A Long Way From Chicago, a Literary Analysis: Justice will be Served

A Long Way From Chicago by Richard Peck is a heart-warming story set during the Great Depression about Joe “Joey” Dowdel and his little sister Mary Alice Dowdel’s annual week-long journey to their Grandma Dowdel’s house in a small mid-Illinois country town. Joey narrates the story from the perspective of a city boy in a country town that is “A Long Way From Chicago”, as the title suggests. Grandma’s town is indeed a far cry from the steel jungle of Chicago in many ways, as Joey and Mary Alice quickly learn from their first visit at 9 and 7. In each of their summer visits, Grandma concocts an elaborate scheme, pulling her grandkids into her quests to return justice to her hometown through many clever and unorthodox adventures. Richard Peck, through Grandma’s plans in A Long Way From Chicago, is trying to convey the message that justice can be restored and good deeds achieved in surprising and even hilarious ways. The next three paragraphs will demonstrate with examples from the book itself how justice can be served and good deeds performed in unexpected circumstances and from unexpected people.

Firstly, in the story of “The Mouse in the Milk”, set in 1930 when Joey and Mary Alice were 10 and 8, Grandma gives out several helpings of justice to the Cowgill boys, the antagonists during this particular visit. The story begins with Grandma and Joey sitting in the front room while Mary Alice sulked around the house after being called in from jump roping outside. Then, an explosion went off, “a flash of light (that) filled the bay window...an explosion shook the house and made my puzzle jump” (19). Joey, Mary Alice, and Grandma investigate outside and find her mailbox blown to smithereens. Grandma immediately knows who did it, saying “Cowgills”, proving that they have been terrorizing the town for quite a while (19). The next morning over breakfast, the threesome finds Mrs. Effie Wilcox’s privy has been “wrenched up…by the posts and flung…all over the yard” (21). The day after, Mary Alice and Joey finds Grandma has initiated her plan since “(n)ext to a box of shells, Grandpa Dowdel’s old double-barreled Winchester Model 21 was on the kitchen table along with a greasy rag…somebody besides Grandma was in the kitchen, over by the door…His gaze kept flitting to the shotgun”(21-22). The person eyeing the shotgun is introduced as Ernie Cowgill, who delivers the milk. Grandma also tells Ernie that she found a mouse in her milk in the last batch, which Joey confirms is a “whopper” (22). However, this is just the first of the lies Grandma feeds Ernie. She then proceeds to say “I’ll be gone tonight and all day tomorrow…I’m taking my grandkids tan a visit to my cousin Leota Shrewsbury.”, to which Joey thinks “Another whopper, and a huge one”(22). Grandma is very mysterious about her plans. When Joey asked “Grandma, what was the shotgun for?” Grandma simply replies “Bait”(23-24). Later that day, Grandma takes a half-decapitated mouse and drops it into that day’s batch of milk. Then, after supper, Grandma has Mary Alice and Joey turn off all the lights and bolt the front door. The three sit quietly, “only outlines in the dark parlor” (27). Then, after a while of waiting, they hear the four Cowgill brothers sawing at Grandma’s screen door. As the Cowgill break in, presumably to steal Grandpa Dowdel’s shotgun, Grandma rolls a lit cherry bomb into the kitchen, which created “and almighty explosion like the crack of doom”(28). Then, after Joey turns on the lights, Grandma has the boys pinned down with “both barrels of the gun they’d come to steal” (29). After Joey fetches the Cowgills from church, Mr. Cowgill “convinces” Grandma to lower the gun after she makes him promise to pay for a new screen door and mailbox. She lets the boys leave, but keeps Mr. Cowgill and blackmails him with the mouse in the milk that she made earlier. Mr. Cowgill is confused at what Grandma wants, and Grandma replies “Justice” (34). They have a moment of understanding and Mr. Cowgill takes Grandpa Dowel’s leather “strop” and “whaled the tar out of every one of (the boys)”(34). So, in the end, Grandma returned law and order to the town by lying on numerous occasions, blackmailing the Cowgills, and blowing up her own kitchen. Next, more evidence will be revealed of justice being served and kind actions performed through strange methods.

