Wealth Against Commonwealth

Kevin Moxon

Hist 147

Wealth against Commonwealth

1. What is the author arguing?

The author is arguing against the trend in American economic development that has put all the resources, means of production and transport, and financing in the hands of the few.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

Mr. Lloyd argues that technical developments have achieved a state where all of mankind could be easily fed, clothed, and cared for, but that the fruits of all this progress are being gathered up by a very few, extremely wealthy individuals. He points out that “liberty produces wealth, and wealth destroys us” and that Capitalism, as it is, is an unsustainable as well as a grossly inequitable system.

Mr. Lloyd appeals his audience’s emotions by talking of the so-called ‘Robber Barons’ as “Corporate Caesars”. He paints a lurid picture of barbarians “come from above. Our great money-makers have sprung in one generation in to seats of power kings do not know”. He finally invokes the name of the Pharaohs “bred in counting rooms as they were in palaces”.

Mr. Lloyd seems to have read something of Karl Marx. His argument bears many hallmarks of communism. His references to guilds and slavery say much of his opinion of contemporary socioeconomic trends. He argues that much of what goes on out of sight of public scrutiny is against the law, implying a need for organic change to the systems regulating industry and finance.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

This document came out at a time (1894) when the industrial build up around the Civil War had so altered the American way of life, from the pre-war mostly agrarian society to a fast growing industrial one. The self-sufficiency of the small farmer was giving way to the dependency relationship of industrial labor. As Mr. Lloyd saw it, the process was out of control and unfair to the vast majority of American’s who must do the labor that sustained the few who controlled the country’s wealth.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

Considering the fact that many of the issues Mr. Lloyd was addressing are still being debated, sometimes with great heat today, I find the author’s argument very compelling. While common Americans have many more protections from predatory employment practices, environmental degradation, and work place safety, the erosion of things like collective bargaining rights shows how delicate the balance between ‘wealth and commonwealth’ is. 

Imperialism, Colonialism, and the Treatment of the Sioux and the Zulu

The Sioux and the Zulu both fell victim to the increasingly frantic wave of territorial aggrandizement that pervaded the 19^th century. The aim of the Europeans, in both cases, was assimilation. In southern Africa, the British wanted to create a native work force for their mining interests. In North America, the European-Americans strove to turn the Native Americans into good Christian farmers. In both cases, the bottom line was removing the ‘savages’ from the road to empire, and extermination was not ruled out as a strategy. The Native Americans, in general, did their best to accommodate white people by signing numerous treaties (Ft. Laramie, 1851, Medicine Lodge, 1867), moving to reservations and ceding vast tracts of land. In the end, in South Africa, as on the Great Plains of North America, the indigenous peoples saw no alternative to armed resistance. In both instances the whites achieved their economic and political aims. The Sioux after ferocious resistance (culminating in G.A. Custer’s last fight) were ultimately forced onto reservations. The Zulus, after initially succeeding in holding the British at bay, were defeated and scattered, leaving their homeland in a state of anarchy. Popular support for these campaigns of conquest was garnered by the age-old trick of dehumanizing your enemy in the eyes of your constituents.     

1)      What role do you suppose technology played in subjugating the Sioux and the Zulus?

Were the Sioux and the Zulu right to resort to armed resistance?

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

Second Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1864

1)   What is the author arguing

Mr. Lincoln was arguing that, rather than pondering over the cause of the war, that the country must concentrate on setting aside sectional differences, and concentrate on healing the wounds of the war, and strive for a just and lasting peace.

2)   How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

Mr. Lincoln states that “there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first” inaugural. Robust press coverage of the war left little need to spend much time chronicling the past. The thing to do was to finish the war so as to commence the healing and rebuilding that would need to follow in it’s wake.

Appealing to the emotions of his listeners, Mr. Lincoln spoke of “insurgent agents” seeking to undermine the union. He goes further when he says that, if necessary, they must carry on the conflict “until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword”. In the closing paragraph of the address, he refers to “him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and orphans”.

Much of the address is given over to references of religious matters. He understood his audience enough to know that appealing to their religious convictions concerning “God’s will” would have a powerful affect. His appeal for forgiveness and reconciliation (“With malice towards none, and charity for all”) seems to me to reflect his gentleness and deep understanding of human nature.

3)    What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

Mr. Lincoln had just won a rancorous election against George McClellan, a popular General whom he had removed in the midst of the war, who was running on a ‘peace platform’, calling for a cessation of hostilities. Many saw the war as a bloody stalemate until Atlanta, Georgia had fallen to Union troops after a prolonged siege. That victory probably had a great deal to do with Mr. Lincoln’s landslide (212 electoral votes; 55% of the popular vote) victory in the 1864 election. Mr. Lincoln considered this win a mandate for his strategy to finish the war as soon as possible, and get on to reconstruction.

4).   Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

I found Mr. Lincoln’s argument very convincing. He knew he must win the war as quickly as possible. The entire nation was weary after nearly 4 years of one of history’s (certainly the United States’) bloodiest conflicts. He also understood that if we could not put resentment, recrimination, and vengeance aside, there was little chance of a successful reconciliation between North and South.

The Right to Fight: Black Soldiers in the Civil War

Frederick Douglass, the fiery black Abolitionist, petitioned President Lincoln to allow black men to take up arms in the cause of the Union. For several reasons, not the least being the fear of a white racist backlash, Mr. Lincoln resisted taking this course until mounting casualties, and the realization that slave labor was one of the mainstays of the South’s war effort, caused him to assent to actively recruiting black men for army service in 1863. Free blacks considered serving in combat as a way to raise black prestige and pride. They also hoped that it might act to dispel racist attitudes among whites. Despite stumbling blocks such as pay inequity and resistance to using ‘colored’ troops for anything other than manual labor, they ultimately proved their bravery in combat. James Henry Gooding, a young black recruit observed, “When a regiment of white men gave us three cheers…it shows that we did our duty as men should.” After the war, many black veterans became active in the struggle for equal rights. Said black veteran Sgt. Henry Maxwell, “We want two more boxes besides the cartridge box---the ballot and the jury box.” Unfortunately, James Gooding, the eager young recruit who took such pride from the cheers of white soldiers, did not survive to take part in the struggle for equal treatment. He died on July 19, 1864 at Andersonville, the notorious Confederate military prison.

1)      How do you think post Civil War black history might have been different had blacks been denied the ‘right to fight’?

2)      Why do you think black troops were only permitted to serve under white officers?