An Analysis of the Crime of Poverty, Henry George, 1885

What is the author arguing?

Henry George is arguing that the private ownership of land is causing poverty for others, and that in having land titles, and owning more land than is needed it is taking away from job opportunities for others. The author speaks about the “absurdity” of even taking claim to land that has been put on the earth everyone’s right to use the land for the resources they need to provide for their families by God. This argument is passionately given as the author is trying to get across that holding private land titles and passing it down to future generations is outrageous because the dead do not have a right to land since it is here for people to live off of and support their families.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?

Henry George states that social conditions make people choose between doing what is perceived to be in good conscience or making a living for themselves and their families. He speaks about over production and how it makes no sense that that exists if people are still in need. Due to the lack in wages that laborers are making, they are only able to buy the bare minimum essentials, with many working just to barely make it by. The emotional quality of this argument to me was when he spoke about the children who have had to work and miss out on school, therefore being uneducated and being used to having to do so, not knowing any better, Also how there were instances of children being murdered for the insurance money by their own families. The author is deeply adamant that poverty is something that is not necessarily something that is one’s fault, but the fault of society as a whole due to greed and that it affects scores of people of all nationalities world wide.

What is historical relevance of this document?

To have an address that clearly broke down the faults in society between the wealthy and poor, and providing other options that would be for the general good such as substituting taxes on capitol and labor with land value taxes so that the larger cities would be paying more instead of the poor, thus freeing up money to use for upgrading cities with parks , library’s and other resources was important to inform the general public that there were alternate ways to end the “crime of poverty.”

Do you find the author’s argument convincing?

I was convinced by the 2^nd page of Mr. George’s address. He is descriptive in his argument against poverty and brings many different factors to the issue of poverty and land ownership. He is stern but eloquent at the same time. Using the example of animals in the wild and how you don’t see one certain animal doing better than the overall herd or group of animals, and comparing that to society where while some are starving and others are extremely wealthy was in fact, an excellent point and still is relevant in today’s society.

in response to Taylor's TA 8-2

Good job in breaking down this analysis Taylor. When I was reading this document the phrase "Liberty produces wealth, and wealth destroys liberty" really stood out to me. This statement definitely affects us today and will continue to have a deep meaning. Have we not learned from the past? Being a “muckraker” the articles and books that he wrote confronted power issues and gave a voice to the small companies that were going under because of large companies such as the Standard Oil Company. To be so outspoken, and to dedicate your life to reform is admirable.

August 2, 2011 9:17 AM

What Did the KKK Really Want?

What Did the Ku Klux Klan Really Want?

The KKK started off in 1866 as a group of 6 young men who wanted to form a club. This club was not meant to be the evil we perceive as the Ku Klux Klan, but more so just to have fun play jokes on each other, however just 2 years later there were many other chapters of this group that branched off to be the sinister, racially charged Klansmen who caused terror, beatings, and bloodshed; primarily in the South.

The Klan operated under the incorrect assumption that they were good hard working men who sought to protect their neighborhoods, wives, and children from the “great crime” of blacks trying to assimilate into southern society. Although the Klan used self-defense as a premise for their existence as the Klan, their actions proved otherwise. These men were against equality and wanted things to go back to how they were during the “old south” era. Education was not something that the KKK wanted available for black students, so there were many schools burned down to the ground, and teachers whipped or killed for teaching black students, because as they saw it “each student meant one less laborer.” The planters wanted the x-slaves back in the fields and so they supported the KKK and would go to them to use force on the blacks who didn’t work as hard as they though they should.

The Klansmen did not wear the white robes that we would imagine them to wear; back in those days their robes were different colors and designs, nicely sewed together, by their wives and other women who supported these men in their cause for hatred. Their horses also wore hoods which made the Klansman look even more menacing.

Not only did the KKK not want blacks to have any freedoms, including dressing well and not stepping to the side on the sidewalk to let a white person pass, they also were dead set against free blacks at the polls on election day and holding any political office in the U.S. There was an occurrence with a man named Jack Dupree, who was president of the Republican Club in Mississippi, who would speak freely about what was on his mind, and was brutally murdered in front of his wife, so brutal in fact, that his throat was slit and he was disemboweled.  The Klan was so violent, that they had control over political elections between 1868 and 1871. There were so many murders that some Republican’s referred to them as “southern murderers.” No matter how many murders happened at the hands of the KKK, it was difficult to prove and arrest them, possibly because of their robes and hoods allowed them to be anonymous,   but also because the authorities would not arrest or convict a white man of murder if he killed blacks.