Second, in the story of “A One-Woman Crime Wave”, set in 1931 when Joey and Mary Alice were 11 and 9, Grandma sets the uppity Sheriff O. B. Dickerson down a notch, feeds an old lady, and feeds the poor and hungry through her unlawful and creative ways again. The story starts with Joey contemplating the Great Depression and how he noted that Grandma’s house was practically the same in spite of it. The first inklings of another plan comes up when Mary Alice discovers something in the cobhouse that “smelled bad enough to gas a cat” and Grandma, being as vague as ever, simply replies “It’s cheese” and “It’s not for you” (38). The next day, Grandma gets up and puts on a ridiculous amount of clothes, so much that “(s)he looked like a moving mountain”, and tells the kids that they are going fishing in the country(39). The trio head out with the cheese and illegally goes to Salt Creek, which is private property of the Rod and Gun Club. Grandma then proceeds to “borrow” Sheriff O. B. Dickerson’s boat and uses the cheese in illegal fish traps. When Joey, Mary Alice, and Grandma are rowing back, they catch a glimpse of “the porch sagged with singers—grown men in their underwear, still partying from last night. Old guys in real droopy underwear…They were waving bottles and trying to dance. ‘(It was) O. B. Dickerson, the sheriff,’ (Grandma) said, ‘and them drunk skunks with him is the entire business community of the town.’ ” (48). While Joey is thinking that “it was time to head upstream as fast as Grandma could row”, as they were on their private property and in O. B. Dickerson’s boat full of illegally trapped fish, Grandma started rowing down the bend(48). When they came in sight of the Rod and Gun club members, “Grandma saw them, as if for the first time. She seemed to lose control of the oars, and her mouth fell open in shock. Mary Alice was already shocked and didn’t have to pretend…you never saw anybody as scandalized as Grandma was at these old birds in their union suits and less”(49). After this, Grandma goes to her old employer, Aunt Puss Chapman and feeds her and supplies her with enough food for the next week. Afterward, she goes back home and has her grandkids help with making a dinner and dragging the card table all the way up to the railroad. The three set up the outside banquet until “the platters of fish and potatoes overlapped on the table, and the opened beer bottles stood in a row beside the tracks” (55). Then, “(a)s the drifters came along, being hounded out of town, Grandma gave them a good feed and a beer to wet their whistles…Then…(u)p trooped O. B. Dickerson, dressed now with his badge on and his belt full of bullets riding low under his belly”(55-56). When the sheriff asks questions about keeping the drifters in town, using illegal fish traps, and stealing his boat, Grandma coolly dodges each question, rebutting with the fact that they were in the county now and “point(ing) her spatula at the sheriffs feet”, remarking that the town stopped there. She argued back, accusing O. B. of illegally running fish traps as well. When the sheriff used his stolen boat, a last resort, Grandma blackmails the sheriff with Mary Alice and Joey, claiming that “they’d already seen what no child should—the sheriff and his deputies, blind drunk and naked as jaybirds” and that “it’s like to have marked this girl for life…I don’t want her to develop one of them complexes you hear about” (58). The sheriff and his deputies leave and once again, Grandma, hauling with her Joey and Mary Alice, has managed to spread good around her town with the help of trespassing on private property, stealing the sheriff’s boat, illegally trapping fish, brewing beer during Prohibition, and blackmailing the sheriff. The final evidence of kindness spread and lawfulness reinstated through perhaps not-so-lawful methods will be imparted in the next paragraph.

