Nathaniel Hawthorne once said, “Words – so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become, in the hands of one who knows how to combine them!” As much as I hate to admit it, he was very wise.

The cliché question of whether or not “the pen is mightier than the sword” has been asked time and time again, but as of yet remains truly unanswerable. There are opinions, of course: those in favor of the pen, those in favor of the sword, and, perhaps the most common, those who believe that both the pen and the sword are essential and inseparable. There are periods in history when one stance is right, and there are periods in history in which the other side rules. The American Revolution was a time when the pen dominated over the sword, a time when ideas, not actions, prevailed.

During the late 1760s and early 1770s, American thoughts of independence and Enlightenment ideas were quickly spreading. These radical beliefs were facilitated by such written masterpieces as Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence, and were kept alive in times of darkness by the Federalist papers and the Constitution. These products of the pen sparked the American Revolution, ended it, and created a new nation that is now the superpower of the world. Battles such as Saratoga and Yorktown may have ended the war against Britain, but it was the power of words that ended the war for independence.

In the case of the American Revolution, the pen was mightier than the sword. Independence would never have crossed the colonists’ minds if not for words. Even today, power lies in words: media propaganda, music lyrics, and even the words of the Declaration of Independence rule today’s world. However, the war in Iraq has sparked a revolution of the sword. The only question left is: will you let the sword be mightier than the pen?

The American Revolution can be compared to a ship, where the colonists’ cause, their defiance against England, is the actual ship- the wood, riggings, mast, deck, etc. Without people to man the ship, fight for the cause, it will bob eternally in the harbor, never moving forward. Yet even then, if there is no wind, despite all the efforts of the crew, the ship will not go very far. Similarly, without words and rhetoric to forward a cause, you have an angry rabble with scattered complaints but no concrete argument: language is the air filling the sails of the ship that gives it that forward burst necessary for conquering the waves. The war started with a cause that people propagated through the use and manipulation of words: it was a combination of both language and actions that won the war.

The colonists were in shock over actions of the British. Yet without orators and writers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine to fan the flames of discontent and resentment through direct appeals to the colonists’ emotions and common sense, would they have striven for independence?

The Declaration of Independence was a formal consolidation of grievances and reasons to break from the mother country, and allowed for a direct appeal to foreign aid, specifically from France. Yet without Thomas Jefferson to immortalize the colonists’ resentment, would there ever have been more than a series of unsupported claims against the British?

Without the eloquent rhetoric of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in the articles praising a strong federalist government, would New York have ratified the Constitiution? Or would they have remained, for the most part, adamently against it, an iceberg in the path to a strong government and republic?

On the other hand, without the patience and determination of military leaders such as George Washington, Nathaniel Greene, William Prescott, Baron von Steuben, would not the British “lobster backs” have easily crushed a rabble of farmers waving pitchforks?

Without the reinforcement of French troops, money, and weapons, would the colonists have stood a chance against the most powerful naval and military force in the world?

Without Shays’s Rebellion to incite fear of anarchy in the minds of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, would they have been as cautious in awarding liberties to citizens while still maintaining a strong actuation of laws?

The colonists’s ship, wrought from their indignation and resentment, was held together with able men and their actions, while words provided the gusts of wind that awoke it from the doldrums and carried it steadily across the choppy waves. It was a tightly interwoven combination of both forces that won the revolutionary war, secured their independence from the meddlesome mother country, and eventually created stability under a new government

Is the pen mightier than the sword? I know many scholars who would argue that yes, indeed it is. Yet, how can a single plume, a single ball-point pen be mightier than 18 inches of steel?

Throughout the course of history, many examples give support for either side. Benjamin Franklin’s diplomatic eloquence, Jefferson’s powerful and idealistic words in the Declaration of Independence, and Thomas Paine’s rallying words in “Common Sense” are easy evidence supporting the pen. Each one enabled the nation we live in today to flourish into what it has become. Without these bolstering words, America would have unraveled at its seams.

Yet, even with these statements of encouragement floating around in the Colonists’ minds, would anything really have been done without the Continental Army under Gen. George Washington. The colonists’ futile attempts to appeal to King George III were obviously not going to win the respect they craved. Without action, the States would have remained a stagnant cesspool, forever wanting the liberty they could never attain.

However, even with the Continental Army, people’s support would have faltered in the hardest times, like the winter at Valley Forge. Washington’s unspoken leadership, the pen of Thomas Paine, and other silent actions kept the army and the nascent nation’s morale high.

