This provoked both southerners and northerners to send masses to the territories in order to try to dominate the votes. The New England Emigrant Aid Company was founded in the North to force immigrants that were against slavery into Kansas so that it would be annexed into the United States as a “free state.” The sectional dividing of the North and the South pushed citizens of each region to attempt to manipulate politics to allow new regions to reflect corresponding interests. 

The West was generally very trampled by northerners and southerners. The area was more undeveloped, but truly was the region that the land expansion would affect most. Westerners generally did not have a lot of political power in the mid-1800s, as citizens from the South and from New England felt they could just dominate with their views. The westerners tried not to really interfere with the feuding between the North and the South, though tended to have more similar views with the North. Only a small section of citizens in the West desired slave states, so they were rather agreeable to the Compromise of 1850. By having the compromise initiated, it would give freedom to the new western states, which was much desired. The West was very in favor of self-ruling, so popular sovereignty was greatly desired. The West remained neutral throughout the impacts of the Mexican War, and was greatly against the sectionalism it had caused. Being caught in the middle put the West in a rough position to get controlled by the other rivaling sections. It was accepted that something needed to develop a form of law and order to unite the United States together. This raised a debating question on how much should the government govern its territory, and how should new land have its fate decided. With the country sectionalized, there would always be a disagreement on which views were right to instill in the new area. Whichever should be chosen would simply further advance the domination of that interest. Henry Thoreau was a very strong anti-slavery leader, who in his essay “Civil Disobedience” wrote, “That government is best which governs least.” This stands true yet contradicting for the views of Western citizens, as they wished to be set free from the sectionalized government dictating and fighting over the new region, but also false in the sense that it was apparent that that could only truly occur if the country was able to band together as a whole. Differences needed to be overcome, and the debates after the Mexican War only alienated westerners who did not wish to be sectionalized. 

The Mexican War was a very influential event in American history. The impacts that it made stirred up debate that could not truly reach a true resolution. Each section of the United States had its own idea of how issues should be handled, and the federal government was not able to suit all three sections at once. The sectional interests of the North and South especially reached new extremes as political actions bounced between favoritism. The West, in result, went even more extreme in wanted their independence to choose their political stance on their own rather than get trapped in between the debate over slavery. The Untied States began its whirlwind towards continual splitting and disagreement that would eventual cause the Civil War. Between 1848 and 1855, the sectional interests overran any unity that remained in the United States as the debates that occurred eliminated trust within the government and destroyed the party system of the time. The United States was going through a stage of rapid change to find a solution that could suit each region of the country and still maintain a federal level of governing. The quest for compromise met many tedious conflicts, making the Mexican War spark the beginning of one of America’s biggest civil disagreements.

My government teacher asked me to define America with the use of pictures. Ha.

America can be defined in many ways. Our founding fathers had their idea of the “American dream” and fought for the formation of the United States in order to pursue it. Our government was laid out in hope of preserving the privileges that inspired our journey for independence.

First and foremost, the United States was set up defined by the principles of liberty and freedom. As a country, we didn’t want the diction of Great Britain to have an influence or control over our lives. As individuals, we wanted to be able to make personal choices for our wellbeing. Being able to have free speech, free press, freedom of religion, and other constitutional rights were designed to keep us unique and able to express ourselves without political repercussions.

America was founded with the intention of exploration. We wanted to be able to explore new land and new possibilities. The American way was designed for new and creative thinking. Opportunities were to be plentiful and without restriction. The country was to encourage pursuing your dreams without being held back by customs or tradition. It was a fresh start to make a choice.

Along with making a choice, a democracy was designed in order to keep a government over the nation without giving any sole person power for dictating citizens. We didn’t want to be subjected to a monarchy and have someone determine our lifestyle based on having “royal” blood. Voting let everyone (ignoring the initial suffrage restrictions of gender and race) have their opinion be heard and considered when making decisions for the fate of the country.

Our other most important defining quality was our union. We were formed as the UNITED States of America. No group of stood alone and we’d be a solid force in both tragedy and celebration. Families were to be appreciated and friendships were to be innate. Discrimination wasn’t supposed to be an issue and Americans were defined to be thankful for our survival and thriving experience as a new country.

