Wealth Against Commonwealth, Henry Demarest Lloyd, 1894

Henry Demarest Lloyd is arguing that the extreme wealth of monopolies is bad for the commonwealth of the people.  He explains that by having a monopoly, they are able to control all means of their business in order to profit themselves. Business owners are legally allowed to reduce production and increase prices in order to sustain a high demand for their product. Lloyd appeals to his audience through pathos by exposing the negative side of monopolies. He states that “they are gluttons of luxury and power, rough, socialized, believing that man must be kept terrorized.” With these words he is implying that those who run monopolies are evil men who don’t care about anyone but themselves, that they are not looking to improve the greater good of the community but are only interested in improving their own livelihood. During a time when successful people thrived on the idea of survival of the fittest, Lloyd exposes them for what they truly are—selfish. This is historically significant because it arose right after the US had gotten rid of one significant evil (slavery) and Lloyd implies that monopolies are no better than it, just not as cruel. I think that Lloyd’s argument is very convincing. He gives real reasons on why monopolies are detrimental to the general public and exposes them for what they really are, a way for the rich to keep getting richer.

Chief Joseph: Speech to a White Audience, 1879

Chief Joseph is trying to explain to a white audience the reason why his people chose to fight against the white man. He explains that his people have always been taught to be truthful, honest and “that is was a shame for one man to take from another his wife, or his property without paying for it.” He explains that all of the Nez Perces befriended Lewis and Clark and promised to always allow them safe passage through their land and vowed to “never make war on the white man.” His people felt as though they had a lot to learn from the white man and where not bothered when white men began to settle on their land. General Stevens soon addressed the Nez Perces with a treaty stating that the Indians should have land set apart from the white settlers that they should be restricted to. Chief Joseph’s father, who was the chief at that time, refused to sign the treaty because he believed that all men were free and no man could own part of the earth. Eight years later, a chief named Lawyer sold nearly all the Nez Perce land at a treaty council without consulting his fellow tribesmen. Chief Joseph argues that Lawyer had no authority to sell his land because it belonged to the people. He addresses his audience saying that, “I did not want to come to this council, but I came hoping that we could save blood. The white man has no right to come here and take our land.”  Chief Joseph appeals to his audience by using pathos and ethos. He uses pathos in his initial greeting by referring to his audience as “friends” and continues in expressing the way his people are affected by the white man, and draws on the sympathy of his audience when he explains that the land he lives in has belonged to his people for generations. Ethos is clearly used when he tells of the way that his father raised him and the laws that were set for his people to be honest and kind people.

This document is significant because it allows us to understand the way that tribes like the Nez Perces were treated by early settlers in America and the feelings that they had toward them. It also explains why tribes would be unwilling to move off of their land. Chief Joseph’s argument is very convincing. It is sad that such a noble people were treated so terribly and forced off of their land. Chief Joseph does an excellent job conveying the heart of his people to his audience; it is just unfortunate that it didn’t make a difference to the people pushing for Indians to be moved onto reservations.     

The Right to Fight: Black Soldiers in the Civil War

Both the Confederacy and the Union had to resort to a draft when the influx of volunteer soldiers decreased significantly due to the amount of bloodshed. Although white Americans were no longer as eager to fight, black Americans were eager to join the Union in hopes that the enslaved blacks in the South would also be able to be liberated. In 1863, Lincoln made it legal for blacks to join the Union but black soldiers were earning less then their white counterparts and concerned about leaving their families destitute. Despite this, African Americans were willing to fight and showed tremendous patriotism and bravery. Serving in the military provided many with a sense of pride and accomplishment. Men transformed from disheveled slaves into finely dressed soldiers who were able to fight against white prejudice. Any doubts regarding Black courage was dismissed as they fought bravely and soon gained the respect of the whole Union army. The 54^th Massachusetts Colored Regiment originally assigned blacks to manual labor rather than fighting but refused to pay the black soldiers less than the white soldiers. It wasn’t until James Henry Gooding personal wrote a letter to President Lincoln that the government reversed their decision and starting paying all soldiers equally in 1864. The black Union soldiers were welcomed as heroes by former slaves in the failing Confederacy. Becoming a member of the Union army also provided black soldiers with strength and discipline which proved helpful in balancing their former feelings of degradation and dependency that life as a slave offered. Black soldiers made up the majority of the Union army after 1865 and they took it upon themselves to lead the struggle for equality. Black veterans also believed that along with their freedom they should be granted the opportunity to vote as well as obtain civil rights. Many black soldiers learned to read and write in the army and being eager to prove that they could be great citizens as well as soldiers, later became teachers and politicians.      

Why would free blacks in the North be willing to join the Union if it meant possibly leaving their families with destitute?

What was the purpose of only allowing black soldiers to perform manual labor rather than fighting?

How Often Were Slaves Whipped?

Many historians have pondered the question, “How often were slaves whipped?” It is presumed that many white land owners preferred whipping was a form of punishment. In the 1930’s the government interviewed thousands of elderly African-American slaves to see if they could find an answer to how often slaves were whipped, but it wasn’t until the discovery of a Louisianan plantation owner’s diary that they were given a clearer idea. Bennet H. Barrow kept a record of every occurrence of whipping that he administered or ordered over a twenty-three month period. In 1840 Barrow owned 129 slaves, and during the time recorded he administered 160 whippings. Most of the slaves working in his fields were whipped at least once and those who were not were either children or pregnant woman. On average one slave was whipped every four and a half days. Although it was believed that whipping slaves would correct their bad behavior, there was no evidence in Barrow’s diary to indicate that this was indeed the case. Slaves were whipped for a variety of reasons ranging from family disputes to not picking “quality” cotton. Whippings were conducted in public and all the other slaves were often forced to watch. Barrow’s diary does not paint a clear picture of the frequency of whippings carried out at all plantation only his own. It is understood however that Barrow did not consider himself to be a cruel master and he believed that he only whipped slaves when it was necessary. Aside from whipping, most masters also encouraged good behavior from their slaves by promising small gifts and brief holidays, but whipping was their preferred form of punishment.  

If whipping slaves was not affective in changing their bad behavior or performance, why did slave owners continue to administer whippings?

Why did Barrow dismiss his white overseer and choose to manage his own plantation with the aid of a black driver? Do you think this decision could have influenced the frequency of whippings he administered?