Text Analysis: Populist Party Platform, July 4th, 1892

What is the author Arguing?

      The author here is trying to rise up against the horrible corruption of the government. He is trying to convince other people that they are not being heard, their money is being taken away from them by the wealthy, and that their businesses are being controlled by the government. In the preamble, he talks about how the Republicans and the Democrats have such a blood-thirsty hunger for power and control that it has brought these awful conditions in which he lives in. He says that the Government is so caught up in fighting over power that they are ignoring ever other problem and silencing its country’s people.

       He is trying to argue that they need to essentially take a step back and reform the government so that is it controlled by the “plain people”.

How does the author show this using Logos (Logical), Pathos (Emotional), and Ethos (Credibility)?

       He shows Logos by calling out the government on all the crap it’s been doing. He says that the government should be run by the plain people, “the class that it originated from.” The author talks about how they have lost control over their government, “They propose to drown the outcries of the plundered people with an uproar of the sham battle over the tariff…” This can be both Logos and Pathos because he calls the people plundered, like as though they have had some barbarians come in and take everything that they own and beat down on them, but then he steps in with Logos and talks about how the government is only fighting over the tax and forgotten about everything else.

        The author also shows us Pathos through his passion. You can tell by reading the preamble that he is highly affected by these conditions, and is very upset about the state of his life. “We pledge ourselves that if given power we will labor to correct these evils by wise and reasonable legislation…” He uses the word “evils” to describe what the government has been doing. He also goes into how the country should be held together by the love of its people, not by “pinning together its bayonets.” Meaning that its people were bonded by the civil war, but now that it’s over its bond should die with it. People should not be united by war, especially with its own country.

       He shows us Ethos through his reasoning. He isn’t asking that the people overthrow the government, he is asking for some changes in the ways things are run in a very organized and reasonable manor. He didn’t just complain about the awful things the government was doing for the whole document, he also gave us a solution to the problem through the railroad being owned by the government, not by large businesses, the land being owned by the settlers of this land, not by aliens for profit, through a fair election ballot, etc. Everything that he asks of the government to change is very reasonable.

What is the Historical Significance of this piece?

       The historical significance of this piece is how even though the government had only been formed not even 200 years before this, there had already been corruption and problems in the power and responsibility given to the government. The author of this piece was very brave as to stand up against the powerful government to call them out on all their wrong doings and then tell them how to fix it. This was probably very inspirational back when it was written and even today makes me feel better that there were people out there who saw the corruption and wanted to do something about it.

Do you agree with the author’s argument?

       I do completely agree. He is a great writer, he organized his arguments very well, and they were good arguments. This was just a man who was tired of being pushed around and watching over people suffer while the government just fought for power. I think that the government should be put in check every so often, looked over by a 3^rd party and evaluated on a lot of its decisions because there should never be a time where the government has so much power that they forget what is really important; the protection of its country’s people.

TA on a Letter to an English Abolitionist - Gracea Hilsen

What is the author arguing?

         The author is arguing that without slavery, our Nation will fall apart, or would’ve fallen apart. He states numerous times that it is the cornerstone of our foundation; it is what is holding us together. To support his argument he says that God, Jesus, and the Decibels’ all like slavery, and encourage it. He argues that in the bible it states that slavery is a good thing. Then it goes on to say that men can never be truly equal, but that if the slaves were smarter they wouldn’t want to be freed because in his eyes, they are treated fairly and well taken care of. He just really doesn’t like the abolitionists.

How does the author appeal to Logos, Pathos, and Ethos in their document?

         I hate to say it, but some of his arguments are very well thought through and he is a great writer. He uses logos through his arguments like that his slaves are treated better than a lot of the people in Britain at the time which in many cases was probably true. Great Britain had a lot of child labor and just miserable workers while over in America, he says that the slave children were given light work, all of them were fed well, housed, and he would never punish them to the point of being unable to work because, logically, why would you damage your prized horse? He also uses the argument that slavery is what built this country up, it is what supports our economy, and that they consume 50% of Americas population so it is far too great of a risk to change their role or purpose so dramatically so fast. He uses ethos through the way he talks about his slaves. He says that yes, slave owners have raped their slaves but he argues that this happens everywhere, including the north and it doesn't happen just to slaves. He takes every accusation and throws it back in their face calling them a hypocrite. He also says that their slaves have better lives than a lot of the poor people living in the north. A lot of the poor people didn't have homes and died of starvation and so I guess it makes the reader feel like “oh, hmm, maybe this slavery is an okay thing after all.” He also brings God into it a few times, and I know that must’ve hit a lot of people hard because he says that the slave owners are doing what God wants them to do. They are being responsible for him, for the community, that they have this power because God wants them to have it. Lastly, the author uses Ethos by pretty much saying that they as slave holders never ask anything from anyone else never bother anyone else, so why are you asking this of them? Then he goes to conclude that they are far too smart and educated to be tricked out of having their divine right of owning their property, meaning the slaves.

What is the historical significance of this piece?