Traditionally, this was more of the image of America. While some components remain, they’re deeply buried. The United States isn’t defined anymore by the hopes and dreams that were intended. Instead, the American way has come to show the lack of embracement for acceleration. Instead of taking the opportunities that were laid out as America, we abused so many of them.For that reason, I think that modern America would be more accurately defined in this light.

While we were given the chance for liberty and freedom, this privilege has become very misinterpreted. We’re providing the benefits of being an American citizen to more immigrants than natives. With Mexicans especially, there are so many people crossing our borders trying to justify that they deserve “freedom” as well. Rather than stand up against this issue, the government so often caves to every demanding need. Legal American citizens lose their rights at being able to freely explore opportunities and express themselves. Jobs are often taken by “minorities”. Rather than being able to stand up for how we’re being impacted, you can’t say that illegal immigration isn’t fair. If you do, you’re often labeled as a racist. Slavery definitely was a huge conflict, but it’s over. However, that doesn’t stop many African Americans from thinking they’re owed something to justify what happened in the past. With the foundation of having so much freedom, there are so many groups of people feeling as if they’re superior and entitled to whatever they wish to have that moment. This isn’t necessarily just racial minorities either. Americans in general come across very snobby and unappreciative to what our government does provide us with. Liberty may have been intended as an attribute, but it’s turned into a source for an ego boost.

As much as being able to explore new things was an option, we’ve left our skills drop to such a low level that it’s impossible for us to actually dominate a section of life in the world. We don’t have the mental intellect to advance as much as other countries do. Our education system has taken a very detrimental fall that will be very hard to ever get out of. Unfortunately, even trying to correct the problem leaves much effort to be desired because of the debt that the United States has accumulated. When you put either elements of the picture’s caption into perspective, it’s really quite horrible to think about. With 1/5 of Americans unable to even locate our country on a world map, I’m not sure how we’re supposed to stand a chance even surviving globally, let alone thrive as a global power. Her answer surely doesn’t help matters either. Americans are defined with a strong level of stupidity. We aren’t truly up to par with knowledge, and the majority is too clueless to worry about or even realize the issue in order to do anything that could effectively fix it.

Continuing the element of stupidity, Americans have the tendency to bond over the most disrupting things. With America being a newer country (in perspective to much of the world) and wanting to focus on the new ideas or concepts rather than tradition, Americans are known to not have respect for history. We’re very unaware of what our country has been through and how we are able to have the society we do today. This isn’t even touching on how very oblivious we tend to be about what’s going on elsewhere around the world. Classics, whether art, music, literature, architecture, or many other categories, aren’t appreciated as the American society is so consumed with the desire for the newest and “best” thing. Who cares about Pablo Picasso (even though it was later released to only be a replica) if we can get a few short moments of entertainment destroying it with caviar? It seems to be a defining characteristic of Americans today to not appreciate humanities and have respect for things in the way that majority of elsewhere in the world does.

Perhaps we embrace togetherness, but we rely a lot on technology to do so. While not all of this is bad, it still has a prominent impact of how Americans are viewed. Cyber schooling is a positive aspect of this lifestyle. Learning virtually is not as common in other nations. However, we also have minimized the personalization of communication with peers. It’s not the normal thing to actually meet up to talk to someone or mail them a letter in order to send message. Instead, texting and social networks have dominated society. I know so many friends who will be standing next to each other yet not say a word because they’re too busy texting each other. Rather than read a newspaper or novel, we’re more concerned with catching up with everyone’s Twitter updates. Our adaption to technology could be a positive, but it’s greatly impacted our communication skills. Many people do not know how to properly write because +h3ry*r3 2 8usy t@1k!ng l!k3 th!s. Verbal communication has like, decreased in like, quality and uhh… stuff as well because like, we aren’t sure how to err… form like, coherent sentences.

Technically, to me, both contexts define Americans and America as a nation. We had a unique and clear vision to improve the quality of life. Our government still pretty much holds this to be true. However, the American society has brought us another distinctive trait: a unique low. The first Americans started out embracing the idea of unique individualism. Currently, the United States consists of way too many conformists. The line between how the majority of Americans are compared to how America was intended is very clear, though I feel that to truly embrace the original foundation for Americanism you can’t let yourself be defined by a stereotypical definition.

