Can we use this collection of sources to say something about government and community in general in 1750? If so, what?
I think it’s fair to say these excerpts are an accurate representation of the need for government reform for the times. These sources are from all over the globe, though some are concentrated in or near the Americas, and they call for roughly the same thing, which is natural freedom, literal or religious. This would not be done if the need for these freedoms did not exist. This can only lead to the conclusion that the people who philosophized over the Enlightenment had seen their fair share of injustice, whether it be their own or someone else’s. Injustice isn’t usually this widespread unless it’s legal or accepted in communities, which means
the Enlightenment was direly needed in both aspects.
1.
Do you think these documents represent a unified movement, or a debate among people with different ideas? Identify similarities or differences among these sources to support your claim with evidence.
While these sources are all similar on some level, the majority focus on the natural freedom that must be given or attained by people. Only a couple sources seem to deviate from this, whether it’s Catherine the Great using the ideal to strengthen the monarchy, or the Constitution of Saint-Domingue that calls for freedom while banning religions, free assembly, and imports. In some way or form they all mention inalienable rights, though the motivation for and application of those rights isn’t always the same across the board.
2.
How do these documents support, extend, or challenge what you have already learned about the Enlightenment?
These documents all support what I had learned about The Enlightenment. They all speak to religious or personal freedoms, though mentioned before that message can be skewed to fit anyone’s interpretation about how those rights should be applied. I shudder to think about what world I would be in if those rights hadn’t been applied to
me.