Finally, in the main story line of “Things With Wings”, set in 1934 when Joey and Mary Alice were 14 and 12, Grandma gets Effie Wilcox’s house back and Joey and Mary Alice each 2 dollars, which would be the equivalent of getting 35 dollars today. The story starts with Grandma sending Effie off on the very train that Joey and Mary Alice came off. Joey and Mary Alice learn that Effie’s house has been foreclosed upon. Some of the story passes in a somber mood. Joey visits the Veech’s Gas and Oil and is reminded that driving lessons from his semi-friend Ray Veech are a full 2 dollars and instantly falls in love with a new “showroom fresh Terraplane 8 from the Hudson Motor Car Company”(104). The threesome watches a horror movie, Dracula. After the movie, however, Grandma seems back to her old self, and immediately begins plotting and setting it into action. She has Joey and Mary Alice look in the attic for “(a)ny old rummage for the church sale”, and Joey gets suspicious, as “Grandma…didn’t take part in community activities” (108). They spent “all morning to go through everything”, and in the end, all Grandma took was an old preacher’s stovepipe hat and a frayed quilt pieced by her Aunt Josie Smull (111). That afternoon, they go to the church rummage sale. Joey can tell that “she was biding her time” (112). Finally, what Grandma has been waiting for finally happens. “A flurry began at the other end of a table…Grandma sat on, at her ease…the strict lady in charge, who was Mrs. Earl T. Askew, came through the crowds, heading for us…Bending to Grandma, she spoke in low, urgent tones”, informing Grandma that Mrs. Weidenbach, the banker’s wife, presented 15 dollars (worth 260 dollars today) for Grandma’s old stovepipe hat (112). Grandma “accidently” lets slip that “it was in with some other old stuff Effie Wilcox threw away” (113). Joey sees “Mrs. L. J. Weidenbach was over at the cashier, peeling off five-dollar bills as fast as she could dig them out of her pocketbook” and wonders what Grandma has done this time(113). Suddenly, Mrs. Askew rushes back, clutching Aunt Josie Smull’s quilt, stuttering and stumbling about Grandma asking if she really wants to part with the quilt. While a crowd gathers, Grandma smoothes out the blanket to reveal that “initials had magically appeared on the fraying hem: M▪T▪L” (113). Mrs. Weidenbach soon exclaims, “Oh my stars and garters! M.T.L. Mary Todd Lincoln! And I’ve got Abe Lincoln’s own stovepipe hat. His name’s lettered in on the sweatband!”(114). The morning after, Grandma gets a visit from Otis, the bank teller, requesting her to meet with Mr. Weidenbach, the banker. When Grandma shows up, Mr. Weidenbach goes right to the point, saying, “‘Certain items supposedly from the estate of President and Mrs. Abraham Lincoln have surfaced in a house that the bank is forced to foreclose on. Do you grasp what this could mean, Mrs. Dowdel?’…‘I expect the state will take that land and restore the house as a museum’” (115). Mr. Weidenbach expresses to Grandma his distress, as the bank is too deep into a deal with Deere and Company that would build an implement shed across the entire property of Effie Wilcox and the old brickyard. They go back and forth until Mr. Weidenbach accuses Grandma of falsifying the “so-called Lincoln items” (116). Mr. Weidenbach falls right into Grandma’s trap as he threatens to throw her in jail. She then pulls out a Grandma Dowdel classic: blackmail. “That’s right”, Grandma says, staring behind Mr. Weidenbach, “The banker throws the poor old widder in the pokey. That’ll look real good for your business” (116). The banker now knows he’s been trapped. He sits, deflated, and begs with Grandma to help him out of this situation. Grandma slyly offers a solution, telling him to build a shorter implement shed and “leave Effie Wilcox’s house be” (116). Mr. Weidenbach gives Effie’s house back “free and clear” in exchange for Grandma confessing that the “Lincoln items” were falsified (117). Grandma waves that off and creates a rumor then and there about Effie meaning that the stovepipe hat was the kind that Lincoln wore and Mrs. Wilcox’s cousin Maude Teeter Lingenbloom. Then, as an afterthought, she adds on two dollars for each of her grandkids. Joey finally gets his driving lessons. And so again, Grandma returns integrity to Piatt County by falsifying items of President Lincoln, lying to numerous people, and, once more, blackmailing the banker. After these examples, the evidence is irrefutable that justice being served and good deeds being done in crazy and funny ways is the theme in A Long Way From Chicago.

Of course, there are many other examples in the book showing kind deeds and justices being served through questionable and hilarious means, but these three are the most prominent. These antics of Grandma’s make us laugh, but also has meaning too, teaching us about the importance of helping the less fortunate. Lessons like these show us to expect the unexpected in life, and maybe have a laugh about them too. By using humor, Richard Peck ensures that these lessons and Grandma Dowdel herself will stick in our brains for a long time, even after we’ve finished their story. Kind deeds will be performed in life, just maybe not the way you expected. In the end, though, justice will be served…maybe even Grandma Dowdel style.

Short Synopsis: The Extraordinary Education of Nicholas Benedict

Before becoming dedicated to stopping evil, Nicholas Benedict was just another orphan in another orphanage. Set as a prequel to the wildly popular The Mysterious Benedict Society series, The Extraordinary Education of Nicholas Benedict tells the story of a 9-year-old Nicholas and the challenges he faces. As if having narcolepsy (a condition that sends Nicholas to sleep unexpectedly) isn’t enough, Nicholas now has to move to a different orphanage—one with a particularly interesting history. At Rothchild’s End, he faces a trio of bullies, obnoxious adults, and discovers that there is a long-lost treasure on the property! Fortunately for Nicholas, he’s a genius with the element of surprise. Can he and his friends find the treasure and outwit the bullies? In this riveting tale of genius, Nicholas discovers mysteries, friendship, and treasure. Nicholas Benedict, with his clever solutions and bright, kind mind, will long remain a well-remembered and cherished character. Trenton Lee Stewart spins out another masterpiece with witticisms, mystery, and heart-warming companionship—a perfect read for kids.