Emerson would have been my lover.

Transcendentalism is such a simple premise, yet it is composed of more controversial and complex philosophies than the majority of other phases that have occurred throughout history. One could try to explain the belief that an ideal spiritual state transcends everything physically known and is only realized in thought, but this does not express the true basis of the movement. These words can be so difficult to understand, which proves to be true for most literature by transcendentalist authors. However, it is normally quite simple for Americans to understand the phrase “be yourself.” While many other ideas were expressed about religion and existence, they all lead back to the concept of expressing one’s own thoughts regardless of how unusual they may be. The transcendentalist period was one that broke boundaries of traditional thinking, embraced uniqueness, and could have made America thrive with creative individuals.

“To be great is to be misunderstood,” is a simple phrase, written by Ralph Waldo Emerson in “Self Reliance,” yet it can truly summarize the transcendentalist movement. The concepts that were expressed were, and still are, very difficult for the majority to grasp – let alone agree with. Regardless, this misunderstanding did not stop the transcendentalists; instead, it fueled their effort. Emerson’s words are really rather repetitive. It is as if he is saying the same message over and over again in hope that his readers will hear it in one form. He says to “insist on yourself; never imitate” and that, “every great man is unique.” Reflecting on the title, it is exactly what he is trying to explain. One must rely on himself or herself, not on others or even Emerson. This concept has the ability to raise levels of independence, as it is accepting and encouraging freethinking rather than conformity.

Building upon individuality, the worst flaw that an individual can have is not to have confidence in their difference from “normal.” Emerson says that, “man is timid and apologetic; he is no longer upright; he dares not say ‘I think,’ ‘I am,’ but quotes some saint or sage.” By this, he is saying that it is difficult for citizens to come up with fresh ideas and share them. Instead, Americans prefer to look at something that has already been done and not risk the unknown or unheard of. Rather than not care what others think of one’s presentation, there is a tendency to feel as if one has done “wrong” for not being in the majority. “Self Reliance” also stresses to “speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.” It doesn’t matter if one’s opinions change or one contradicts their previous statements, one should say what one wishes and embrace it in the moment. It is okay to try and be proven wrong, but holding back is the only true form of failure.

Henry David Thoreau embraced many of the same ideas as Emerson. He explores in “Walden” how society has transformed into something unoriginal and superficial by making comments such as “say what you have to say, not what you ought.” Thoreau is trying to encourage readers to break the rules of speaking. It does not matter what one should say, instead it matters that one says what they would like to. By speaking one’s mind, the interactions that occur can be true and pure. He says, “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.” One does not need to make the same moves as everyone else as long as one is doing as they feel compelled to do. As a result, society should not try to stop those who dare to choose a different path. Instead, it is necessary that everyone “let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” It is okay to dream as big as possible, as long as it is what is truly desired by the individual dreaming.

Thoreau addresses conformity with great passion by commenting on “how worn and dusty, then, must be the highways of the world, how deep the ruts of tradition and conformity.” He believes that to be true to oneself and to the nature of the world, it is necessary to choose the unguided path; however, many avoid choosing this path and instead go with the pathways that majority of the world chooses. This makes those methods worn out and simply a rut that becomes harder to rebel against. Thoreau encourages, “Let every one mind his own business, and endeavor to be what he was made.” This shows that everyone should not worry about what others desire to do, but instead focus on achieving their own goals in life no matter what anyone believes about them. The opinion of others should be disregarded because, ultimately, no one else can control one’s destiny. One cannot interfere with the goals of others, but should prioritize with the preservation of their own.

The idea of being materialistic is also addressed by Thoreau. To him and many other transcendentalists, intellect comes before any physical element of the world. The only thing that is known to be true is one’s ideas, and for that reason, they are more valuable than anything in the world. He says, “Sell your clothes and keep your thoughts” to show that the most important thing that one must have is their ability to process their own opinions. Without them, no other necessity or frivolous possession means anything. Thoreau expresses says, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” This shows that he would rather be pure and true to whom he is, than have someone like him, progress economically, or be successful. The greatest thing he can do is simply reveal his truth and accept the truth of others rather than become part of a competitive popularity contest by trying to appeal to the masses of select individuals.

