Wealth Against Commonwealth

1.      What is the author arguing?

In the writing Wealth Against Commonwealth, we see that the author Henry Demarest Lloyd is explaining his perspective on how wealth is changing the mindsets of people and businesses in his time period. Many businesses were changing the way that they were running things, and were adopting new ideas into their industrialized points of view, a more monopolized view and system. He made some very bold points to say that in essence, everyone is poor in relation to “nature”, but there are few that rise higher than all, to obtain this wealth that is much different than “common wealth”. He also goes on to explain how detrimental the corporate “beasts” can become, especially since their main objective is to create money, regardless of how they do so.

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

Lloyd appeals to logos as he uses real life situations in analogies and examples to show how these businesses are appealing to the rest of the world. He gives the example of how people bought and sold sugar and used it in times to “enhance the price to enrich themselves at the public’s expense, and depress the price when necessary to crush out and impoverish a foolhardy rival.” People were starting to use business as a way to control their surroundings, in the sense, and use it to their own benefit-whether rightfully or not. There was now starting to be a distinct difference between wealthy and poor, not so much a middle class.  He uses pathos a lot in this article as his word choices are very debasing against these corporations. In one analogy, he says that “Liberty produces wealth and wealth destroys liberty…Our bignesses- cities, factories, monopolies, fortunes which are our empires are the obesities of an age gluttonous beyond it’s power’s of digestion.” He is very forward about how he believes these corporations are going to eventually be much more harmful than good, causing people to want more and more, to only become greedier and more selfish. Throughout the entire text you can see his character. It is prevalent that the man was infuriated about the corporate situation and he was standing firm against the new “laws” and regulations set up by them. Also, being as tenacious as he is, he continues to point out how the pining desire for wealth and power not only was corrupting these businesses, but the people who ran them as well. He also had a sense of conscious toward the poor and devalued those who did not. He seemed to be a man strict to his morals and old values, someone who would tell you what he really was thinking.

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

I think this document is very significant as it completely relates to the time we are in now. When Henry Lloyd first wrote this, it was only the beginning of the corporate enterprise. Industrialization started to take over, and it was prevalent that some people were using this to their own advantage to gain wealth. Lloyd I think saw what the worst outcome could be- corruption, loss of integrity within business, the desire for more money and greed that surpassed it all. The underlying notion that the middle class was phasing out is also relevant because of how the same thing is happening in our economy. The middle class is being pushed out, and there is a bigger distinction between very rich and very poor. I can say that I see some of the same similarities in our day because the American Dream is formed around this idea of success and money. The more that you have of those two things, the closer you are to the “true American Dream”. Even Lloyd, in his time addressed this in the view that materialism was more significant than ever before.  

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

At first, I did not understand where the author was going with his argument. It was hard for me to follow with how he used some of the analogies from one to the next. The beginning, I think was lacking in drawing in the reader. As I went on, it was about half way through that I could understand what he was talking about. Because the reading was a little difficult to understand and there was a lot of emotional usage, I don’t find his argument that convincing. Although I agree with him, I think that he could have used a bit more logic to support his ideas to make them even more concrete so it would not appear as only his opinions.

The Telegraph: The Wonder Working Wire

On June 20, 1840 Samuel F.B. Morse was accredited as the inventor of the Telegraph. This “Wonder Working Wire” as some called it, began to change the 19th century and project what the possibilities were for the future of national communications. Morse had gotten his inspiration to invent this machine from the works of Andre Ampere of France, Alessandro Volta of Italy, and Joseph Henry of the United States. These men’s curiosity of electromagnetism sparked Morse’s idea to create a device that would send messages telegraphically, through the use of electricity. Through a series of taps on the telegraph, a code later named Morse code was created as means of communication from one location to the next. As the development continued, in 1842 he tried an experiment to conjoin wires from Washington D.C. to Baltimore, and succeeded. By 1846 most eastern cities were connected by the telegraph. Although costly at $1 per word, this revolutionary piece brought people and families alike together by connecting them through distance.

1. How has the invention of the telegraph changed the culture of the 19th century compared to the America we know today? How do our values differentiate?

2. What are some examples as to how the econonmy changed from the telegraph and opportunities that arose from it?

3. What do you think could have inspired Samuel Morse to create the telegraph?

American Anti-Slavery Society 1833, Declaration of Sentiments

An insider from the American Anti-Slavery Society speaks out through his piece “Declaration of Sentiments” in 1833 to give light into how this Society thinks and feels about slavery.  The author is arguing the case that slaves, in all respects, should be free because it is morally and ethically wrong for a person to own or have control over another. He argued that people of color should be given the same rights as any person, the same privileges to live and enjoy life, to be free and be respected as an equal. The author uses a lot of pathos for his arguments, pulling emotion out of examples of certain circumstances people underwent such as: hunger, being cut off from family members, beaten and forced into slavery. He uses descriptions that draw out emotion so that one can empathize with how these people are being treated. The author uses logos throughout the examples he gives to his audience as to how these slaves are treated. He also uses biblical examples to support his dispute that slavery is not permissible for the American Christian. He claims scripture says every man who claims ownership over another as property is a ‘man-stealer’.  His character comes out boldly in ethos matter as he is beginning to end his claim he gives his own reasons, and those of others opinions as to why slaves should go free in an almost poetic manner. He places value on slaves as real people, not as property to be sold, and says these men and women should be given the right to earn wages.

I would think that in the time this document was written, it was merely the beginning of Americas division on slavery. Many people were accustomed to having and owning slaves, it was a way of life. Thinking that it was over 100 years later that Martin Luther King were to come and make his stance, this was controversial in and of itself in 1833. It was relevant for others to start questioning their motives and looking at slavery in a different perspective. In that year, Britain had passed the Slavery Abolition Act which banned slavery in all of Britain. It was important for the American Anti-Slavery Society to get their ideas and opinions out to see if the same change could happen in the United States.

I agree with the author, and I do find him convincing. Although, I would have to say I am bias because the way he present his argument would be similar as to how I would present mine. He might have used more of a logos approach, maybe from studies or statistics to support his statements to make an even stronger case. He used a lot of pathos, which could be considered an opinion of the author in some circumstances so he was probably contested for it. Over all, I do think he made good points about how no person should have to undergo such treatment on the account of others. People should be given the same rights whether white, black or any color.