Compare And Contrast The Arguments In Favour Of Harmonious Living

This kind of arguing in favor of harmonious living can be seen in both of these accounts of early Republican living. While Apess advocated for the better treatment of the oppressed and marginalized Natives, Jefferson argued that there was no reason for one’s religious preference to take a higher status than the next person’s religious preference. Both argued in favor of ending senseless oppression based on perceptions of a religion based hierarchy. Apess argues that his “brethren… natives of the forest” are “notwithstanding you call them ‘savage’... and will occupy the kingdom of heaven before you”.4 When Apess argues that the natives will also be found in heaven he is arguing that there is no difference between the religiosity or the spirit of a Native person versus the spirit of a colonizing white Republican person. …show more content…
While arguing against the senseless practice of jailing a person because their religion, Jefferson argues that leadership is often corrupt and can lead people to oppress others who are like them or even - better than them. “Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims”.1 This is precisely what happened to the Native people in Apess’ case. Jefferson expresses what Apess went through by addressing the fact that “careless people” and “corrupt rulers” will make victims out of others who are “unlike them”, victims who do not share religious affiliation, victims who do not share the same biological traits, victims who will also “occupy heaven” with their oppressors. Jefferson warned of religious oppression while unknowingly addressing the fact that racial oppression was based on the same illogical ideology of hatred of the unalike. Jefferson and Apess both produced ideologies similar to one another, both advocated for religious acceptance and through that - overall acceptance of religious and racial