“The Maypole at Merry Mount” takes these concepts of individualism and shows how wildly they are discouraged. The people of Merry Mount are freethinking and do as they please to celebrate the marriage of the young couple. They are having a nice time and could care less about how they might be portrayed. The Puritans interfere with their celebration and try to dictate how they should act and present themselves. The religion enforces its strict guidelines among the people of Merry Mount and do not care for their individualism. This premise shows the reality of society. It is hard to dare against what is accepted, for the traditional majority is always there to judge, critic, and punish one for going against the usual beliefs. Stereotypes cloud the ability to truly express and explore new options of lifestyles.

Just like in “Meno,” it is important to realize that what is right for one person is not always going to be accepted as right by everyone. Ideally, Socrates and the transcendentalists were very similar. Emerson even makes reference to him by saying “Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh.” One does not need to be understood or traditional in the eyes of the majority in order to have a true and thorough point. Even without a point, one can still represent their thoughts and agree that nothing is truly certain within the world except for uncertainty itself. Socrates showed that he could have every opinion he wanted to about topics such as virtue, yet he realistically could not prove any true existence or explanation of what the concept truly meant and stood for within the world as a whole.

While one would think and wish not, the ability to freely think for oneself goes against a lot of traditional mannerisms. People are set in their ways of how society should be and often not open to something that challenges what was accepted for so long. It doesn’t matter if the issue at hand is homosexual rights, cyber schools, or questioning if we even truly exist. America may have set out to be a land of opportunity and freedom, but we’re just as stuck in tradition as older nations. If Americans could embrace the individualism that is expressed by the transcendentalists, much conflict would be avoided. Americans could develop a more accepting society where it is of no concern what others are doing, it simply is crucial that everyone does what they feel is right for them. The diversity this could bring to the country would be incredible, as with each generation, the focus on being “popular” makes citizens more identical and afraid of self-expression.

The premises of transcendentalism may not always be clear to Americans. However, the basic concept of being pure to one’s own thoughts is something that needs to be heard. As Emerson wrote, “Shakspeare will never be made by the study of Shakspeare.” One cannot expect to bring back transcendentalism by being the individual that these authors try to express. Quoting Emerson or Thoreau and sharing their opinions does not make you a new Emerson or Thoreau. By interpreting their ideas, however, it is possible to start a new motion in the twenty-first century. A new motion that can dare to challenge society, appreciates distinctiveness, and defies the gravity of traditional thinking with fresh concepts and forms of expression just as the transcendentalists did. Conformity and sticking with what is safe is not truly living. One can only truly live and exist when they embrace their thoughts, which are more real than any physical surrounding.

Fitzgerald and I have a psychic connection.

“Once again, to Zelda.” It is possible to analyze and try to interpret the nature of society throughout the early 1920s or the symbolism within The Great Gatsby, yet this short dedication puts more meaning behind the novel than anything. F. Scott Fitzgerald seems, most likely, to be like Nick to the casual reader. By choosing Nick to provide first-person narration, Fitzgerald should show that this is the character he is most able to connect with. However, Fitzgerald is not just Nick. In learning about Fitzgerald’s personal life, one can realize that he is also Jay, and even Mr. Wilson. Emotionally, Fitzgerald could easily have been described as a psychotic mess. He embraced his fears, admirations, and reality in each of the different characters. It seems that Fitzgerald had reached a personal breaking point in his life and turned to what he knew best, his writing, to find comfort and security while devising a plan to hold on to his ideal of the American Dream. Through The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald approaches the concept of wealth and social status corrupting society by sorting out his emotions towards where he fits into society and, more prominently, the dynamics of his relationship with his wife, Zelda.

