What Social Classes owe to Each Other, 1883

This article by Sumner has an angry tone to it and when he states “A man who is present as a consumer, yet who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work of society, is a burden,”  he is making a statement that anyone can achieve wealth if they just stop being lazy.  Sumner does not seem to have any sympathy for those who are in unfortunate positions in life and may need a boost of help to get them on the right track, he believes that it is possible for each man to earn his own way and if he is not then he is taking from the man who does have money.  Sumner states “The man who has done nothing to raise himself above poverty finds that the social doctor’s flock about him, bringing the capital which they have collected from the other had to work for.”  This statement says sums up Sumner’s view on the poor and weak of society. 

Our society has a duty to those who are unfortunate for whatever reason to care for those who cannot care for themselves and to assist those who need it to a position that they can become self sufficient not stick those who are poor all in one category and call them lazy money grabbers. 

CDL:  Why Did So Many Soldiers Die?

1. How did technological advances, tactical shortcomings, and inadequate medical support combine to produce astonishing casualties?

The technological advances of weapons made it so that a battle where soldiers were shoulder to shoulder they would fall like dominos from the powerful well aimed guns that had a range of about 300 feet.  The tactical shortcomings really caused a lot of deaths as generals did not anticipate such brutal showdowns and the loss of thousands of soldiers in their armies took a huge toll on the power they had.  The inadequate medical support caused a horrendous amount of casualties as there were no medics on the field, ways to move wounded soldiers for medical care, use of antiseptics to clean wounds to avoid massive infection, and disease control took out many thousands of soldiers. 

2. What caused more Union soldiers to be killed overall than rebel soldiers?

The inadequate disease prevention for things like typhoid and dysentery killed many Union soldiers.  The surgeons were like butchers and amputated limbs of soldiers in sometimes piles of severed limbs and then did not take antiseptic steps to clean the instruments used for the surgery, their hands or surgical clothes, and many of those that had limbs amputated died as a result.  Your chances of survival were about 50/50 after having a limb amputated.  The lack of transportation for wounded soldiers left many laying in battlefields to die for days starving and lacking water and wound care.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

3. How could such great loss of life been prevented in the Civil War?

The great loss of life could have been prevented by not having soldiers shoulder to shoulder on the battlefield with the advanced weapons having the range they did.  This field battle tactic was virtually suicide for the soldiers as they approached the enemy.  Having disease control such as immunizations, clean surgical tools and procedures with germ control, and adequate medical facilities could have prevents thousands of deaths. 

4. The article says that a century later in Vietnam only one in four-hundred wounded died as to the one in five wounded that passed in the Civil War, what factors changed over the years to alter that statistic so drastically?

The factors that changed between the two wars included immunizations against diseases being dispensed and medical care being greatly improved so that prevention of disease was huge.  The adequate medical training and staffing of the Vietnam War gave wounded and dying soldiers a huge advantage for survival.  The addition of germ control was huge in preventing deaths.  The ability to have air and ground transport with vehicles, planes, and helicopters for wounded soldiers saved many lives in the Vietnam War. 

First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln, 4 March 1861

This inaugural address was spoken with true patriotism from Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln was very much in favor of keeping the union of the states intact and allowing the citizens of the individual states to decide their rights regarding slavery.  Although Lincolns personal and political views were against slavery and he was quoted as saying that “Slavery is wrong because a man has the right to the fruits of his own labor.”  In this inaugural address Lincoln was speaking to the people to try and avoid a racial war.  Lincoln spoke in this address of the need to hold up the constitution for its meaning and that it was not specific on details of slavery.  When Lincoln stated “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” he was boldly telling the states that he had no real power to do anything about slavery.  He goes on in this address to speak about how the military power was not going to invade any state to try and free slaves that this would not be in the benefit of the country and would not be a workable solution because it would only turn the people of our country against each other. 

Lincoln is arguing for a calming of people to his election and to let them know that the constitution is an important thing to their freedoms and future.  There is no real argument here and no real solutions given to the divided nation.  What Lincoln is stating in this address does not really seem so much of an argument as it is a leader telling his people the importance of the constitution and the importance of keeping the country united.  Lincolns address is logical although it seems to be written mainly for the people of the south to hear.  The pathos (emotional quality) of this address seems like it is that of a father trying to sort out quarreling children by stating reason and asking for calmness and thought.  The ethos (writers perceived character) is that of a leader. 