It seems a combination of both, and not one or the either is truly the most potent combination. But, looking back into the ages, into the times of the Greeks and Romans, different leaders would argue different aspects. Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great would take the side of the sword, saying it is more honorable to fight and die by the sword then hide behind the false security provided by plume and paper. Yet, Socrates and Aristotle would argue the opposite: that there is no greater honor than to give elegant wisdom to the world.

Ultimately, it is up to the individual. We must hold the pen and the sword in either hand, as on a scale, and decide for ourselves whether the weight of the steel or the weight of the words is more valuable and valiant. Maybe it is a careful combination of the two, the pen bolstering up the sword with encouraging support, and the sword protecting the pen from danger. Or, perhaps it is the pen writing violent slander of the sword, and the sword seeking to slice the pen in two that is really the careful balance of power.

However it may be, they are equally connected, one to the other. Without one, the other would die, and with the one’s support the other thrives.

Did language win the American Revolution (in the “Spirit of ‘76") and secure the subsequent peace (in the United States Constitution of 1789)?

In the battle between the pen and the sword, I would have to say that the pen wins.

The words and ideas exchanged throughout the American Revolution were such a big impact. Many believe that actions and materialistic items such as weapons were the key to success, but I don’t think so. I believe that it was mentioned in both the textbook and during a lecture that the American colonists were not adequately supplied with weapons. Does that mean they lost? No. Yes, the American colonists were not as prepared as the British, considering that many of the farmers who participated in this revolution did not have the fundamentals of the battlefield fully grasped. The British, being somewhat prepared with battle strategy, had a sense of what they were trying to do. But, the British were only prepared through learning how to kill the enemy versus knowing how to compromise with the enemy through the use of persuasive language. The Americans did not win the American Revolution because they were fully equipped and extremely knowledgeable of battle fighting, but because they convinced a majority of their brethren to be mentally psyched for the challenge. Even for a person like George Washington, he was not a person to chop someone’s ear (Ha! A cherry tree!) off because he was feeling stressed out, but chose to instead motivate his neighbors, his friends, and his soldiers to remain focused on the goal. The Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, and other insightful works were successful in convincing the crowd to think, to think logically. These works persuaded masses of people to think things through and to se this logical approach. The way the authors of these works chose their syntax and their figurative language had a bigger impact because they used the idea of pathos, logos, and ethos in their arguments. Patrick Henry was very successful in this through his speech “Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death”. So because the American Revolution was successful through the use of a pen, this gradually lead to the peace later secured.

But even when the time came to secure a Constitution, there were still some disagreements. The American colonists realized that a small argument was not going to be resolved through fighting when all it needed was a talk. Fighting doesn’t solve anything. If you could put down the gun and step aside and speak out about your differences, much more can be accomplished than a pile of blood. This is where the Constitutional Convention comes in to sweep the day.

Is the pen mightier than the sword? Are words stronger than weapons? Or do weapons triumph?

In 1776 Americans fought the Revolutionary War. It could be argued that they fought with weapons (guns, ammunition, gunpowder, ships, cannons, etc) and that words were inconsequential. However, one must reflect on how the war began. Because of the written taxes on the colonists that Parliament passed, the written Declaration of Independence, “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, rejected written requests for the redressing of colonial grievances, and the written peace treaty that ended the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary cause carried through. Without all of these documents, none of the action would have happened, and Americans might possibly still be under British rule. On the other hand, each of these documents resulted from actions the colonists or others took: Parliament passed the laws; Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and Congress passed it; Paine wrote “Common Sense”; Parliament and George III rejected the pleas the colonies sent; and England and France approved the treaty that ended the French and Indian War.