While the background information of Fitzgerald’s love life is not the first thing that one learns in order to understand The Great Gatsby, it easily can be key to processing the thoughts that Fitzgerald potentially had during his writing. In order to truly understand an author’s purpose, one must have a grasp on the thoughts that fueled the author’s words. The relationship turmoil within The Great Gatsby closely mirrors Fitzgerald’s own life, resulting in the assumption that his expression in the novel was to release his own inner heartache. Writing was Fitzgerald’s greatest skill and passion, so it logically makes sense he would turn to it to express his tension. Through the character of Jay Gatz, one can see a similarity between Jay’s courting of Daisy to that of Fitzgerald when initially courting Zelda. Both were young men who did not have much established for themselves at the time, but had a strong potential and ambition that made them charming possibilities. Just like Daisy and Jay, Fitzgerald and Zelda’s meeting revolved around a dance during the time when the both men, respectively, were enlisted in the military. The chance meetings connect the significance of the idea of finding one’s true love amidst unexpected circumstances.

Even after the initial stages of courtship, the relationships continue to resemble each other. Both Daisy and Zelda were put into positions where they needed to wait for their men, yet, ultimately, neither did. Daisy resists waiting to marry Jay, due to his financial and social status, and winds up, instead, marrying Tom. She wishes to remain in the elite social class she has been used to, rather than setting for a less wealthy husband such as Jay. Zelda also refused to marry Fitzgerald, calling off their relationship several times. She had many suitors competing for her attention, instilling the potential for unfaithfulness later on. After Fitzgerald published his popular novel, This Side of Paradise, Zelda agreed to marry Fitzgerald. The financial success from this publication was so crucial to Zelda’s agreement to married that Fitzgerald is quoted as having told his publisher that “so many things dependent on its success—including of course a girl.” The girls both were seeking for the best option to suit them at the moment and truly had a hard time trying to be content being patient for those that loved them. The result was both Jay and Fitzgerald striving to be something they were not in order to attempt fulfilling the conditions Daisy and Zelda were holding in exchange for their love.

Through the infatuation with the girls they lusted over, both men started to form their entire lives around them. Jay hustles dirty money in order to gain the finances he would need to impress Daisy. He bought the house across the lake from her and constantly throws lavish parties that attracted the entire area in hope that one day she would attend. Fitzgerald also tried to constantly keep his writing progressing to provide an adequate income for Zelda. His attraction to Zelda dictated what he wrote, even to the point of rewriting his heroines to be more like her. Fitzgerald is known to have stolen Zelda’s dairy in order to capture and become inspired by her deepest, inner desires. He became so consumed by her essence that Zelda was the reason behind everything Fitzgerald tried to do in his life during their marriage. Fitzgerald was just as obsessed with Zelda as Jay was with Daisy, creating a connection between the two men. It could be that Jay was the hopeful drive within Fitzgerald that if he could make something good enough of himself, he could win back the love he desired. The ambition of Fitzgerald begins to appear in the form of Jay Gatsby.

Fitzgerald’s fears appear to shine through the character of Tom Buchanan. After falling into a point of financial hardship, Fitzgerald and Zelda moved to Paris. There, she began a rather scandalous affair with a Frenchman while, simultaneously, Fitzgerald began writing The Great Gatsby. Disagreements had been boiling between Fitzgerald and Zelda, creating the harsh image shown through Tom. It appears that the tough, abusive figure showed components of what Fitzgerald did not want to become. He wanted Zelda to care about him rather than stay with him out of fear. Daisy was unhappy with Tom’s behavior and affairs, yet still played along with the scheme. Tom was very controlling and accomplished this through physical intimidation and harsh verbal judgment. Fitzgerald gives the impression that he is trying to avoid turning into the cruel husband that he creates Tom to be. Fitzgerald had avoided confronting the Frenchman, but contributes the anger he must have felt into further developing Tom’s character. Just as Jay dislikes Tom for being his competition for Daisy, Fitzgerald’s ambition to keep Zelda clashes with the other men she becomes involved with. The tempting forceful nature combined with frustration showcases the fears Fitzgerald has regarding losing Zelda to a “better option,” or morphing into something retched in order to quiet her resistance to escape.