Brother Against Brother: A Comprehensive Study of the Causes of the Civil War

The American Civil War was the bloodiest war in American history, with casualties clocking in at 600,000 men—a percentage that, when converted, would be today’s equivalent of the state of Washington being completely wiped off the map. The Civil War is notorious for being so controversial that it tore families apart—turned brother against brother. What could have caused carnage and controversy of such great magnitude? The average person might immediately, and unthinkingly, blurt out “slavery”. While this is technically true, the full answer is much more complicated and split, just like the United States right before the War. In this report, one will attempt to understand what led to the start of this horrific war. First, the differing economies of the North and the South led to rising sectional interests. Second, their different ideas about slavery increased tensions and carved the way to the formation of the Confederate States of America. Finally, the United States’ failure to efficiently and effectively create a political compromise finally broke the back of the South and sparked the most horrific war in American history. Learning the full extent of the cause of the Civil War will be difficult; to start, one should look at the differing economies of the North and the South.

The drastic distinctions between the economies of the industry-mogul United States and agriculturally-based Confederate States are extremely prominent and can be easily proved. Firstly, if one looks at the number of railroads in comparison to the amount of cotton produced and slave density, one would see that most of the railroads are criss-crossing the North, while all of the slaves and cotton are in the would-be Confederacy and the border states. This suggests that the North was industrialized (thus the need of railroads to transport machinery and other goods), while the South was centered around farming (thus the little need of railroads; the South typically used the Mississippi River to move cotton). If one looks harder, one would see that typically the density of slaves is directly proportional to the amount of cotton produced, further suggesting that the South, to grow cotton and thus create revenue, needed slaves to do it (Document 1). Secondly, if one were to compare the different resources of the Union and the future Confederate States, one would see an obvious trend of differing financial systems. The North had 92% of all industrial workers and 91% of the revenue, whereas the South had a 100% of all cotton bales grown in the United States—a whopping 5 million. The South also had 88% of all slaves, which would again suggest the Southern policy of “slaves = cotton” (Document 2). Finally, if one were to examine the opinion of one North Carolinian, Hinton Helper, it is apparent how the different economies led to rising tensions. Hinton Helper, a well-known political writer, stated in his book The Impending Crisis of the South, among other things, “It is a fact well known to every intelligent Southerner that we are compelled to go to the North for almost every article of utility…that we are dependent on Northern [manufacturers] for the means necessary to build…public improvements” (Document 3). This affirms the fact that the South, having little manufacturing, relied on the North, therefore making the South uneasy about the power-hold the North had over them. As illustrated in these evidences, the conflicting economies led, over time, to the Civil War. Next, upon learning this information, it is crucial to acknowledge that different North-South beliefs about slavery contributed greatly to the rise of the Civil War.

Second in our quest for the truth is the idea of slavery and the different reactions to it between the North, the South, and even slaves themselves and how it caused the Civil War. First, the Southern view of slavery must be presented in the form of George Fitzhugh’s book Cannibals All! Or Slaves Without Masters. George Fitzhugh, a sociologist who is again from North Carolina, says many things about slavery, including “The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world. The children and the aged infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and necessities of life provided for them. They…are neither oppressed by care nor labor. The women do little hard work…The Negro men and stout boys work…not more than 9 hours a day…they can sleep at any hour.” Fitzhugh’s writing plainly shows the common Southern belief that they are taking care of the slaves opposed to abusing them (Document 5). Second, one should look at the point of view of a slave to get a fuller comprehension. Fredrick Douglass, a famous African-American abolitionist, gave a speech on July 5th, 1852 titled “The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro”. Douglass spoke about how July Fourth, to the slave, is a meaningless sham and “hollow mockery”. He accuses the United States of “bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy” and of “crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages”. Douglass’s speech really conveys the point of view of a slave that free Americans do not truly take time to think about (Document 4). Third, the reaction to the John Brown incident illustrates how different the responses are between the North and the South when provoked with the issue of slavery. John Brown was a staunch radical abolitionist who attempted to organize a slave rebellion to overtake Harpers Ferry (a federal arsenal) in Virginia. The endeavor was, however, to be his last. John Brown took his five sons to spread the word to the slaves and to attack the arsenal. His call, unfortunately for him, remained unanswered, so when it came time to attack, Brown led a whopping “band of 18 men, black and white, into Harpers Ferry” to stand up to throes of local troops and U.S. Marines. All of his five sons were killed, along with five others and Brown was turned over to Virginia for trial. In the end, Brown was publicly hanged for treason. The real story, though, starts here when the hanging sparked fierce reactions from both sides. Northerners called Brown’s motives “sublime” and “expressed admiration for him or his cause”. In the North, “Bells tolled at the news of his execution, guns fired salutes, and large crowds gathered” and some Northerners even hailed Brown as “a martyr for the sacred cause of freedom”. The extreme reaction in the North, however, mirrors the one in the South. Outraged mobs would attack suspected antislavery whites Southern whites became paranoid that Northerners were plotting slave uprisings everywhere. How did this lead to the Civil War, though? John Brown’s antics caused the South to think more seriously about secession. Even long-time Union supporters changed their minds about secession. One former Unionist explained that “I am willing to take the chances of…disunion, sooner than submit any longer to Northern insolence and Northern outrage” (Document 6). Obviously, this finalizes the fact that the opposing views on slavery led to the secession of South Carolina and the start of the Civil War. Now that we are even more aware of why the Civil War started, one must examine how the failure of creating an effective political compromise to fill in the final missing piece.

