I would have to disagree that the author initially is (subtly) making an argument. Lease's argument is the American frontier's men and women made huge sacrifices of blood and sweat in order to settle the 'great American desert' and turn it into a cultured West. In other words, Lease is arguing a valid point that America owes a debt to the frontier's settlers that should be paid in gratitude for having the will to achieve westward expansion, but instead is being unfairly taxed, in the form of high mortgages and foreclosures, by an oppressive government and economic system whose aims seems, at least to the author, to be the promotion of profit and loss instead of freedom and liberty. The author, Lease, makes another strong argument, primarily ethos based, that the current economic system is a new form of 'white slavery' as the typical citizen could ill afford not to be part of the corrupt Farmer's Alliance. Document 2 by Donnelly makes fairly similar arguments as Lease in regards to the Populist movement. It is in document 3 by Lewelling that is of particular interest. Lewelling makes the argument, or the observation rather, that the State should be subservient to its' people, but instead the people have become servants of the State. A very radical concept for its' day. This ideology of State versus individual, far left on the political spectrum, is still a major issue to this very day which is what makes such a document of significant historical relevance.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Response to Ocala Demands
I find the Ocala demands to be a bit of a contradiction, primarily demands 6 & 7. In essence demand 6 states that no aliens (immigrants) should be allowed to own US land, yet, demand 7 proclaims equal rights for all, special privileges for none. Seems very illogical when viewed through modern eyes, yet illustrates the isolationist, nationalistic, and even racist mindset of America during the late 1890's. As far as demanding the abolition of a national bank, this demand is key to the newly formed Populists. Thomas Jefferson early in his presidency was opposed to the idea of a national banking system as he thought such an entity would become powerful enough to dictate political policy without the limits of checks and balance system that was part of the Constitution. The Ocala demands regarding a national bank and the potential dangers that could occur echo Jefferson's concerns more than a 100 years after he voiced them. In my opinion, the Ocala demands ultimately is warning that the post-Civil War America that was poised to become an industrial powerhouse needed to remember the core values of both liberty and equality that the founder’s of the US based the ideals of America upon. The Ocala demands were made, at least partially, in response to the growing rift between post-Civil War American social and economic classes. I feel that the authors of the Ocala Demands could sense a new form of aristocracy beginning to get a foothold in the American way of life and were strongly opposed to such growing trend. The aristocracy being the rich (bankers, railroad tycoons, oil barons) exploiting and oppressing the poor (working class and farmers).
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Emancipation Proclamation
Less than two years after his first inaugural speech that promised both North and South that there would be no changing of current laws regarding slavery already in effect in the US in the mid 1800's, President Abraham Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation officially would free all slaves throughout America and make the practice of slavery that was being fought for by the Southern Confederate States illegal. After decades of dispute and even a Civil War, finally all slaves would forever be given their freedom in America by official decree direct from president Lincoln.
1. What is the author arguing?
President Lincoln is not arguing anything. His decree, or proclamtion rather, is not open for debate nor is it a speech meant to persuade. After much bloodshed and at an unspeakably high cost to America, the time has come for president Lincoln to do not only what is right, but the only thing left to do, which is for once and for all to rid the US of its' self-imposed sickness of slavery that was rotting the country's soul to its' very core.
2. How does the author appeal to the Logos, Pathos, Ethos?
Once again, Lincoln's background as a former lawyer is evident in his proclamation as he states his interpretaion of the Constituiton. Lincoln diplays the logos of his proclamation by stating that as Commander-in-Chief during an actual military rebellion, he has to take such a drastic action as freeing the slaves, thus altering Constitutional law (he previously stated he would NOT do such an act) as part of an overall effort to end any rebellion against the government, which he is entitled to do under such circumstances.
The ethos and pathos of his proclamtion occur towards the end of his speech. Lincoln imploys pathos as he appeals to the newly freed slaves to not take up violence of any kind with the exception of self defense. His second to last line of the proclamation fully displays the inherant ethos of Lincoln's character when he states"...And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution..." which essentially reveals that he is following his conscience by freeing all slaves.
3. What is the historical significance of this document?
The major historical significance of this document is twofold. One: It officially, and forever freed all slaves in the US. Two: the proclamation denotes a major shift in
Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln had up to this point been very much a Congressional president (a president that strictly adheres to the powers due him that are outlined within the Constituion). Because of the extremly dire circumstances of the Civil War, Lincoln is forced to become a perogative president and in essence do whatever he feels is necessary to end the Civil War and unify the Union. To this end, Lincoln changes Constituional law with his Emacipation Proclamation and would even go so far as revoking the rights of habus corpus (due process of law) as well as instituting the very first US military draft.