Through the character of Mr. Wilson, the reality of Fitzgerald is shown. He is showing his most realistic self rather than his hopes or fears. Mr. Wilson does not have much to offer his wife, just as Fitzgerald had been financially unstable at the time. Myrtle, like Zelda, searched elsewhere for excitement and entertainment, leaving her husband working diligently to be good enough for her again. Myrtle felt neglected by Mr. Wilson and was intrigued by the attention and lavish amenities Tom gave her. This is similar to Zelda, who became bored with Fitzgerald for spending large sections of his time writing in order to advance economically. Zelda went off with the Frenchman in order to spend her nights dancing and in casinos, which she felt was more thrilling than staying settled with Fitzgerald. Another key similarity is the way that Mr. Wilson and Fitzgerald handled the behaviors of their wives. The only way Mr. Wilson had ever “abused” his wife was by locking her in her room after accepting that Myrtle had been cheating on him. He felt his last resort to keeping a hold of his wife was physically, detaining her as long as she had the potential of going back to Tom. Similarly, Fitzgerald locked Zelda in their home when she requested to divorce him in order to further pursue her relationship with the Frenchman. He kept her locked up until her lover had left and she agreed to stay married to Fitzgerald. These behaviors connect the dejection of Mr. Wilson and Fitzgerald in a way that gives a realistic formation of Fitzgerald’s position in his circumstances.

Being the narrator, Nick was a very crucial role in The Great Gatsby. He leads readers through the tragic love story trying to be objective about each side and persona he encounters. Nick and Fitzgerald are one in the same as the views expressed by Nick are how Fitzgerald is analyzing the different elements of his life. Nick is observing Gatsby, Tom, and Mr. Wilson, and coming to conclusions about each, while still trying to show that each character is strengthened or belittled by the actions of the other. Gatsby becomes more lavishing when Tom is becoming more furious. This represents Fitzgerald’s dreams growing to try to offset his fear. Conversely, with bigger dreams, or a more appealing Gatsby, Tom, or fear, feels the need to rise in order to give a “reality check” to each new ounce of hope. Tom and Gatsby both, however, make Mr. Wilson feel more inferior. Feeling threatened by their wealth and elite status, Mr. Wilson feels horrible as he knows he is losing his wife to the likeability of this image. Fitzgerald is realizing that the more he hopes or fears different outcomes regarding his success to determine the future of his relationship, the more overwhelmed he is getting. Nick’s, or Fitzgerald’s, views on the character’s choices show the outlook on society as a whole that Fitzgerald is concluding. He is seeing how influenced everyone is by wealth and power. This relation serves to present the most common purpose readers interpret from The Great Gatsby: the message that nothing is ever enough as one always desires to be superior to another.

Just as Fitzgerald is shown through the male protagonists in The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald explores the many sides of Zelda through his female characters. In the position of Daisy, Zelda is an innocent victim that one can lust endlessly over. Just as Jay overestimates Daisy, Fitzgerald overestimates Zelda to be a miraculous woman that she truly is not. Regardless of their many flaws, Zelda and Daisy are viewed to be perfect angels who suffer because of the men in their lives. This shows Fitzgerald battling the guilt he feels, assuming that he is the true because of Zelda’s unhappiness. Jordan is also an important side of Zelda, though one that Fitzgerald approaches with indifference. Just as it is hard for readers to interpret if Jordan is a hero or a villain, Fitzgerald is unsure how to cope with Zelda’s desire for attention and independence. Jordan is often shown bored with her surroundings, which is much like Zelda when Fitzgerald is consumed with his writing. As a result, she branches into trying to find her own expertise in art and dance, similar to Jordan’s athletic career. Neither of the girls truly has much talent, Jordan having cheated in her matches and often appearing she does not truly care about the sport, but they still pursue the hobbies to try to feel as if they can excel at something in their lives. Fitzgerald is trying to analyze not only himself, but the behaviors of his wife to explore the best way he can possible cope with his failing marriage.

