response to Jenny's blog

JENNY'S BLOG

My second question comes from "The Freedman's Story." The article, written by William Parker, recounts his confrontation with slave-catchers. When I finished the article, I wondered why, throughout this time in history, slave owners were so intent on catching runaway slaves. Was it because if they let one go, they might all try to escape? Or is it more than for show? Does the slave owner actually find worth in one escaped slave, enough to send a whole gang of slave-catchers after him? Are slaves that hard to replace? Wouldn't it be easier to let a troublesome slave run away rather than struggle to beat the work out of him (assuming that the slaves most likely to chance their life by running away are the ones most resistant to working)? I want to understand better the dynamics between a slave owner and his slaves - not just that they owned them, but how valuable a slave was to them, and what conditions decided whether or not they sent pursuers after an escapee.

I think that the reason why the slave owners were so adamant about getting their slaves back is because if they were not, then that would probably have sent the message that the slave owner did not care about his slaves leaving or not, which is probably contradicting to what they wanted to do. I feel that slave owners wanted to keep their slaves and not have to buy new ones. It is sort of like the concept that if you lose a pair of shoes to a friend that you are able to get back you do not want to say “Shove it. I will buy a new pair.” Instead you will try getting them back as soon as you can or as soon as you need it. I think that this played a big role in the way history was written and how literature developed over the past couple centuries.

questions

Upon reading the post-bellum packet, I wondered about what it was like to live back then and be a woman writer like Emily Dickinson. I wondered about where I would fit in enough time to do any writing with a busy schedule with having to do house work all day and make clothes all the time. It would be a very busy life. I feel that this life style would not be something I would enjoy. I like my technology and internet very much.  Now that I think about it, I would spend a lot of time writing stories and reading books, as well as making clothes and other things.  I feel that I would end up not doing the daily chores and read all day and write all day instead. If I had to go back in time and compare today’s life to the time period back then, I would probably go crazy.  I think that I would be very bored in the past as I would find little to do that would entertain me.  I would rather have something to do to procrastinate with than have nothing to do except my actual work (school work). When Emily Dickinson was alive was a completely different time than now, almost two different worlds. I suspect that there were several skinny people who worked a lot and had little time on their hands. In today’s world, there are more people that are obese than there were in the past.  I think that this is due to modern day technology and more desk jobs than farming jobs. There are more “couch potato” people than busy bodies because of the modern day job tasks.



Basically, the questions I have are these:



What was life like for Emily Dickinson?

What made her decide to start writing, and where did she find the time?