4. Do I find the author's argument convincing?
As I stated earlier, I do not feel as though there is any argument being made, only a final decree that is not open for debate or rebuttal. At this point in US history, America was on the verge of collapse due to being in such a costly war of attrition with itself. The time for debate, points and counterpoints had long since passed after the first shot was fired and America was fully engaged in a Civil War that needed a decisive victory with no idealogical compromises. Either slavery would have to end or America itself would have to, there could no longer be two sets of laws that would divide North and South.
1. What is the author arguing?
President Lincoln is not arguing anything. His decree, or proclamtion rather, is not open for debate nor is it a speech meant to persuade. After much bloodshed and at an unspeakably high cost to America, the time has come for president Lincoln to do not only what is right, but the only thing left to do, which is for once and for all to rid the US of its' self-imposed sickness of slavery that was rotting the country's soul to its' very core.
2. How does the author appeal to the Logos, Pathos, Ethos?
Once again, Lincoln's background as a former lawyer is evident in his proclamation as he states his interpretaion of the Constituiton. Lincoln diplays the logos of his proclamation by stating that as Commander-in-Chief during an actual military rebellion, he has to take such a drastic action as freeing the slaves, thus altering Constitutional law (he previously stated he would NOT do such an act) as part of an overall effort to end any rebellion against the government, which he is entitled to do under such circumstances.
The ethos and pathos of his proclamtion occur towards the end of his speech. Lincoln imploys pathos as he appeals to the newly freed slaves to not take up violence of any kind with the exception of self defense. His second to last line of the proclamation fully displays the inherant ethos of Lincoln's character when he states"...And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution..." which essentially reveals that he is following his conscience by freeing all slaves.
3. What is the historical significance of this document?
The major historical significance of this document is twofold. One: It officially, and forever freed all slaves in the US. Two: the proclamation denotes a major shift in
Lincoln's presidency. Lincoln had up to this point been very much a Congressional president (a president that strictly adheres to the powers due him that are outlined within the Constituion). Because of the extremly dire circumstances of the Civil War, Lincoln is forced to become a perogative president and in essence do whatever he feels is necessary to end the Civil War and unify the Union. To this end, Lincoln changes Constituional law with his Emacipation Proclamation and would even go so far as revoking the rights of habus corpus (due process of law) as well as instituting the very first US military draft.
4. Do I find the author's argument convincing?
As I stated earlier, I do not feel as though there is any argument being made, only a final decree that is not open for debate or rebuttal. At this point in US history, America was on the verge of collapse due to being in such a costly war of attrition with itself. The time for debate, points and counterpoints had long since passed after the first shot was fired and America was fully engaged in a Civil War that needed a decisive victory with no idealogical compromises. Either slavery would have to end or America itself would have to, there could no longer be two sets of laws that would divide North and South.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
The first inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln was delivered in the Capital on March 4, 1861. In his first address as the newly elected sixteenth president in our nation's history, Lincoln's primary concern was to alleviate the growing tensions between the North and the South over the issue of slavery. In particular, Lincoln choose to plainly state his (initial) position that he would take on the issue of slavery as president, in which he spoke on non-interference with the institution of slavery in the States where it existed, the return of escaped slaves to their rightful owners upon demand, and the preservation of the Union.
1. What is the author arguing?
What Abraham Lincoln is arguing, at this early stage of his presidency, is that he feels that he has no legal right as president to disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the institution of slavery in the states of the Union in which slavery is legal. He is also stating that there are already laws in place that address the issue of the returning of escaped slaves to their respective owners, and he as the top executive of government will abide by and enforce such laws. Both of Lincoln's arguments are in essence tactful ways of informing both factions of the North and South that his primary duty as president is to preserve the Union at all costs, despite what his personal and/or moral misgivings on the issue of slavery may be.
2. How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?
Being a former lawyer, Lincoln immediately appeals to the logic of his inaugural address by stating his interpretation of being a congressional president ( a president that strictly adheres to the powers granted by the Constitution due the Executive branch of government). What this means is that Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution specifically prohibits any direct interference or changing of Constitutional laws that already exist by the executive (presidential) branch, only the Legislative branch (Congress) has the power to do so. As president, Lincoln can only enforce laws that are already in place. Thus, Lincoln is stating that the issue of whether or not he will attempt to end slavery has already been settled by the existing laws of the Constitution. Later in his inaugural address, Lincoln would add both ethos and pathos to his argument, or pledge rather, to not interfere with the institution of slavery in slave states. Ethos in that he continually cites his consistent past record of not interfering with the already established laws that govern the issue of slavery. Pathos in that he ends is inaugural address by reminding all in attendance, both Northern and Southerners, that "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection..." In other words, that if the looming Civil War is to be averted, then both North and South must remain unified as Americans.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document shows that Lincoln initially wanted to keep the Union in tact and avert a inescapable Civil War by pledging to uphold that era's status quo and defend the South's rights to own and practice slavery. History shows that despite his most earnest efforts, he would ultimately have to make the most difficult decision ever made by a U.S. president and break his pledge by freeing all slaves, which would lead to a Civil War.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing?