Although many compromises were tried, they all failed in the end, leading to higher tensions between the seceding states and the Union. To prove such a point, one should analyze several different sources for confirmation. Firstly, if one looked at a Supreme Court case by the name of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, one would see some interesting things. Dred Scott was a slave whose owner had taken him to live in the free North for many years. After his master had died and he had moved back to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom on the basis that by living on free territory, he had become a free man. It was continually appealed until it made it to the Supreme Court and, after nine years, Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in 1857 two things. First, he stated that “slaves…had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…And, accordingly, a Negro of the African race was regarded by them as an article of property…”, basically saying that African Americans had no rights and that they were property instead of people. Second, Taney used the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as grounds for voiding the Missouri Compromise. The Fifth Amendment “provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law” and the Missouri Compromise “prohibited a citizen from holding and owning…slaves in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned”. By this logic, Taney concluded that if no one can be deprived of property without due process of law and if slaves were property, then Congress could not prohibit slavery in any territory of the United States. Taney’s ruling essentially wiped the United States of all free soil; there was no more “free” territory now. Slaves, as property of their owners, could be taken anywhere as easily as you could take a purse or a book. The Northerners became furious at this decision, which soon led to the Civil War a mere 5 years later. The Dred Scott decision is a prime example of how the government’s inadequacy infuriated the people into war (Document 9). Secondly, another example of this insufficiency would be the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Act granted popular sovereignty for the Kansas and Nebraska territories, repealing the Missouri Compromise line of 1820. When Stephen Douglass enacted popular sovereignty, a bitter contest between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters broke out. The pre-Civil War was simply over one thing: control of Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act is another chief reason the Civil War started. Thirdly, the caning of Senator Charles Sumner on the Senate floor sparked a reaction equally extreme on both sides, helping to lead to the Civil War. On May 19 and 20, Sumner gave a long speech entitled “The Crime Against Kansas” insulting South Carolina and the well-liked Senator Andrew Butler. He also affronted the pro-slavery men, saying they were “hirelings from the drunken spew and vomit of an uneasy (unstable) civilization”. Two days after the speech, House member Preston Brooks stormed into the Senate and beat Sumner with his cane. The North and the South had drastically different reactions to this incident. The North published thousands of copies of Sumner’s speech and vilified “Bully Brooks”. The South send Brooks dozens of gold-headed canes emblazoned with the words “Hit Him Again!” to replace the one he broke giving Sumner brain damage. The Sumner-Brooks incident was a horrible example of the political tensions in the pre-Civil War United States. Now that one has examined all of these evidences of failure of political compromise, one must go over all of the points again to cement these causes.

In brief, many factors influenced the start of the Civil War, but there were three main reasons. The first was the giant economic difference between the North and the South. Since the two were so different, sectional loyalty and interests continued to rise among both sides until a clash was eventually inevitable. The second was both sides’ wildly opposite beliefs concerning slavery, which obviously caused problems on both sides. The opposition flared when a controversial event took place that concerned slavery, making it only a matter of time when a larger incident would spark the Civil War. The third was the government’s failure to reach an effective political compromise, leading to rising tensions with each failed negotiation. The carnage and controversy in the American Civil War was higher than any other war in America; now, by reading this report, one would know why it started—a crucial portion of American history that all Americans should know.

The Miners of Somerset: The Strike for Unionism, 1922-1923

“The power of capital aligned against the exploited miners was overwhelming.”

