Wealth Against Commonwealth

1. What is the author arguing?
-Henry Demarest Lloyd believes wealth is ruining the human race. He believes that civilization is now built purely on competition. It upsets him that now the richer people think they rule everything and when people get money they spend them on yachts instead of helping the slums of the community. In his eyes people have become selfish and could care less about the well being of things outside of their lives. It also bothers him that people are now making their agents do all the work instead of earning their own anymore. Owners of companies were cutting jobs so they could get more money which in return ended up screwing over the people who were still working to keep their own. Lloyd wishes it went back to where everyone was equal and did not have to rely on selfish people for their livings.

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 logic by giving the possbile outcomes of this situation and all the background information of it. Like how he compaired the rich people to pharos. He appeals to pathos by comparing the reaction time of this to the reaction time of slavery. If I was someone back then and heard this comparasin I would automatically start thinking about the situation and wonder if it could get as bad. LLoyd appeals to ethos by blantly stating his case. He does not beat aroung the bush and make you picture what he is thinking. He does not let the reader open up the perceptions to their imaginations. He wants everyone to see it exactly how he is picturing it.

3.What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
- This documents shows the time period when people started thinking purely of themselves. People can not go around stating that these newer generations are selfish because now there is documented proof that this started a while back. This is the transition between before then and now. Yes, we are still transforming, but this shows when the flop was and to what extent it was moving.

4.Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
- I personally could go both ways with this. I do agree that people are pretty selfish, but it also should not be put on the richer peoples shoulders to take care of everyone else. If you are successful you should be able to enjoy it instead of having to share with the people who still haven't made anythin gof themselves. Granted, people have gotten to the point where they are so selfish that it is slightly ridiculous. LLoyd makes great points, but he also leaves holes for people to find loop holes.

Why Did so Many Soldiers Die?

By the mid-ninteenth century, they were killing people faster than they were saving them. The formations they had in battle, the size of their armies, and the growing technology for weapons all made the death rate increase greatly. While they thought having doctors by the battle fields would help save lives, it actually did quite the opposite. It was to the point where soldier would rather lay on the battle field than get help. Doctors had no idea what they were doing, so the sanitation in hospitals was horrible. All of the amputated limbs in the hospitals, the dirty scrubs the doctors would wear for days on end, and the unsanitary cleaning procedures caused many soldiers to die in the hospitals. By the end of all of this 260,00 rebel soldiers and 373,000 union soldiers had died.

1. What were the cons of having doctors by the battle fields?
2. What were ways diseases spread through army camps?
3. How did the doctors treat wounds?

"Letter to an English Abolitionist,” John Henry Hammond, 1845

In this article the author is arguing that slavery is an acceptable practice. He states that in the Bible God has his own form of slaves called the apostles and that as long as you treat them with kiindness and respect that slavery should be an acceptable practice. Politically, many of the people who lived during this time had no say in how they were treated or in policies that would effect them because they were apart of the slavery population and ineligible to be politically active. He appeals to logic by presenting both sides and using religion as a basis for his argument. He is very straight forward in his writing, yet leaves enough open for you to form your own opinion. The historical significance of this article is that it written at a time when slavery was in controversy and when the owner had a plantation with many slaves of their own. In my opinion I do not feel that people should be owned by other people but that they can be committed to an employer in a respectful manner. I feel that it is wrong for people to be unable to make choices of their own or to not have a say in rules and regulations that apply to them.

How Often Were Slaves Whipped?

Slaves were punished in many different ways for multiple reasons. The most common form of punishment was whipping. Whippings could have been administered by plantation owners or their overseers. There is actually no evidence to show how often slaves were whipped,but we are able to look into the severity of the beatings. The severity depended on the material the whips were made of. Some slaves were not even whipped, but they all knew the horrors of it from being forced to watch. Most of this article is about Bennet H. Barrow's planation due to the fact that he recorded every whipping he administered or ordered. On average, slaves on his plantation were whipped at least once, minus the children and pregnant women.
1. What were the possibly materials used for a whip?
2. What were reasons for slaves being Whipped?
3. What were other forms of punishment?
4. On average, how often were slaves whipped on Bennet H. Barrow's plantation? Which slaves were mostlikely being whipped?