The Oscala Demands

What is the author Arguing?

Document 1

"Raise less corn and more hell"

Mary Elizabeth Lease

Well you have got to like that woman's spirit! The author of this very well written speech was arguing over the the dramatic changes that caused inflations of which left farmers and most homeowners almost bankrupt. Greed had taken over, leaving those in agriculture penniless, due to increasing taxes and corporations. Elizabeth wanted these people to fight for greater economic equality. Her voice was one of many that challenged not only the men, but the women to rise and demand better from a government steeped in it's own self capitalism.

Document 2

Ignatius Donally is arguing the unfair practices of the political system. He was upset by the unfair practices that made voting a hassle and the "powers that be" who kept certain information from the voters. He was deeply maddened at where he saw America going and called forth for change.

Document 3

Lorenzo Lewelling

Lorenzo argument took a more philosophical approach. Attacking the government for its failure to look after it's own. Speaking out, like Elizabeth against the greed that overtaken the country. It was important to him that the farmers had a voice against the mortgage companies and railroads who were steamrolling over them in order to get their land. With inflation being so high, there was no way that the average American citizen was able to keep up with the rising costs.

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

I could read the emotion that were put forth in these writings. The three above above authors were very passionate about their cause. Deeply saddened and frustrated in the country that so many had died to keep free, seeing that the path it was going down was one to ruin. They were determined to get their voice heard and let people know that America was different, with enough voices, changes can be made to better the people and their circumstances, they had seen it done before.

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

The relevance of these documents show that there were certain brave people who were not afraid to stand up for the rights of those who had no voice. Although the the "Populist aka the Peoples's movement was short-lived; it was an important piece of history that gave a heads up to big government and the big wigs, blowing open the corruption that was running rampant and calling forth for a way to make it better for the people.

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

I did find their arguments convincing; they were, after all, speaking the truth. The war had devastated the countries resources and it was all about trying to rebuild, at the cost of farmers and laborers. Between inflation, taxes and the ridiculous mortgages placed on homes and lands, very few could afford to keep food on the table. What the Populist movement wanted was not unreasonble: a lowering of income tax, wider circulation of US coins at a better ratio rate, lowering of outrageous mortgage rates, among others. In time all of these things were accomplished. So yes, these were very convincing arguments.

What did the KKK really Want?

It seems to me that the agenda of the KKK was not as simple as I first thought. This reading saddened me. What started out as a group of four men being silly, ended up into a group of people that raise hell to this very day.

So what did the KKK really want? Well they wanted slavery back, just that plain and simple. It was unbearable for the majority of white men to see black people running around free; and not in the fields where they belong. Black people could now own land, learn to read, and soon to vote. Not having slaves was a big blow to the South's economy. Rumors of outbreaks and fights gave the KKK the reason they needed to to wield their power at the slightest infraction. They wanted black people to know who was really in charge and in control. They wanted black people to know that they would always be inferior, they did not want black people to have the same rights as them, and to be honest, I think deep down the KKK and people who thought like them were afraid. They people that they had oppressed and kept down for so many years now had a voice, had power, the KKK could not, would not, allow that to happen. So for black people and anyone who was seen to be helping them out, whether it was teaching at a black school, or giving their business to a black man, they must be eradicated. Though they spread their terror and hate around, it did not keep the black people and others who helped them down. So what lesson can be learned from this? Hate can be overcome, maybe not extinguished, that underneath our skin we all bleed and ignorance does not always prevail.

Question 1: What reason did the KKK give as to why they were formed?
Question 2: Did the KKK only terrorize black people?