The theme of resistance seems to be a reoccurring one in most of the literatures we have examined so far this semester.  It has taken different forms in the materials we have studied. Be it in child resisting a parent’s will, as seen in Emma Corbett and Constantius and Pulchera, or in a ward rebelling against a guardian, as seen in St. Herbert, or in slaves resisting their masters, as seen in slave narratives, it is obvious that resistance cannot be successful carried out without some mechanisms in place.

These mechanisms can be as accessible as a person’s desire for freedom, one’s own wit, or the help of others. Or they can take other forms that are not so easily accessible, such as money, weapons, or a constitution. For example, a prisoner seeking to escape prison would probably need a combination of all of these things to be successful.  The more complex the scale of the resistance one wishes to carry out, the more complex the mechanism one would need to be successful. We have also seen resistance on larger scales, such as a nation rebelling against another. These acts of resistance need even more complex mechanisms, since the agency being resisted is a much higher authority. It is these kinds of resistance and the mechanisms or strategies that make them successful that I wish to explore in my research paper.

By comparing and contrasting America’s resistance against Britain to the slaves’ resistance against America, I seek to find answers to these questions: How did these two forms of resistance differ from each other? And how was the idea of “all men are created equal” used as a mechanism in both.  How was popular media (literature, newspaper, etc.) used as mechanisms to bring about emancipation? How did individual forms of resistance lead to a collective resistance? What brought about the change in people’s mind about slavery? It has always been a horrible thing, so what led to the change and eventually the freedom? How did the humanization of slavery lead to emancipation?