I feel like each article is pretty emotional to a point. These people, now in the populist party are really upset and trying for big changes. "The urban workmen are dened the right of organization for self-protection," on page 713. This shows us an example of an obstacle these people are trying to overcome.
The authors are teaching us how the government are and are not involved in their lives, and important, necessary changes that need to be changed.
They want the government who accepts people as their brothers, and doesn't live with the survival of the fittest outlook on life anymore.
The significance of these writings is to show what these people went through, and the role the government/congress played in all this. "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."
Also, I think it is important to notice a certain part in this document I found interesting. When they talk about how the rich are allowed to walk on the poor peoples' property whenever they like, but the poor people can not do the same with the rich peoples' land. That is a perfect example of the levels of society they are dealing with, and how much more the government allowed the rich to get away with at this time.
I agree with you about the author's argument being convincing. Of course it is, the author is showing us how they lived and we can feel this sense from their descriptions. I'm not really sure what you mean about "facts" though.? Because to me, it seems like these are personal points of views, but either way, I still found it to be a convincing document.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
RESPONSE TO garret miller's TA lead
The author tries to show the reader how the farmers during this time were feeling. No money, and their babies were born on the "unshelftered prairies," and finally they had no other choice but to ask for help. I agree that these people could only be helped by a higher authority figure and I feel that the 13 demands were very necessary.
Yes, farmers made up a high percentage of the population during this time, and I think it's great that from this the Populist Party was born. They were more hard working than ever and needed an alliance to help themselves out for once. I also like how you said congress may have had reason to be scared, because that is a very high possibility. The Populist party was very large, and that amount of people have the power to make changes and that is exactly what they were ready for, is change.
Being "robbed," is a good way to put how the farmers felt back then. These 13 demands were a great step in standing up and making themselves be heard finally. They were hard working individuals and tired of being ignored and not being treated correctly. They were fed up with their conditions they were forced to live with and I really feel that the Ocala demands were fair and not too much to ask for.
Monday, May 9, 2011
What did the KKK really want?
The KKK was founded in 1866 by six Confederate veterans. This group started off as a fun and innocent way of socializing. Not long after the start of the KKK, other branches or "dens" of the KKK were being started. Many white southerners felt that the men of these various clans were following their duties and they were good men, and that all these men wanted to do was to protect their families. These men wanted more than that, though. They did not want black men being educated or owning their own land. Black men were not supposed to have the chance to become anything like white men. Whites who were not educated did not want blacks in school, while farmers/planters at this time wanted these ex-slaves back working in their fields. "Each student meant one less laborer," it says on page 574, is exactly how the whites felt during this time. Their ex-workers were taken away from them, educating themselves, and now the whites had to find people to do work on their farms or do it themselves, and they felt too good for that. In some places of Alabama, people felt that the Klan was only for blacks who didn't work, or who's bosses complained about their work. Not only did the Klan terrorize ex-slaves and some whites who they felt broke the "Old South's racial code," but they attacked Republican leaders and voters as well. They took control of poll elections, and took out the ones they did not want there on election day. If a black man held a position in office he would be terrorized and sometimes killed. This terrible between 1868 and 1871 violence reached horrible levels, and finally around 1870 Federal Intervention took place. The Acts of 1870 and 1871 started an end to a lot of the KKK's power, but the acts didn't take care of everything because other groups in the South still continued on their rampage of violence and terror.
Discussion Questions:
1. The KKK started in 1866 and didn't start dying down until around 1870. Why do you think it took the Federal Government four years to finally do something about this horrible problem that was happening to FREEDmen?
2. Besides blacks becoming possible more educated than whites, and planters loosing their workers in their fields, what could be some other solid potential reasons that triggered the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan?
Discussion Questions:
1. The KKK started in 1866 and didn't start dying down until around 1870. Why do you think it took the Federal Government four years to finally do something about this horrible problem that was happening to FREEDmen?