           It is important because from this piece we can understand how the South could’ve believed so strongly in slavery that they felt it was an issue worth going to war over. Before reading this, I had no idea why they wanted to keep slavery so badly. From school, we’ve always been taught that slavery is so bad and of course, it was terrible, but you can feel the passion coming from this writer and how much he truly believed that there were so many benefits that came out of slavery. I mean, I only thought they just wanted to continue to make money or that they were too lazy to farm their own land but it was a whole different culture the way these people were raised. And this document perfectly presents that.

Do you find the authors argument convincing? Why or why not?

           This part is funny because I think the author is a great writer, he definitely had some good points, but of course I will not agree with him that slavery should stay around. Maybe at the time I might’ve agreed with him but his main problem was that he thinks he understands compassion but he doesn’t. No one should ever be deprived of liberty or free will, but for the time and situation, I would’ve agreed with probably 40% of all of his arguments. 

CDL on Going Ahead or Gone to Smash: An Entrepreneur Struggles in the 1830's - Gracea Hilsen

CDL #2.

Going ahead or Gone to Smash: An Entrepreneur Struggles in the 1830’s

 

Summary:

America in the 1830’s had a lot of hope for a good way of life, but almost a little too much. A New York Journalist said the enthusiasm made Americans “the most careless, reckless, headlong people on the face of the earth.” This brought the downfall of businesses.

                “Gone to smash” is a term for saying your business went under, and “Go-aheadism” was a term for their excitement. A man named Benjamin Rathbun decided to open a hotel in Buffalo along the Erie Canal and Great Lakes. It seemed promising with all the steam boats that went by. As populations doubled, so did Ben’s success. He made an empire of real estate and had his trusted brother, Lyman take care of the financial operations.

                A few years later in 1836, there was a crash as he realized that his creditors lost faith and started to sell his IOU’s at a discount; note shaving. His interest rates rocketed, so he got a massive amount of loans to back him up. When he asked for $500,000, the endorsements he had were forged by him and so he was convicted for fraud and sentenced 5 years.

                Benjamin’s panic brought Buffalo into a panic 8 months earlier than the rest of the country got it in 1837. But this highlighted the problem that loans for millions were given away through only a few small signatures. It is thought that 1/5 of all business men of the 1830’s didn’t make it.

                In the five years after 1837, they tried to fix it with the U.S. Bankruptcy Act of 1841 which embarrassed the business men by telling everyone they had no money but also paid off a lot of their debt and the credit rating industry where agents judged the creditworthiness of local businesses.

                After Benjamin was freed in 1843, he joined his wife who had been making ends meet in a boarding house. None the less, he opened another couple hotels and ran them till the day he died.

 

Questions:

1.       Benjamin’s failure led to the failure of a lot of other businesses. If he hadn’t been around, or if his business had succeeded, do you think it would’ve made a significant difference in how long they survived? Why or why not?

2.       The Bankruptcy Act and the Credit Rating Industry both seemed to be positive influences on their economy. Do you think either would help us in today’s economic issues? Why or why not?

CDL on Transatlantic Abolition - Gracea Hilsen

Sumary:

Abolitionism started back in the 1780’s, but it took 50 years before it exploded in the US. One of the reasons it made was able to make such an impact was from the Quaker religion, who believe strongly of human equality. But the reason the Quakers heard about it was due to the loss of the Imperial War for America and it brought up the debate on citizenship and slavery. This also the cause of the first petition to parliament to abolish slave trade.

English Quakers teamed up with the Anglicans and Methodists to form the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade and they slowly overtime grew credibility. They obtained thousands of signatures and organized a boycott against slave-produced sugar that consisted of 300,00 Britons. In 1789, they got their hands on 2 illustrations of extremely crowded slave ships and published them.  It brought such a shock to the people that they gave it another go with Parliament supported by William Wilberforce in 1791but it lost.

Another group of Quakers from Penn tried to get to Parliament again with the anti-slavery movement but failed in 1784. In 1790 when first congress met, they were given a petition to stop slave trade and another to stop slavery in general; both were rejected.

An antislavery group from France grew called the Society of the Friends of Blacks. They, working with other antislavery groups, decided to take down slave trade first. In 1794, the decree of the National Assembly freed all French colonial slaves and named them citizens.

1807, Parliament made it illegal for British ships to kidnap and transport Africans into slavery. 1808, The US banned international slave trade. Passing these laws was easy due to high African populations. In the 1820’s, British women began to make their move on the antislavery cause. Again, they sent out more signatures to parliament with nearly one third of them being women’s. In 1833, they passed the Abolition of Slavery Act which freed all slave children under the age of 6 and worked its way to the older slaves. It also gave money to land owners.

In 1840, people from Great Britain and America came together to the Anti-Slavery convention in London to talk about how to continue their momentum and celebrate their great success.

Questions:

1.       The American antislavery groups had a lot of help from other groups in Europe. If they hadn’t had that support, what do you think would’ve happened in the movement?

2.       What do you think was the cause of Parliament rejecting their petitions to abolish slavery so many times? Do you think these intentions were justified?