I have read this document on several occasions in the past and each time I still get a sense of awe at Lincoln's mastery of delivering such a powerful message. I truly feel as though Lincoln knew how dire the nation's future prospects of going to war with itself were. I can only imagine just how long he took to write this address and how carefully he had to word it. One wrong phrase or misunderstanding could have ignited a war at any moment. I am completely convinced that Lincoln, at the time his initial address was given, would have done anything to delay, or prevent the Civil War from happening and that he hoped that both the North and the South would hold of arms during his term as president.
1. What is the author arguing?
What Abraham Lincoln is arguing, at this early stage of his presidency, is that he feels that he has no legal right as president to disrupt, or otherwise interfere with the institution of slavery in the states of the Union in which slavery is legal. He is also stating that there are already laws in place that address the issue of the returning of escaped slaves to their respective owners, and he as the top executive of government will abide by and enforce such laws. Both of Lincoln's arguments are in essence tactful ways of informing both factions of the North and South that his primary duty as president is to preserve the Union at all costs, despite what his personal and/or moral misgivings on the issue of slavery may be.
2. How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?
Being a former lawyer, Lincoln immediately appeals to the logic of his inaugural address by stating his interpretation of being a congressional president ( a president that strictly adheres to the powers granted by the Constitution due the Executive branch of government). What this means is that Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution specifically prohibits any direct interference or changing of Constitutional laws that already exist by the executive (presidential) branch, only the Legislative branch (Congress) has the power to do so. As president, Lincoln can only enforce laws that are already in place. Thus, Lincoln is stating that the issue of whether or not he will attempt to end slavery has already been settled by the existing laws of the Constitution. Later in his inaugural address, Lincoln would add both ethos and pathos to his argument, or pledge rather, to not interfere with the institution of slavery in slave states. Ethos in that he continually cites his consistent past record of not interfering with the already established laws that govern the issue of slavery. Pathos in that he ends is inaugural address by reminding all in attendance, both Northern and Southerners, that "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection..." In other words, that if the looming Civil War is to be averted, then both North and South must remain unified as Americans.
3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
The historical significance of this document shows that Lincoln initially wanted to keep the Union in tact and avert a inescapable Civil War by pledging to uphold that era's status quo and defend the South's rights to own and practice slavery. History shows that despite his most earnest efforts, he would ultimately have to make the most difficult decision ever made by a U.S. president and break his pledge by freeing all slaves, which would lead to a Civil War.
4. Do you find the author's argument convincing?
I have read this document on several occasions in the past and each time I still get a sense of awe at Lincoln's mastery of delivering such a powerful message. I truly feel as though Lincoln knew how dire the nation's future prospects of going to war with itself were. I can only imagine just how long he took to write this address and how carefully he had to word it. One wrong phrase or misunderstanding could have ignited a war at any moment. I am completely convinced that Lincoln, at the time his initial address was given, would have done anything to delay, or prevent the Civil War from happening and that he hoped that both the North and the South would hold of arms during his term as president.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Transatlantic Abolition
The article Transatlantic Abolition deals with the rise of the anti-slavery movements beginning in the 1780's in both the fledgling US and across the Atlantic ocean, primarily in Great Britain. According to the article, a major contributing factor to the anti-slavery movement was the involvement of the Quaker religious sects present in both Great Britain, as well as in the American state of Pennsylvania, whose ideals and value systems held strong convictions regarding the equality of Man. So strong were such convictions that a petition of 273 British Quaker religious members petitioned Great Britain's Parliament to end slavery in 1783, eventually joining other religious sects in the formation of the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade just five years later. Such efforts by British Quakers were mirrored in the US by Pennsylvanian counterparts whose Quaker members petitioned the US Congress to immediately end slavery in 1791. Though initially powered by Quaker sentiment, over the next thirty years the anti-slavery movement would gain strength through a growing number of non-Quaker advocates as well as a strong number of women supporters whose aims were to end both the international slave trade as well as slavery itself. Due to the overwhelming number of petitioners (1.3 million) British Parliament passed the Abolition of Slavery Act in 1833. The abolition of slavery in Great Britain prompted American Abolitionist delegates, as well as delegates from France and the West Indies to convene in London to discuss and strategize ways in which to finally end slavery in the rest of Europe and across the Atlantic in America.
Question 1. Even though the Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" why do you feel that it was primarily only the Quakers, that initially applied such an ideology to slaves?
Question 2. In your opinion, why did it take only a massive, yet non-violent petition for Britain's Parliament to abolish slavery and an extremely bloody and costly Civil War for America to finally put an end to slavery?
Question 1. Even though the Declaration of Independence states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" why do you feel that it was primarily only the Quakers, that initially applied such an ideology to slaves?
Question 2. In your opinion, why did it take only a massive, yet non-violent petition for Britain's Parliament to abolish slavery and an extremely bloody and costly Civil War for America to finally put an end to slavery?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)