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.
I am interested to know what document you were reading. I had to do the TA too and I only found 1 and it was none of those. Were these from the book?
ReplyDelete@Rebekah, yes it was from the book, I forgot what pages. You can check the syllabus though.
ReplyDeleteMany citizens were saddened that they faught for this country and it seemed like it almost almost for nothing. When their is information out there that you want to know about, WE as a nation and American should be able to access almost anything we want to know because it is our right to. I also thought that their arguments were very convincing. It happens all the time, History repeats itself. We are still trying to stop taxes from being raised and to bring the troops home. War takes a lot of things away and it increases all of our stress and worries.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that we have learned to be suspicious of zealots of all forms, and perhaps that is right. However, the energy of these authors is undeniable. A democracy where only voices of privilege are heard is no kind of democracy at all, and the populist movement does speak to the idea that more voice should be heard in national politics. Of course, given the context the authors are still saying some very backwards stuff. The first author makes sure to dedicate some time to denigrating the "savages" of the West, showing that racism was abundantly alive and well. Progress is still assumed to be the domain of the white man.
ReplyDeleteFor that reason, I find the second author more convincing. While he could speak to the profound problem of race, he at least doesn't make its continuation part of his speaking points. The third author gives a better rendition of my point about democracy, as he makes more of a social contract criticism. If people work in service of the State, they expect protection and governance that represents their needs. If those needs are neglected, and protection is only given to the wealthy, then government loses its legitimacy because it has broken the social contract.