2. Besides blacks becoming possible more educated than whites, and planters loosing their workers in their fields, what could be some other solid potential reasons that triggered the wrath of the Ku Klux Klan?
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
The Meaning of Freedom
What is the author arguing?
The three writers of these documents are writing to a person higher in power than themselves trying to get their point across. All three of these men are beyond thankful that they are free, but they each are asking for something more.
How does the author appeal to pathos in his writing?
These authors use emotional words and stories to try to get the reader to understand where they are coming from. The author of document one talks about his children being beaten by a master and there is nothing he can do about it. Anyone with a heart who reads that must feel some sort of sadness or remorse. The writer is not making anything up but talking from his heart and begging for help to get his family back. The Reverand in document two talks about how important marriage is. His words are emotional when he is talking about the bondage and responsibilty marriage takes and how important it is to newly freed slaves.
What is the historical significance of this document?
These letters show one of the biggest changes in history. When the Emancipation Proclamation stated that the slaves held in rebellion states are freed, that changed the world. It gave slaves/African Americans a brand new beginning and the right to live their lives like every other American, almost. Slaves were no longer slaves and could rejoin their families together without being seperated anymore. This document shows us that ex-slaves were allowed to marry now, as before when under slavery it was impossible. The emancipation proclamation didn't give slaves EVERY freedom right Americans have/had but it was the first step for them getting closer. The third document shows how proud slaves are to be free. They want to live the ways the Americans live. "But we do devote to its success, our hopes, our toils, our whole heart, our sacred, and our lives." Although the ex-slaves still have tough obstacles like living in poverty they express that they will live the American way faithfully and with excitement.
Do you find the author's argument convincing?
I do find these mens' arguments convincing or worthy of what they are asking. It may seem like some are beign selfish because the slaves were just freed so what else do they want, right? But I agree that if they are free now they should be treated like every other free American. Ex-slaves should be able to get married, to vote, to own land, and everything else they are asking. Why would Presidents and other people go through so much trouble to free them if once they are free they aren't treated much different. Dennis, the former slave looking for his family may have a hard time if his children are in a state where slaves weren't freed, and that I would understand if there is nothing that can be done about it. But what is the hurt in him trying, and who wouldn't try to get their family back.
The writers in this document are not only slaves, one is a Reverand, and the other was just a general petition to the Union. What we see is everyone is affected by the slaves being freed. Most people want to help out African American slaves, regardless of skin color. The ex-slaves are overjoyed to be free and are willing to do whatever it takes to prove themselves of equal value to whites. In this document one states, even if he must he would happily die for the country honoring its name. That is a powerful thought and it shows how much they really wanted this and regardless of the torture and the pain they have seen and gone through they still love their country and want to be brothers with the white men. The last part of this entire document sort of proves slaves' point on being treated as equal as the whites now that they are no longer slaves. "It can afford to trust him with a vote as safely as it trusted him with a bayonet." Not only does this apply to slaves being allowed to vote but to everything else they are trying to accomplish. When slaves were allowed to enlist in the military, Americans were trusting the men they betrayed with weapons and taking their word they would defend their country. If through everything they went through they handed over a "bayonet," now that they are free they should be more than willing to allow voting, marriage, and every other political right.
The three writers of these documents are writing to a person higher in power than themselves trying to get their point across. All three of these men are beyond thankful that they are free, but they each are asking for something more.
How does the author appeal to pathos in his writing?
These authors use emotional words and stories to try to get the reader to understand where they are coming from. The author of document one talks about his children being beaten by a master and there is nothing he can do about it. Anyone with a heart who reads that must feel some sort of sadness or remorse. The writer is not making anything up but talking from his heart and begging for help to get his family back. The Reverand in document two talks about how important marriage is. His words are emotional when he is talking about the bondage and responsibilty marriage takes and how important it is to newly freed slaves.
What is the historical significance of this document?
