What Social Classes Owe to Each Other

What Social Classes Owe to Each Other was written by William Graham Sumner in 1883. In this excerpted passage Sumner explains what social classes should do for each other. He starts off by arguing that humanitarians and social reformers are in the wrong for trying to take something earned by one man and support another. Throughout his paper he argues that the separation between rich and poor is how society is supposed to be. He was not in support of welfare-like programs because money people earned was being used to support the “dead-weights” of society. Sumner reasoned that the one action the rich should take on behalf of the poor was to fight for equal opportunity for everyone. “We owe it to the other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances.” His argument here stems from his avid belief in social Darwinism. Equal opportunity for all would create an environment where some would succeed because of individual capability and others would fail because of a lack of skill. William Sumner thought that the best way to support the poor was to “increase, multiply, and extend the chances.”

In this excerpt Sumner takes a much more factual and logical approach. His use of logos is very apparent throughout the excerpt. Two examples are both of Sumner’s definitions of a “poor man” and a “weak man”.  Another example of his use of logos is in his sarcastic ridicule of philanthropists’ social reform. “Poverty is the best policy. If you get wealth, you will have to support other people; if you do not get wealth, it will be the duty of other people to support you.”

Sumner’s use of pathos also comes in logical form. There are few places where he appeals to the emotional side of his readers. A society based on contract, therefore, gives the utmost room and chance for individual development, and for all the self-reliance and dignity of a free man.” Though his argument is logical, he is trying to play on the same emotional strings connected to independence from Britain and the feeling of superiority of free white men.

His appeal to ethos is quite simple. By his use of proper grammar, extended vocabulary, and a respectful tone throughout his excerpt he succeeds in presenting himself and his theory as respectable, knowledgeable, and commendable.

I do not believe this excerpt or book has much historical significance. It was written in 1883 in response to the economic growth and development during the Gilded Age and addressed questions that many people had about free labor and its effects on society. Though this book most likely helped the supporters of social Darwinism, it did not have a fundamental impact on American society.

I do find Sumner’s argument to be somewhat convincing. I am not in complete agreement with his idea that there should be no form of social support that offers capital; I do agree that the best way to help an impoverished man is to give him the skills necessary to succeed and provide as many options as possible for him. For the time period, many people must have found his argument convincing because of his polished use of logic and his high position at a renowned university.

What Did The Ku Klux Klan really want? CDL

The Ku Klux Klan was a group that constantly threatened, harassed, murdered, and abused African Americans and supporters of racial equality. The first group was formed in 1866 by six Confederate veterans in Tennessee, and more groups quickly formed afterwards. The Klan operated under a belief that all their actions were purely for self-preservation and self-defense.  Nevertheless history reveals that the Ku Klux Klan did not only strive for “self-preservation” but to turn back the clock to a time of slavery. Their attempt at success caused the Klan to implement tactics of guerrilla warfare. Klansmen wanted slavery to be revived so the Klan continually targeted all African Americans exercising rights and privileges that they did not have before the civil war. For example Klansmen found it offensive that blacks were receiving an education, so many of the African American schools were bombed and burned. Furthermore the Klan used tactics as extreme as forcing a man’s wife to watch as his throat was cut. In less than five years the number of political killings reached the thousands, and this proved to be effective, “Ulysses S. Grant received no votes at all in 1868 in eleven counties, despite black majorities” (575). The Federal Government finally interfered in 1870 and 1871 by passing laws that limited the Klan’s power. However this did not stop the violence. The Klan continued to operate and other groups began to strike fear into the hearts of African Americans as well.

1.       Why was the Ku Klux Klan so appealing to White Southerners?

2.       Did the Klan succeed in their objectives?

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

The author, Abraham Lincoln, is arguing for a few things in his first address. The most important thing he is fighting for is the Unity of the States. He believes that secession will make things harder and not easier in the future for the South, and that it is impossible to secede because the States cannot physically separate from eachother. He discusses slavery and fugitive slave laws from a legal point of view, constantly referring to the Constitution and he points out that slavery is not clearly defined or regulated in the Constitution. His goal was to walk the fine line between the North and South, while indicating to the South that even though is a Republican President he is not trying to forcibly eradicate slavery in the current slaveholding states. President Lincoln let both sides know that it is easier to work together as friends than to make peace as enemies, and that since the Constitution isn’t clear it could be amended.

President Lincoln’s greateast appeal was through logos and ethos, to me pathos was clearly not as strong. In his speech he used ethos in the beginning, stating that he was a Republican president but that didn’t mean Southern property was in danger. He also requited himself saying, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” He wanted to portray himself as a bi-partisan ready for peace and negotiation not war. He confirms his character again by saying his job is clearly to work towards preservation of the Union , “You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it.” Through these he tries to show himself as a caring, trustworthy, honest man.

His logical arguments were apparent throughout his entire speech. There are many examples regarding the argument against secession. Here is one where he used the geography of the Union, “We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.” Another example of his logical brilliance is when he discusses secession and the constitution. He states that the South wants to seceded because they believe their constitutional rights have not been upheld but he continues to point out that the Constitution does not clearly address slavery. He also uses the legal aspects of a contract to show that secession is legally invalid.

Though I believe pathos was not as strong as his ethos and logos, it was still apparent. His conclusion was clearly directed at an emotional and patriotic audience. In Lincoln’s argument against secession he argues that relying on Christianity and god will lead them in the right direction, and that the “Almighty Ruler of Nations” will pick a side and that side will be victorious.

This Document is very important. It is Abraham Lincoln’s first address to the Nation as president during a time when he received zero Electoral College votes from the South. At this time eight states had already seceded and civil war seemed imminent. In this speech Lincoln was trying to hold the Union together without enraging either side because the country was very fragile at that point.

I do find Lincoln’s arguments very convincing. I am a very logical person and all of his arguments appealed to the logical side of people, so they won me over. It does not make sense to fight your neighbors as enemies when you can make peace as friends. His speech must not have been very effective though, seeing as by April the war had already broken out.

Transatlantic Abolition Response

1. How would the abolition of the slave trade affect economic growth in America?
From what I read, the abolition of the slave trade would have both a positive and negative impact on the economy. There would be a negative impact for the American slave ship owners and workers that would be out of work. The positive impact would stem from American slave owners that could trade their native born African-Americans.

2. Who was/were the most significant person/people in the passing of the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act? Why?

The were many people and groups involved with the abolition of the slave trade. There were English Quakers that formed the 'Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade', a French group that was named 'Society of the Friends of Blacks', and an American Quaker group named, 'Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery,' these three groups worked together and communicated constantly (382) so their hard work helped pass the bill. The English group kept the pressure on Parliament and the British citizens showed their support by participating in the boycott of slave produced sugar and by signing petitions. The American group petitioned congress around the same time in 1790 and were rejected because of a clause.

3. Women remained outside of politics for much of the beginning of America. What prompted their sudden surge in politics, and why did this topic spark their interest?
This topic sparked their interest because most women were very involved with their church and attended church regularly, and slavery went against their religious beliefs. Also the sudden surge in politics could be explained by the rise of female academies, because of these academies the amount of education women received increased dramatically.