—John Brophy, 177

Today, the country is fretting as unemployment rates continue to remain high. A few years ago, the auto industry went bankrupt and the President of the United States decided to bail out the three biggest car corporations in America. In the 1920s, a similar situation occurred. Irving Bernstein writes in his book, “A number of once proud and powerful organizations met with disaster. The downfall of the United Mine Workers was most important” (85). Unfortunately, this story goes differently. The miners of Somerset, Pennsylvania, didn’t have fair wages even before the coal mining industry plummeted. By 1921, bituminous coal production was down to 407,000,000 tons, compared to the 556,000,000 tons of the year before. Production of the mines continued to drop in 1922 and the market demand grew even weaker, as nobody seemed to need bituminous coal anymore (Brophy 179-180). The purpose of this study is to inform the populace of the little known miners’ strike of 1922-1923 in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and how it changed history. First, to properly understand the topic, background information about mining, John Brophy, the president of District 2, and the how the condition of the rest of the nation affected the strike must be known. Second, the miners’ strike tactics against the corporation, who had the upper hand, must be more thoroughly examined. Thirdly, and on the contrary, the actions and retaliation of the Berwind-White Mining Company are a necessity to analyze. Finally, the reason why and exactly how it ended will be thoroughly appraised. The mining industry was one of the biggest in United States history. How did this strike happen? What caused it? What did the miners want? Some background information is in order to understand what transpired.

The coal industry was not doing well; it had been beginning to plunge into the deep end in the recent years before the strike. John Brophy, the president of District 2, sent a letter appealing to the President of the United States for help. As known, a few years ago the auto industry fell into bankruptcy and the President came to their aid with federal help. Regrettably, instead of bailing the miners out and responding to John Brophy’s pleas to extend the work week, President William G. Harding gave “only the barest acknowledgement” to Brophy’s letter and “soon made it clear that no action was ever contemplated” (179-180). Brophy realized that no governmental help would be forthcoming and took matters into his own hands as he turned to the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA). “The 2,200 delegates to the February 1922, international convention at Indianapolis stood firm against wage cuts and demanded a six-hour work day and five-day week to reduce unemployment,” recalls Brophy in his writing. “They decided that…if that agreement was not reached by April 1, a general suspension of work should be ordered” (180). The miners wanted six things to happen with this agreement: collective bargaining and the right to affiliate with the union, fair wages, accurate weighing of the coal they mined, fair pay for the “dead work”, a system where the miners were fairly represented and disputes and grievances could be settled in a peaceful manner, but “above all, they struck to assure their rights as free Americans…to put an end to the absolute and feudal control of these coal operators” (Primary Sources). After all, according to the United States Census of 1920, miners, on average, got paid roughly 54% of the value that their products are actually worth. Disappointingly, “these reforms won widespread support from both coal miners and delegates…but John L. Lewis [President of the UMWA] rejected these proposals” and no agreement was reached (Strike for Union). Hence, the miners declared strike and set down their mining tools. It would not be an easy fight, however. The miners were striking under all economic odds (Mountjoy). The mining company controlled the miners’ entire lives. They got their wages from the company, they lived on company owned land, and they spent their wages at a company owned store. What could the miners do to undermine the corporation and obtain the fair wages and free rights they deserved? What little wages they got all went back to the company through rent and supplies. To learn further about this strike for unionism, the miners’ tactics has to be analyzed with care and thoroughness.

With the miners practically under the complete control of the Berwind-White Mining Company, they used everything they could get their coal-streaked hands on. District 2 had three major tactics at their disposal: seek help from non-union miners, broadcast the strike and get the public on their side, and create a pact with Berwind-White through the UMWA that met all of their requirements. John Brophy “became convinced that the spread of the strike to the non-union fields on a big scale was our only salvation, and that publicity had to be used to the utmost end”. He called on the non-union miners to come on strike and prepared 20,000 throwaway cards with a strike call. He prepared an additional strike call that briefly stated the arguments against the corporation that was to be released to the press on March 31. Once prepared, they took action, trying to spread the word with these throwaway cards to the non-union miners “particularly in Somerset County”. Though some miners were arrested, it worked. The non-union miners were sufficiently rallied and “there was no stopping the spread of the strike” (180-4). The strike gained ground. The miners picketed outside of buildings and held secret meetings. The mayor of New York City sent a commission of inquiry and found that the condition of the striking miners was “worse than the conditions of the slaves prior to the Civil War” (McCollester).They invited in newspapers and had one of their own: Pick and Plow—later changed to Penn Central News. In fact, the News enjoyed its greatest circulation during the strike when the district bought 20,000 copies of the paper to blanket the entire striking area (Brophy 201). Brophy also asked for help from outside sources, such as a thousand tents from the army (Mountjoy). With such innovative tactics, it seems almost inevitable that the strikers would gain the reforms that they wanted and needed. Before jumping to hasty conclusions, though, an inspection of the Berwind-White Mining Company’s retaliation must be performed.