These letters show one of the biggest changes in history. When the Emancipation Proclamation stated that the slaves held in rebellion states are freed, that changed the world. It gave slaves/African Americans a brand new beginning and the right to live their lives like every other American, almost. Slaves were no longer slaves and could rejoin their families together without being seperated anymore. This document shows us that ex-slaves were allowed to marry now, as before when under slavery it was impossible. The emancipation proclamation didn't give slaves EVERY freedom right Americans have/had but it was the first step for them getting closer. The third document shows how proud slaves are to be free. They want to live the ways the Americans live. "But we do devote to its success, our hopes, our toils, our whole heart, our sacred, and our lives." Although the ex-slaves still have tough obstacles like living in poverty they express that they will live the American way faithfully and with excitement.
Do you find the author's argument convincing?
I do find these mens' arguments convincing or worthy of what they are asking. It may seem like some are beign selfish because the slaves were just freed so what else do they want, right? But I agree that if they are free now they should be treated like every other free American. Ex-slaves should be able to get married, to vote, to own land, and everything else they are asking. Why would Presidents and other people go through so much trouble to free them if once they are free they aren't treated much different. Dennis, the former slave looking for his family may have a hard time if his children are in a state where slaves weren't freed, and that I would understand if there is nothing that can be done about it. But what is the hurt in him trying, and who wouldn't try to get their family back.
The writers in this document are not only slaves, one is a Reverand, and the other was just a general petition to the Union. What we see is everyone is affected by the slaves being freed. Most people want to help out African American slaves, regardless of skin color. The ex-slaves are overjoyed to be free and are willing to do whatever it takes to prove themselves of equal value to whites. In this document one states, even if he must he would happily die for the country honoring its name. That is a powerful thought and it shows how much they really wanted this and regardless of the torture and the pain they have seen and gone through they still love their country and want to be brothers with the white men. The last part of this entire document sort of proves slaves' point on being treated as equal as the whites now that they are no longer slaves. "It can afford to trust him with a vote as safely as it trusted him with a bayonet." Not only does this apply to slaves being allowed to vote but to everything else they are trying to accomplish. When slaves were allowed to enlist in the military, Americans were trusting the men they betrayed with weapons and taking their word they would defend their country. If through everything they went through they handed over a "bayonet," now that they are free they should be more than willing to allow voting, marriage, and every other political right.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Defending Slavery
1. There is not one author, but three authors in this document arguing the same idea similarly. Calhoun, Harper, and Stringfellow all three agree on the idea that slavery should not be abolished and it is necessary in this life.
2. Reverand Thornton Stringfellow uses Jesus Christ as the main principle of his argument saying that Jesus himself has not yet came out and command that slavery needs to be abolished, while John Calhoun compares slaves to men and women in poor houses. Calhoun feels that slaves have it better off than living in conditions of a poor house. William Harper feels that it is exactly in "the order of nature" that masters have slaves. He compares masters and slaves to the different kingdoms of animals who prey on each other. These three individuals all share the same feeling that slavery is something that naturally happens and is okay.
3. These arguments and documents are significant to our knowledge of past history because we are learning (if you agree with this document) that slavery was in a way, a good thing, or "necessary" as a lot of people felt back in the day. Slavery was one of the largest controversies so long ago and still, today, it is a main discussion topic in classrooms around the world. Arguments for and against abolishing slavery help us as individuals decide whether we would have done the same thing, why slavery was needed, how slaves and masters felt, along with many other questions.
4. I do not like the idea of slavery at all. When I think of slavery, the first thing I think about is that I would not want to be in a slaves shoes. But reading these documents and considering these mens' points of views make me reconsider that maybe slavery was a good thing, to a point. If masters used their slaves with good intentions then I have no problem, but when you start to hear stories about cruel slave owners who beat, killed, tortured their slaves for no good reason makes me sick. The very last part of this document is what changed my mind. "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a master in heaven." That is a powerful sentence because it is the truth. For the masters back then who did the most horrible things imagineable to their slaves would NOT want that to happen to them, right? Did they consider that they have a more powerful figure than them watching their every move (god)? Masters should be equal to their slaves knowing that they would want their master to do the same to them.