One of the most interesting and significant connections to Zelda, however, is with the character of Myrtle. Myrtle is not developed very well in The Great Gatsby, as readers do not fully experience her personal thoughts, but she shows the flaws that Zelda possesses. Myrtle throws Tom’s money around as if it is nothing, taking the elite lifestyle as if it is something that should be expected. She is crazy enough to jump to whatever circumstance can give her more to benefit from, even if it is achieved by cheating on her husband. Fitzgerald creates the gold-digging, self-absorbed side of Zelda through Myrtle, and through her, begins to see that his wife may not actually be as flawless as he believed she was. Through the use of the name Myrtle, as well as the name Daisy, Fitzgerald instills flowers to be a realization of how society changes people to become rather vapid and useless. Just like flowers, Daisy and Myrtle have no true value other than looking pretty and serving as amusement for the men in their lives. There is no true purpose to them as they are very bland, static characters. There is no true mental capacity to Daisy as she is not able to think for herself, she constantly needs Tom or Jay to make decisions for her. Myrtle shows the more schizophrenic tendencies that Zelda began suffering from, which also serves to prove that she mentally had no true intellect to contribute. The symbolism of flowers in relation to the women of The Great Gatsby, shows how fitting in and being superior within society takes the individuality and potential out of citizens. Fitzgerald explores the idea that without passion and the courage to be unique, one becomes as useless as a flower, which only is something to look at, for there is no depth to one’s personality anymore.

The green light at the end of the pier serves as the distant desire within the novel. For Jay, it is the light of Daisy. He can see her and feel he is getting closer, but at the end of the day, the light is still far in the distance. Fitzgerald is battling the same desire in regards to happiness with Zelda. The continuing triumph shows a crucial component of the American Dream. The premise of the American Dream is to flourish in life. One wishes to find success, happiness, opportunity, and love. While the specifics vary, there is nearly always something that one feels is the missing piece to feeling complete; if they have something more, everything will suddenly feel perfect. The moral is that no matter how much one has, there will always be something desired that cannot be attained, which dictates the ideal of the American Dream to make it unachievable. The light at the end of the dock tries to serve as a lesson to readers that no matter how close you think you are to perfection, there is always some way to improve or something that can be gained. However, it becomes both an evil and a blessing. The constant desire becomes a fueling ambition to persevere in life, yet it also consumes the searcher to never be content with the present. No matter what serves as one’s light, Fitzgerald approaches accepting, and then teaching, that its effect of greed on citizens both develops and corrupts society. This directly correlates with the interpretation of the eyes on the barn, showing that there is a constant overlooking judgment within society, making the ideal of success crucial to being accepted by one’s peers. The materialistic nature of Fitzgerald’s expression of his turmoil serves to teach readers that they must prioritize their life to avoid getting caught up in the harsh economical whirlwind.

It does not seem that Fitzgerald intentionally tried to use symbolism to further his purpose of the novel. He does not even seem to truly have an intended purpose for his readers. The philosophy he appears to approach is that he is writing for himself: to express himself, to find himself, to end his problems. Fitzgerald shares himself and his opinions through his writing, but there seems to be an emphasized message: lessons through literature are primarily interpreted and created only in the minds of characters and readers. The character of Nick explores the ideas of meaningless messages put on objects when trying to imagine Jay’s final thoughts about his life. There was not a set goal for writing The Great Gatsby; it just took Fitzgerald on a journey to further understand himself. By sharing his writing, the concept of the American Dream is posed in the same essence. One can have everything in the world, but until one finds one’s passion, one is nothing. The inner battle to comprehend his emotions left Fitzgerald learning a lot about life and who he was as a person, which easily transpires into advice for readers. The purest purpose of the novel is to find one’s own purpose and take the path of Fitzgerald’s realizations to begin finding the path to one’s own inner contentment.

One of the most noticeable traits of Fitzgerald’s writing is how clear and simple it is. However, it is still mystifying in the sense that anything can be made out of it that readers need to hear or learn. For example, one may realize they need to worry less about having a boyfriend at the moment, and instead focus on waiting for the perfect soul mate. For another, it may teach one they need to be less arrogant and superficial in order to truly benefit from love. Or possibly one interpreted a message that one needs to stand up for oneself rather than falling into the restrictions of society’s acceptance. The novel exhibits pure ambiguity through its complexity and speaks a message to the heart of the reader, regardless of what the exact moral is. The American Dream is one of freedom and the ability to choose, including choosing the messages and purpose to infer from The Great Gatsby. Fitzgerald used each of his characters in The Great Gatsby to portray the purpose of expressing his own opinions on his life and love as well as how society’s pressures impacted him, resulting in a timeless masterpiece that can vary in influence to readers in order to assist in reevaluating one’s own place in the world.