But the Revolutionary War was not merely about gaining independence from Britain. The war did not end when the fighting stopped. The colonies had to unite and form a single government in order to achieve the real victory. How was this unity achieved? Some may argue that the non-importation agreements really united the colonies; they were united around a common purpose, a common boycott or lack of economic action, against the British. But the Committees of Correspondence, groups from different colonies, or states rather, reinforced these non-importation agreements and the common purpose. They wrote letters back and forth to ensure that the Americans were all “on the same page.” Another driving force of the non-importation agreements was the formation of the Association by the 1st Continental Congress in 1774. The Association was a group that was dedicated to avoiding all products from Britain; those who did not follow the goal of the Association were tarred and feathered, another action. So a mixture of words and actions accomplished the unity of the colonies. But what about the new government? The colonists, once they declared their independence and became Americans, needed a government to be eligible to receive unveiled French aid in the war. So the Articles of Confederation were written, tying the states together with a weak federal government that was incapable of even levying taxes. During the time the Articles of Confederation were in effect, they did allow the government to pass good legislation on for Frontier development and to obtain the favorable Treaty of Paris. These actions, while good for the new country, did not take steps to unite the states or establish a strong, lasting government. Over time, the Articles of Confederation were unable to accomplish more; they tied the hands of Congress and gave the power to the states, each of which used it in different ways. The time came for the inaction of the Articles to be reassessed and the Articles themselves reworked. A constitutional convention was called, postponed, and reassembled in Philadelphia in 1787. This convention decided to disobey their instructions and write a brand-new constitution. So the Constitution of the United States was written. The delegates at the convention debated until they were blue in the face and finally compromised on representation matters. That was only the beginning. When the Constitution was first released, many states condemned it for its strong federal government and the absence of a Bill of Rights. However, after much debate in both verbal and written form, the Constitution was ratified by nine states in 1788 and went into effect. The remaining states eventually ratified it, knowing that they could not function outside of the union. So the formation of the new government included some action but was mostly based on words: the words in the actual Constitution, the words of the debates, and the written essays and articles about the document. In a sense, however, the lack of productivity of the Articles of Confederation played a major part of the writing of the Constitution – the Constitution never would have been written if the Articles fulfilled their purpose.

All of these historical events that led to the Revolutionary War, won it, united the states, and founded the new government, illustrate a harmony of words and actions. Words alone could not win a war, and action alone cannot secure a peace or set up a new government. Both must be present for success. How much of each must be present? Who knows?

My feet are cold, so I slip on my pair of slippers – I cannot wait until the new heater is installed. It is quiet, so I turn on some soft music to inspire my brain that seems to be so slow after the revelation that overcame me after seventh period. Three days without school? It’s the weekend? I don’t have very much homework? Magic Mountain is tomorrow?
Do my actions make a difference? Does my opinion on this blog matter? The fight between the sword and the pen… doesn’t it seem that the sword would be more powerful? Being at least twenty times larger and made out of heavy metal; but put into the hands of one who does not know the proper technique, it can become a dangerous weapon to that person as well as those around them. But give a pen to someone and tell them to write… can they learn as readily as they can take up the sword? The sword might be a first instinct to some; the easy way out. For me, I could have kept my feet cold and learned of that sensation that could bring me inspiration for a poem or even a short story. If I had listened to the silence, I could have learned from my own thoughts and thought deeply while listening to the silence. Do these thoughts make my life better? Do they make my feet warmer and my mind wisp into bliss with the music? The pen can only prove useful if one has the mind to make it work.

In the instance of the taxes bestowed upon the colonists, those forms of the sword were parried with a sword of the colonists’ own. But did the colonists gain independence because of their childish stubbornness when they rioted against the taxes? Did they not get punished for their misdeeds like children? The sword in this instance was used without proper knowledge of how to hold the hilt or to swing the blade. But when the feeble pen was taken up by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence was born. Did this win independence for the states? Did it not show that they could fight back with words? The pen won this battle, but did it win the war?

After Baron von Steuben came and straightened out the American troops, they learned how to wield the sword and thus gained ground in the war. After the battle at Yorktown, which the British surrendered, the state sympathizing Whigs took over the war and thus steered the two nations from the war and into a kind of peace. This battle was won mostly by the sword and only used the pen to finish it off.

Both the sword and the pen fought side by side to bring America to win the war, but the pen was by far the stronger of the two. But the tools must be put into the right hands to allow the strength to flow through them and thus create a better nation.

Last winter at the annual family Christmas party at my Grandma's house my entire dysfunctional family gathered together. On my Grandpa's side his kids range from an ex- marine to an R.N. to a convicted felon. Ah the beauty of diversity. (But wait this prompt isn't about diversity- it's about words.) True to form the drug addict/convict uncle of mine decides to start a fistfight with his stepson in my Grandma's backyard. Typical. None of the family was surprised, just my Grandpa who had to go outside and peal his son off of the poor victim. Guess what happened next...

My grandpa sat them both down and... drum roll please... THEY TALKED IT OUT!!! 30 minutes later-problem solved. We got on with our jolly get-together.

In my opinion war is not much different. A leader from one country can misinterpret something and come attack another country over very little evidence at all. Hey, it seems to happen all the time. But if these leaders would get all the facts together before they launch attacks and people die, maybe the outlook of our world wouldn't be so terrible. Have you ever considered that much more can be accomplished by talking than fighting? In fights people only get physically or emotionally hurt. What good has ever come out of confrontation? Now consider a calm conversation where feelings and ideas can be expressed. One covers more ground when discussing an issue rather than fighting about it. The outcome of talking is usually a better situation than before. Fights only make things worse and they can only be resolved by talking.