The Berwind-White Mining Company had several tactics that they used to block out the effects of the striker’s plan. After all, even though the miners had the element of surprise, the company had everything else. “They were in a better position to make the adjustment to the situation than the union was. They had vast funds at their disposal and could hire all the men they needed for any kind of work, no matter how sinister,” recalls Brophy (186). And sinister deeds there were. For a mere nine days after the miners declared strike, Berwind-White evicted several miners from their homes. Newspapers boldly declare the terrible news: “Men Ordered to Vacate Homes—Eviction notices received by a number of Berwind-White miners” (Mountjoy). The miners fought back and lived in tents as they were forced out of their houses. The Berwind-White Mining Company complained to judges under the interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which made any effort of unionizing workers without their employers’ consent illegal. “We were forbidden to hold meetings, to pass out leaflets, to picket, to use union funds to house and feed strikers, or to do almost anything else the bosses might object to…hundreds were arrested for ‘trespassing’ on company property and other trumped-up charges,” Brophy writes. “Company guards were free to ignore the law and the rights of Americans in any way they chose. Strikers were beaten up, their homes invaded, their wives and children terrorized without any recourse. We were driven from meeting places…on the excuse that our meetings ‘might lead to violence’, or with no excuse at all” (187). They even took it so far to rape the wives of workers. No punishment was given to the guards. Unfair use of the law was exploited all over. On June 5, 1922, 60 men and 20 women were arrested for “throwing eggs and annoying the guards”. On the very same day, seventeen more miners’ wives were accused of “annoying the guards” in Windber (Mountjoy). Now that both sides’ tactics have been examined, how and why the strike ended must be inspected.

With two powerful tactics, the press versus numerous dishonest methods, going head to head, the outcome would be hard to predict. Both the UMWA and the Berwind-White Mining Company were still going strong. However, after a while, things started going awry for the strikers. First, in Penn Central News, which could have been an invaluable resource, Thomas D. Stiles, the editor, bashed the strike instead of endorsing it, lowering the strikers’ morale (Brophy 201). By the time they threw him out, it was too late. Then, on April 2, 1922, Ellis Searles, editor, wrote a letter that was published in the United Mine Workers’ Journal that stated, among other things, “Communist and reds are in Somerset County…working under the direction of a headquarters in New York…Unfortunately a few of these reds have worked their way into the membership in the United Mine Workers…If your report of dynamitings and other crimes is true, then these crimes can be traced to these red agitators.” John Brophy states that, “Coming from the international union itself, at a time when the country was still obsessed with the red scare and the bosses were using it on every hand against labor, this letter had a devastating effect on public opinion and on the morale of the strikers, laying a basis for the charge that anybody who supported the Somerset strike and its implied criticism of the Cleveland settlement was a Red” (205). However, the tides really turned when John L. Lewis, president of the UMWA, negotiated a controversial agreement that left out the non-union miners (Strike for Union). John Brophy says that he “put up a fight for the principle that no agreement be signed with an operator unless it covered all of his mines that were on strike, both in the newly organized and in the old, established fields...Instead, Lewis accepted any and all who came to his Cleveland conference” (191). These negotiations left thousands of newly organized workers stranded (Mountjoy). The contract ruined many hopes of winning the strike. Once the paper was signed, there was no going back. In fact, Brophy states that “the whole tremendous effort of 1922 was a failure, because of Lewis’s shortsightedness” (192). However, the miners of Somerset survived on the strike for another year before “succumbing to the superior wealth and power of the Berwind-White coal company and its allies” (Strike for Union). For that entire year, however, there really was no fight. The miners were just holding on—barely, at that. Having examined all of the tactics and the end, it is time to study how all of this affected the overall conclusion.

Despite how it ended, the Somerset miners’ strike of 1922 still changed history. First, we learned that the union and the coal mining industry were declining for years before the strike. Second, we learned that the miners used publicity and the non-union miners to try and win their fair share. Third, the Berwind-White Mining Company played unfairly and used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to forbid anything the miners were doing. Finally, we learned that the entire strike, which was going well for the miners, toppled once John L. Lewis signed a controversial contract that omitted the newly initiated miners. This strike was one of the first instances where we truly saw blatant mistreatment of workers in American society that wasn’t due to race or religion. It showed America that we need to stand up to these corporations and be brave. The miners of Somerset were indeed brave. John Brophy says that “The Somerset strike was an inspiring demonstration of the heights of self-sacrifice and devotion that ordinary people can attain for a noble cause.” This was one of the noble causes. America knows now, hopefully, that we should not be taken over by capitalism. We should keep an eye on ourselves to make sure nothing gets out of hand. The miners will never be here again, but their message remains. Not much has changed overall since then. Corporation still dominates in America. And the Berwind-White Mining Company is celebrating its 126th anniversary this year (Berwind: History).

Works Cited

Bernstein, Irving. The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920-1933. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972. Print.

