Comparison Of Noah Webster And Benjamin Rush

465 Words2 Pages

Authors named Noah Webster and Benjamin Rush explained the goals and plans that the American colonies wanted in order to achieve and expand their rights, liberty, and freedom although Noah Webster’s opinion creates a more powerful argument than Benjamin Rush. Creating a starting point on trying to expand something is always important in any situation and that is what Noah Webster wants to prove in his passage. Webster stated, “property is the basis of power; and this, being established as a cardinal point, directs us to the means of preserving freedom” (Foner 111). As depicted, this is what the American colonists wanted to do in order to be freed from the Great Britain’s control, to own their property as freemen and liberty with no restrictions or laws that enforce them to feel chained and enslaved. Webster also explained, “general and tolerably equal distribution of landed property is the whole basis of national freedom” (Foner 112). As pointed, he wants to point out that land is an essential first …show more content…

The argument was weak due to the flaw of his ideal right that female needs to possess for the Republic. As an example, “ladies should be qualified to a certain degree by a peculiar and suitable education, to concur in instructing their sons” (Foner 118). Rush explains that the reason why a female is being given education is to be a mother that will teach them about the government and liberty when the father can teach as well. The flaw in Rush’ argument was focused on having females only to be taught with “particularly with such parts of them applicable to domestic and culinary purposes” (Foner 118). He did not intend to give females as much freedom as men since they view them as nowhere better than a housewife that needs to serve their husbands and children just as how Great Britain have females