Was There a Sexual Revolution in the 1920's

The article “Was There a Sexual Revolution in the 1920s” talks about the outlook on sex between the old and young in America during the 1920s. The older Americans believed that the younger generation was revolting against the “traditional standards of morality and feared that America was in danger of going to hell in a hand basket.” The big thing people were curious about was if young Americans were merely talking about sex or actually doing it. There wasn’t a lot of evidence to back up either of the sides. Women as a whole become more independent and equivalent in American society around the time of this so called sexual revolution. According to Dr. Clelia Mosher changes in morality were more evolutionary than revolutionary. Women had just become more in tuned to their equal satisfaction from sex as men and were morally more open and okay with it.

1.       With today’s culture and people’s morality on sex today do you think that the elders of America in 1920 were correct to think that America was “in danger of going to hell in a hand basket?

2.       Do you believe that there actually was a sexual revolution in the 1920’s or do you believe that is was more evolutionary?

Populist Party Platform 1892

I believe that the speech given by Ignatius Donnelly at the 1892 populist convention had the intentions of making the people realize how twisted and corrupted politics and the government were. He calls the time of these elections a moral,political, and material ruin. He also says that the ballot-boxes, the legislatures and the congress are all corrupted. He also talks about how the "urban workmen" have horrible working conditions. I believe that Donnelly was trying to argue that the government is creating two major classes and ruining society. He refers to the two classes as tramps and millionaires at the end of his speech. Throughout the speech he talks about many negative things that the government is doing.

I  thought that Donnelly was extremely convincing in this speech and that his wording made it even more convincing. He made many great points throughout the entire speech. If I were to have been an average person and hear this back then I would have been outraged. It would have been a harsh realization on what was really going on in society.

I feel that the choice of words that Donnelly used and the examples that he gave would have made an emotional impact on a reader, not only with anger but even sadness as well. I'm sure that Donnelly's character reflected on the people while he was giving his speech in a positive or motivational way.Donnelly made extremely well and logical points as to how the government was corrupt and destroying society. He talks about how newspapers are muzzled and public opinions are silenced. I feel that ethos pathos and logos all would have been affected by Donnelly's speech in a way that Donnelly had hoped for, in agreement with his argument.

An Analysis on the crime of poverty, Henry George 1885

Henry George was a journalist, who addresses the issue of poverty. He uses his words to show the people that poverty was becoming a great problem.  Henry is trying to convince his readers that private ownership of land is a huge source of what’s leading others to poverty. Henry talks about how God had nothing to do with poverty’s arising and says that those living in poverty were not at fault either. Henry blames those who put poverty on others, such as private land owners.  Henry also makes it clear that he feels it is absolutely wrong to try to claim land, for it was put here for everyone.

In Henry’s article I feel that he targeted each one; logos, pathos and ethos. I feel that he used emotion to try to get to each of them, to make them realize what was going on with poverty and how the issue needed to be addressed. For example when he spoke about the children who were having to work and miss out on their education.  He also talks about how if you were a “real Christian” you would be doing what you could to help those in poverty. Henry also states multiple ways that would help get rid of the issue of poverty, such as reform the government. Though Henry in a way blames private land owners he overall blames all of society for poverty being as big of an issue as it is.

            I believe that this article was extremely historically significant in more than just one way, mainly because poverty is still an issue that we have all over the world today. However it shows that we can move past poverty. I found that the author’s argument was amazingly convincing. If I were to have read it back in the day my heart would have forced me to try to help out and do something about the issues of poverty.  I believe that he would have had an incredible emotional toll on his readers. He proved that poverty is a huge issue and that it needs to be addressed.

Why Did so Many Die?

I found that the article "Why Did so Many Die?" was extremely devastating. Basically the article talks about the numbers of men that were killed during the Civil War,260,000 rebel soldiers were killed along with 373,000 Union soldiers. The amount of deaths were drastic and never before seen. There were many factors at the time as to why the numbers were so extreme. There were completely different warfare tactics being used, which emphasized frontal assaults. There was new technology in weapons as well. In place of cannons and smoothbore muskets barreled rifles now stood, resulting in thousands of deaths a day.For awhile there were no doctors or surgeons to help the wounded, then when there were they got reputations of being butchers. Soldiers dreaded the operation table worse then the armed enemies themselves. The doctors had little knowledge of bacteria did operations under disgusting and disturbing conditions, one in every five wounded died. Bacteria and diseases killed many, diseases killed nearly twice as many soldiers as did battle. Most that were died were prisoners of war,about 56,000.

1. What do you believe caused more Union soldiers to be killed overall than rebel soldiers?

2. The article says that a century later in Vietnam only one in four-hundred wounded died as to the one in five wounded that passed in the Civil War, what factors do you believe changed over the years to alter that statistic so drastically?