"Berwind: History." Berwind: History. Berwind Corporation, 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2012. <http://www.berwind.com/history.htm>

Brophy, John. A Miner's Life. Madison and Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin, 1964. Print.

McCollester, Charles. “Less Than Miraculous.” Nation 276.10 (2003): 21-23. Academic Search Elite. Web. 27 Nov. 2012. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=6454b203-c8ba-4ec7-87c6-05f5c55764b9%40sessionmgr104&vid=6&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=9208888>

Mountjoy, Eileen. "That Magnificent Fight for Unionism." IUP.edu. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=86115>.

"Primary Sources about the Windber Miners' Strike for Union in 1922-1923." IUP.edu. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=86481>.

"The Windber Miners' Strike for Union in 1922-1923." IUP.edu. Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2012. <http://www.iup.edu/page.aspx?id=86481>.

U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1920: Mines and Quarries, 1919. General Report and Analytical Tables and Reports and Selected Industries: Pennsylvania. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1991. <http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/1920.html>

My Top 10 Books in Random Order

1. The Mysterious Benedict Society Series (along with Ex Ed of Nick B)
2. Percy Jackson Series
3. The False Prince
4. The Enchanted Forest Chronicles
5. A Long Way from Chicago
6. The Floating Islands
7. Lunar Chronicles
8. Artemis Fowl Series
9. Sisters Grimm Series
10. Keeper of the Lost Cities

Honorable Mentions: Half/Twice Upon a Time (also Once Upon the End/best one), Septimus Heap, The Girl Who Could Fly

Realizing the Dream: Equality for All

Ever since James Truslow Adams wrote the words “the American dream” in his book The Epic of America, the name has been used to represent a dream sought after by people all around the world—equality regardless of race, religion, gender, ethnic background, or sexual orientation; the dream of a land where anyone can become successful and have the same opportunities. Equality for all, however, has proved elusive in the United States over the past 237 years, ever since Thomas Jefferson first penned the Declaration of Independence.

Discrimination has existed in America even before it was the United States. In fact, the first Puritan colonists came here to escape religious persecution. However, this truth did not stop discrimination from happening in the colonies. Native Americans were branded and stereotyped as murdering savages. In 1750, over sixty percent of the population in South Carolina were enslaved African-Americans. Even in more modern times, discrimination remains high. Women did not gain the right to vote until 1920. There was a large anti-Catholic hysteria in the early 1900s. Many, many other acts of injustices remain unsaid, but discrimination is common throughout American history. This trend continued over the decades and still happens today, even after many measures aiming to prevent it.

I like to think that all injustices are rectified. Sadly, this is not the case. Injustices occurred throughout history without solutions. This is a difficult subject though, as “justice” is a subjective term, since all cases are different. Even little injustices should be set right. Not just conventional “crimes” that are tried in court, either. Justice, however, is specific to every case, which is why we have judges and juries. This system is still faulty, as shown in the Dred Scott vs. Stanford case where the Supreme Court ruled that any person of African descent could not be American citizens. Many, many others still happen today. The “correcting” of an injustice should start with identifying and acknowledging it. After this step, however, it is difficult to make a standardized system to remedying an injustice. Therefore, we need to correct all wrongs with whatever fits the situation.

However, eliminating discrimination still remains a daunting task. One may think that doing this is near impossible; nevertheless, I believe we can take steps toward it. We can start by educating the next generation about the history of discriminations and the importance of equality.  Through a curriculum to increase awareness in young children, we will be much closer to this social ideal. After all, every generation, the problem of discrimination diminishes. As a second generation immigrant, I have faced no discrimination at all. However, generations before me, my parents and my grandparents, have shared their personal stories of unjust treatment and discrimination. But the million dollar question will forever be: will discrimination eventually die away? The answer rests on what we do from now onwards.

So far, we may not have been perfect in treating people with balance and equality. But we can change this! Eradicating discrimination and rectifying injustice may be a tall order, but we can do it if we have the work ethic and the gumption to fix America’s problems in unfair bias. We need to educate our next generation about this crisis. We need to set things right and not only strive to be the judicial ideal, but work towards it and be the model for the other countries that look up to us. Let us set new and improved standards for preventing injustice everywhere.  America, the Immigration Nation, the great melting pot, should set an example for the world. So, start righting wrongs in your actions and your community, no matter how small. No law can fix this problem without the consent of the people. You can contribute to a fair and just society, one piece at a time. Right now. Right here. Step up for the less fortunate, the victims of unlawfulness and discrimination, and fix the problems in your community. Contribute to a discrimination-free America, a discrimination-free world, by treating people around you with fairness and equality, regardless of their race, religion, gender, ethnic background, or sexual orientation.