These are the actions of the KKK, definitely NOT a peaceful group of hard working men trying to protect their families and communities from danger and threats of black robbers and rapists, by a brotherhood of good men, no; not these men. The KKK was definitely a brotherhood, and still exists to this day, however they are a brotherhood of racially charged ignorance, close minded in nature and evil to their bones.

1: Why did the government and officials allow the KKK to get away with these murders and other terroristic acts against the people?

2: How do you think the black people stayed encouraged to continue to try and reach racial equality in the Southern states?

3: Why do you think there was not more of an uprising against the KKK?  A major part of the population in the south was blacks, so why didn’t they fight back?

4: Do you think any of these Klansman ever felt any kind of regret for their actions? How can a society be so coldhearted and not feel any confliction in what they are doing, especially when it is causing extreme terror and death?

How Often Were Slaves Whipped?
Viewing this article gives readers a inside look on how frequently slaves were whipped and how brutal the slave masters were to their slaves. Whippings were given for any number of reasons. If a slave was to steal, or not do their work to which the master thought not up to their standards, for running away and getting caught or even singing. Slave masters knew there were no laws against whipping their slaves, so they would cruelly and viciously beat them with sticks, chains, or whips to the point of cutting their skin open, breaking bones, and even death. Slaves during this time period were considered property, and were bullied, attacked, and looked down on. There was no discrimination on who was whipped, men, woman, and children all suffered the abuse of the overseers at their discretion. Whipping was one of the main punishments; however slaves also suffered mutilation, branding, tar and feathering, put in stocks, and many other unimaginable acts
.
A plantation owner named Bennet H. Barrow kept a detailed log of how often he whipped and punished his slaves in the 1800’s in this diary of sorts; it has almost two years of recorded beatings. There are examples of why the slaves were beat such as for a bad conduct during cotton picking season, or breaking into the kitchen to eat, or even for being ill. Reading material such as this really opens one’s eyes to the injustices suffered by the slaves and how much of a hell on earth they lived in during that time period.

1: What other punishments could the slave masters have given to their slaves instead of violence?

2: Do you think if the slaves were treated with respect and like human beings, instead of property they would have worked harder for their masters?

3: Why would the slaves run away if they knew more than likely they would get caught and suffer severe consequences?

Declaration of Sentiments, American Anti-Slavery Society, 1833

Declaration of Sentiments, American anti-slavery society, 1833

I wanted to give a little background information on this society. The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833. This group of people put out articles, poems, songs and other anti-slavery documents specifically to advocate towards ending slavery. William Lloyd Garrison led this society. He published a weekly newspaper entitled “The Liberator” which was read by thousands of people and he was equally loved as he was hated for his outspoken views on slavery. William wanted to open people’s eyes to the fact that slavery was immoral; he was outspoken, passionate, and spent the majority of his life promoting the end of slavery.

What is the author arguing?

William Garrison wrote the Declaration of Sentiments as a formal statement to show the core beliefs of the society and the goals they wanted to accomplish. This document is arguing that slavery is a crime and everyone, no matter what their color should have the same opportunities and rights as the white race. The declaration states that slavery is not only morally wrong but also criminal due to the brutality the slaves endure by their masters and because of the color of their skin; they have no constitutional or legal rights. William also writes that slavery is against gods will and gives scripture references to back up his statement in regards to holding people against their will.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?

William drafted this eloquent document that shows how passionate he and the society are about ending slavery. He speaks of his forefathers and the hardships they have worked through and that they have endured, however they have never known the pain and struggle of the slaves. He is very matter of fact in the way he states that buying or stealing Africans is a sin, just as it is to enslave an American who has black skin. To read how babies are snatched out of their mothers arms, or a wife being separated from her husband, or families being torn apart was sad to me, along with knowing that they would go to bed hungry and beaten with nothing to look forward to when they wake up because they would have to do the same thing over and over again because of their skin color. William was a respected advocate for human rights and he drafted a document that that has simply but clearly defined what the society is trying to accomplish.

What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The Declaration of Sentiments was written during a time where the issue of slavery was being challenged. The American Anti-Slavery Society was one of the main abolition movements that really paved the way for similar society’s and chapters to open up and continue the fight against slavery. This document was written to show others the purpose of their society and what they wanted to accomplish, which was a free United States for all races.

Did You Find The Authors Argument Convincing?

I definitely was convinced by this document; however I may be biased because I am bi-racial and so this topic in history is really important to me because it is my ancestors that had to endure slavery and all the cruelty, racism, prejudice and other countless hurtful acts. It makes me appreciate activists such as William Garrison and all the people who knew that slavery was wrong and put their own lives in danger to fight for what was right, and what they believed in back then so that we all can live in freedom today.