Surprisingly we learn that there were whites in the South who defended slavery. With that though, they still did believe that slavery was "just, necessary, and godly." Knowing more and more about slavery during the 1800s, it is our personal decision whether we feel slavery was useful or wrongful. Also, I find it interesting that the bible actually states duties for both masters and slaves. Not only were masters supposed to act in a certain way to their slaves, but slaves were expected to fill certain duties as well. Calhoun, Harper, and Stringfellow all agree that every man was born equal, but still, slaves were needed and necessary to life in the 1800s. How can every man be equal, yet there is a division that separates levels of hierarchy such as masters and slaves?
2. Reverand Thornton Stringfellow uses Jesus Christ as the main principle of his argument saying that Jesus himself has not yet came out and command that slavery needs to be abolished, while John Calhoun compares slaves to men and women in poor houses. Calhoun feels that slaves have it better off than living in conditions of a poor house. William Harper feels that it is exactly in "the order of nature" that masters have slaves. He compares masters and slaves to the different kingdoms of animals who prey on each other. These three individuals all share the same feeling that slavery is something that naturally happens and is okay.
3. These arguments and documents are significant to our knowledge of past history because we are learning (if you agree with this document) that slavery was in a way, a good thing, or "necessary" as a lot of people felt back in the day. Slavery was one of the largest controversies so long ago and still, today, it is a main discussion topic in classrooms around the world. Arguments for and against abolishing slavery help us as individuals decide whether we would have done the same thing, why slavery was needed, how slaves and masters felt, along with many other questions.
4. I do not like the idea of slavery at all. When I think of slavery, the first thing I think about is that I would not want to be in a slaves shoes. But reading these documents and considering these mens' points of views make me reconsider that maybe slavery was a good thing, to a point. If masters used their slaves with good intentions then I have no problem, but when you start to hear stories about cruel slave owners who beat, killed, tortured their slaves for no good reason makes me sick. The very last part of this document is what changed my mind. "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a master in heaven." That is a powerful sentence because it is the truth. For the masters back then who did the most horrible things imagineable to their slaves would NOT want that to happen to them, right? Did they consider that they have a more powerful figure than them watching their every move (god)? Masters should be equal to their slaves knowing that they would want their master to do the same to them.
Surprisingly we learn that there were whites in the South who defended slavery. With that though, they still did believe that slavery was "just, necessary, and godly." Knowing more and more about slavery during the 1800s, it is our personal decision whether we feel slavery was useful or wrongful. Also, I find it interesting that the bible actually states duties for both masters and slaves. Not only were masters supposed to act in a certain way to their slaves, but slaves were expected to fill certain duties as well. Calhoun, Harper, and Stringfellow all agree that every man was born equal, but still, slaves were needed and necessary to life in the 1800s. How can every man be equal, yet there is a division that separates levels of hierarchy such as masters and slaves?
Thursday, April 14, 2011
How often were slaves whipped?
This article helps the reader to understand how often slaves were beaten and how bad the beatings were. Slaves were mainly whipped for poor labor production, if they weren't considered to be fast enough by their masters. There were other types of punishments other than whipping like putting slaves' heads under water, or humiliating them by making them wear women's clothing, but the most used form of punishment was the whip. This article focuses on events that happened specifically on the Barrow plantation; how he ran his place and about his diary of whippings. Barrow truly felt he was not being cruel just trying to get his slaves to work to what he felt was their full potential.
Questions on the reading:
1. Do you feel that whippings made the slaves work harder? It seems like the obvious answer would be yes, but Barrow seems to think that they never worked up to their full potential.
2. What other methods of punishment could have been used back in the 1840s that the general population today wouldn't consider cruel?
Questions on the reading:
1. Do you feel that whippings made the slaves work harder? It seems like the obvious answer would be yes, but Barrow seems to think that they never worked up to their full potential.
2. What other methods of punishment could have been used back in the 1840s that the general population today wouldn't consider cruel?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)