Two of the readings were written by Thomas Jefferson so before anything I started off by searching him up. Thomas Jefferson was US 3^rd president, who ran office from 1800-1826. More importantly, he was the author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom. Just from these alone, he already made himself stand out from the former presidents, and this was important.  The title of his letter “Tree of Liberty” made me ponder on its (metaphorical) meaning. The word “tree” comes to me as symbolic of nature, from the ground, with strong roots, growing, and to a certain extent, long lasting. The word “liberty” means freedom. We may look at it through human rights, how much open voice there is for people, but also, as an ideal, as this collective common vision. Also associated with liberty is the notion of peace. One could also think of the “tree of liberty” as the “tree of life”. Another thing mentioned in his letter is rebellions. We often associate them as something negative but in his letter I think he asking us to think of them differently. He sees rebellions as a “wake up call”, a call for change, a signaling that ordinary citizens count. Interestingly not thought of before, they can also be seen as stabilizers, bringing balance and harmony. One last thing I would like to address in his letter is that the 1800s seemed to be a time of national sentiments, unification, and building. To accomplish such things required liberty. So this was a time where social unification and a collective and open-minded project were important. Thomas Jefferson’s other letter addressed to James Madison, also repeats the significance of rebellions. However two quotes that resonated in my mind were when he mentioned that “people have rights to express their grievances over the government” (which is true). However, the question of rights is always a delicate, sketchy, and subjective matter. While thinking about rights as a principle, I came up with an interesting question and that is, in what ways can having rights be both a help and undermine (to governments/life in general)? We always think of rights as fundamentally good. However, having too many rights, people can then sometimes abuse that privilege and be consumed by notions of power and grandiosity, which not only undermines the government, but also society itself. I also liked how he classified societies as those without governments, with governments (that are good), and with governments (though that are bad, or namely, authoritarian). In particular, I liked his comparison of authoritarian governments as governments of wolves over sheep, as it really shows this power differential. Finally,

Robespierre’s letter on terror was somewhat of a reading challenge as to me it seemed as if he was advocating two things that were contradictory to each other. On one side he mentioned terror as a good thing. He said how we need to end the war of liberty, as if, because of liberty (something that we are fighting for), there are lots of violence and suffering, something which Robespierre does not agree with. He says to put an end to the war of liberty, also because it causes tyranny. Furthermore, he then goes on saying that “terror is nothing other than justice, and is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs”. Here he seems to be justifying the use of terror, as he sees it as putting an end to unwanted violence. And then, at the end of his letter he’s putting the blame on those who instill revolutionary or hostile ideas and behaviors into people and against the government. And he classifies them as enemies, assassins, instigators, or traitors. Basically, he seems to be against violence and tyranny, and thinks that terror, however, is a good and justifiable thing?? But at the same time, he looks at something completely different. He emphasizes the notion of virtues and names two of them: virtue of love for the country, and virtue of equality. He also says that virtue has to be present in both people and government; that when government lacks virtue it’s okay, but when the people lack virtue, you lose liberty. So now we see him talking about ideals and positive thinking. He also points out “that a nation is corrupt when it goes from being a democracy to an aristocracy or monarchy”. But then again, aristocracy and monarchy both rely on the use of power and suppression, both synonymous to his idealization of reign of terror. And to add one last layer of contradiction, he also mentions what he calls “mercy for humanity”. Despite his seemingly contradictory letter, there are however some interesting points and perspectives of looking at things.