Yes a war can be resolved by words. I believe that any positive outcome of a war has been accomplished by words and peace. Peace is a compromise reached by words.

Personally, this has been by far the hardest prompt for me to form a general, overall opinion about. On one hand, it is clear that one could never win a war without proper support. I could go back through history and cite numerous examples of how the word triumphed over the sword: Mahatma Ghani’s peaceful drive for Indian Independence, the brewing internal strife that caused the Soviet Union to fall without the need for World War III, and most germane to the world today, our losing war against the relatively poorly equipped insurgents of Iraq. A great soldier may be a hero for a day, but a great writer may be a hero forever.

On the other hand, actions speak louder than words. If a person has cancer, they are cured by drugs and chemotherapy, not by consoling words and ideas. Think how easy it is to do something thoughtful for a person compared to how hard it is to think of just the right words to inspire someone. We sent troops to Afghanistan not because of what someone said, but because we were personally attacked. A person is more fittingly judged by the actions, not words.

Before I could even start thinking and writing about the American Revolution, I had to come to some conclusion on this issue. I seriously sat in front of the computer for half an hour, pondering over this question before I began to write. Finally, a key phrase ran through my head: actions speak louder than words, but does that make them more powerful, or just more forceful. Actions are in and of themselves only as powerful as the ideas they represent. The Whiskey Rebellion failed because no one really cared; people really cared about the American Revolution. No matter how powerful an opponent is, they can always be defeated if you have the advantage of morale (watch just about any Disney movie to see my point). It is easy enough to get trapped in the deception that the fight against cancer only involves surgery and treatment and white blood cells. What people do not see is the internal, almost spiritual fight against cancer; the everyday struggle to find the motivation to stay alive, to not give up, to FIGHT!

So now that that’s all taken care of, I can focus more specifically on the American Revolution. Mr. Geib already mentioned all of the most obvious evidence above (Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, “Give me Liberty or Give me Death,” etc.), so instead I will try (in brief) to justify such actions as Lexington and Saratoga. Speaking of Lexington and Concord…well, yes, they were major actions that started a major war (kind of reminds me of 9/11), but the reason why people were so angered/inspired/pissed off was because of the cause the Patriots stood for, and by the transitive property, the cause which the British seemingly attacked. Saratoga was important because it represented the idea that the Americans had a chance of winning the war. In fact all the battles of the War were really only forces which caused the ebb and flow of the colonists’ morale, and thus the physical gains and losses on the battlefield were only important as morale boosters. The hardest notion to take in is how the (material and military) French aid clearly turned the tide of the war. The fact of the matter is that this is absolutely true. The actions induced by words are nearly as important as the words themselves. Trying to win a war without a sizable military force and adequate supplies would be like literally fighting a sword with a pen…unless, as Terry Pratchett once said, “the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp.”

Can the pen really win over the sword or is it the other way around? History has shown examples of both of these in different eras.

Most would think that pure brute force gets everything but what happens when you are on a winning streak and you happen to be matched up with someone with greater power? My answer to that is: tough luck. Along with the sword comes its insatiable thirst for victory and with every victory, more lives are lost.

The pen for one, wins battles on a less gruesome scale. The written word makes people think and actually use their intellect instead of letting them loose into a barbaric killing spree. In my perspective, the sword is like a game of Warcraft, or whatever it’s called, while the pen is like a game of Chess. Warcraft takes strategy and all but requires a mind that can make sacrifices some necessary for victory, others sacrificed but end up in defeat. Chess is a game that takes intellect and keeps your brain moving two or even three steps before your current one.

I believe that for the American Revolution, there was a need of both the sword and the pen. The pen was the side that wrote the Declaration of Independence from Britain and showed the world that the new nation was not one to be looked down upon. But sometimes words cannot win a battle alone. Like the common phrase goes, “actions speak louder than words” there are times when the pen fails to influence and requires the sword to come in and use force to help it along. Sometimes the two just need to join together to win.

I also believe that during the Revolution, the pen got the whole public involved in the common cause to unite against a common enemy. After the pen does its job, the sword carries out the orders. In a way, the pen is the recruiter and the sword is the recruited. So, in some situations like the Revolution, the pen can’t win without the sword.

I vote for the machine gun.

I agree that the pen is quite a powerful instrument in attacking civil unrest. Be a Quaker!

I believe the pen is mightier that the sword. In the constant struggle betwixt the people and government, it has been the pen which has been the savior for society. Become a Quaker!