I am not sure that this address could be called convincing because it just doesn’t seem like it offered any real solutions to the divided country at the time.  The address just seemed to present his stance to both sides without really taking a side.  Even though we know that he was against slavery there is nothing here in this address that really seems to say that. 

Compared to other Presidential inaugural addresses this one is much wordier than our modern day Presidents but it is very similar in that it is just a President taking office and boldly stating what he will lead our country to do or not do, but no real course on how to get those things done. 

Letter to an English Abolitionist, 1845 James Henry Hammond

I had sort of the same response to your TA as Amy.  I didn’t really understand how you perceived the article, although the TA is written well, I was confused on whether you thought it was a good bad argument for a pro-slavery in that time period.  This article gives a unique heart wrenching account of how slave owners were rationalizing their actions in this time period and I though Hammond did a magnificent job in writing his true honest thoughts.  I find it interesting how people in all time periods and in all religions can take a piece of religious scripture and twist it into what they want to rationalize monster behavior to their fellow man. This was obviously an intelligent man who was egotistical and had no kind thought for any individual who did not have the intelligence or means of living that he had been given.  I found this article to be argumentative, angry, but I have to say that Ben has done a great job of presenting us with an excellent account of the mindset in this time period.  This really created a true picture for me about how someone in this time period could try to rationalize this ownership of other humans, even though it is a tough read.

Text Analysis - "The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848"

The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848 is a declaration of independence written by women of the convention who wanted to demand equality for women in the United States.  This document states the feelings of women who at this time had no legal rights in our country.  The right to own property, vote, earn wages, own business, own land and other rights were beyond their reach.  Women of this time were in a difficult position of having to be subservient to their husbands and fathers in their daily lives.  The most influential passage in this document in my opinion is “The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation's on the part of man toward woman, having a direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.  To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”  This passage in the document is worded very strongly to suggest women were objects of mistreatment by man and women were not going to allow this to continue if they could do anything about it.  This document gives a strong argument towards the equality of women in our country by stating the individual injustices and reasons why these injustices are of grave concern to women and how they should be a concern to all.

The authors appeal to logic by stating examples of specific disgraces made towards women and stating the equalities that faced them in the country.  The pathos (emotional quality) is very frank and bitter sounding yet eloquently worded.  The ethos of this document (the writer’s perceived character) is that of women being at their wits end with the way they are had to live their lives with the inequality that affects their family.  The authors argument is very convincing due to the fact it lays out specific examples of the ways women are treated and the rights they are denied in a country ruled basically by men. 

As a woman in this country it makes me very proud to read how our previous generations spoke with such eloquence when even in a situation that must have been very disheartening and difficult to bear.  I cannot imagine the amount of thought and time the women who wrote and signed this document must have taken in order to word it with grace.

Who Rushed for California Gold?

 

--

Oneal, Malynda

7/2/2011

0

 

 

 1.  What impact did the gold rush have on the Native Americans?
The Native Americans were hunted and killed by the forty-niners.  The Indian population declined dramatically between 1848 & 1856.  The forty-niners wanted to eradicate the Indians and the Indians eventually found a remote part of California to basically stay out of the way.

2. What were some reasons the Chinese faced extreme prejudice?

 The Chinese faced extreme prejudice because they were known as devious and were not liked by the Anglo-Americans.  Anglo-Americans feared the Chinese would undercut labor and drive it from our country.  Any Chinese that showed up in mining communities were attacked.  There were even lynchings of Chinese in small mining camps by forty-niners. 

3. How did the gold rush change California?

The gold rush brought many people to California.  The crowds of people that came to California included many nationalities from all over the world.  Businesses sprang up from the new population and also to extact the gold with machines.   California for the first time was becoming populated instead of being a remote place with mostly Indians. 

 4. Did the gold rush cause more harm and debt than it did riches? Was it ultimately good for the development of the western United States or detrimental?
The gold caused more ham than good because very few people became rich.  The gold rush created a very greedy and monster like behavior in people.  The gold rush was good in one way, because it brought a diverse population to California and a large population which was able to then settle this remote area.  The population in some way was harmful as in the mistrust that people had for each other because of the gold rush.  This new population of people was far from a community that could work together but instead a mistrusting group that would to this day create small areas within large cities where they would stick together by nationality.