Frederick Douglass: Fighting Oppression and Inequality

Inequalities favor one party over another, called oppression, affecting the everyday happenings and often the quality of life of those being oppressed. In spite of this, individuals throughout history have continued to overcome their own personal obstacles and flourish, sometimes in part because of it. One such individual is writer, speaker, and activist Frederick Douglass, who took his oppression in stride and rewrote others’ fear and ignorance into his own strength, courage, and power. This study will attempt to conduct a cursory examination on how and why the specific oppressions Douglass faced changed his actions and his character as a person and an activist. Keep in mind that this is in no way meant to be a comprehensive or in-depth study on his subjugation and that there were many more challenges that Douglass endured not mentioned in this analysis. First, Douglass had to overcome the institution of slavery, the remnants of which he would not fully escape for the majority of his adult life. Second, Douglass confronted and struggled through his society’s prevalent and pervasive attitude of racism. Finally, the true cause of his problems as a whole was society’s resistance to change from existing ideas and policies, something that Douglass spent his entire life fighting against. Douglass’s own brand of activism continued to adapt and fight for equality in response to the establishments that oppressed him, and allowed Douglass and so many others to flourish because of it.

The first challenge Douglass faced in his life was a very large one indeed: slavery. Born as the son of a slave and a white man, Douglass was able to escape field labor and instead was sent to Baltimore to act as a house slave. It was there that Douglass overcame the first challenge that being born a slave posed to him: education. It is disputed whether Douglass was self-taught in reading or instructed in secret by the mistress of the house, but nevertheless, Douglass spent his youth reading newspapers, exploring town, and mastering rhetoric, a field of interest even at a young age. Using his limited freedom, Douglass began exploring the world and starting to understand the injustice that slavery imposed on him (Chiasson). Armed with knowledge of the world outside of slavery, Douglass grew increasingly restless and, after a failed attempt to buy his freedom, eventually escaped in 1838 to New York at the approximate age of 18-20. Although Douglass no longer lived in bondage, his status as a fugitive slave would continually haunt him for most of his life until he was able to buy his freedom in 1847 once and for all (Finkenbine). Slavery was something that Douglass saw as a major problem in his life for much of his youth. Douglass knew what it was like to be a slave, “the cruelty that lashed a slave’s body and tried to shackle a slave’s mind in ignorance,” and upon escaping, he realized that slavery was an institution that needed to be abolished, that it was a problem pervasive and large in society (“Frederick Douglass”). After his escape, he actively supported abolitionism, but, as Douglass soon realized, the problems that America faced went far beyond the institution of slavery and merely fighting for the freedom of slaves was not enough.

Upon escaping, Douglass became deeply involved in the abolitionist movement. He started to read antislavery journals and attend abolitionist meetings, and he eventually started to speak out about his experiences in slavery. Unfortunately, as he continued to travel the world and learn more about it, he realized that slavery was only the beginning of the challenge that he would have to face. The society that Douglass lived in was incredibly racist and Douglass realized that racism was the true cause of slavery and oppression against blacks. Touring the country as a abolitionist exposed Douglass to insults, verbal assaults, and mob violence, showing young Douglass the true face of racism and discrimination in the U.S. As Douglass started to grow as an orator, he even faced prejudice from fellow abolitionists who were white, who “feared that his effectiveness on the platform might be lost. They advised him to speak more haltingly and to hew to his earlier simple tale. One white colleague thought it ‘better to have a little of the plantation’ in his speech.” In response, Douglass soon published his autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Written by Himself, which became a sensation in both America and Europe. Unfortunately, Douglass’s new-found fame did not sit well with his status as a fugitive slave, so to escape recapture, Douglass spent 20 months abroad in Europe, lecturing about his book and abolitionism in the United States. During this time, Douglass had raised enough money to become free and start his own newspaper in the U.S. that further expanded Douglass’s fight for equality (Finkenbine). He became more informed of not only the injustices that he faced, but those of others as well. America’s problems of injustice were not limited only to racism--that was still just the tip of the iceberg. The root of his oppression and, perhaps, all oppression was society’s unwillingness to change and accept others.

Douglass’s new journal North Star was not just a platform for abolitionism and racial equality. It also stood for women’s rights, temperance, and suffrage. Many today see this as a sign that Douglass worked for the freedoms of all Americans and was met with much opposition (“Frederick Douglass”). Over the course of many, many years Douglass shifted from being anti-government to the mindset of political abolitionism, or working with the government to pass antislavery reform. He continued to be an active part of the Underground Railroad and other abolitionist movements, but after so many years of his life waiting, Douglass began to lose hope that anything would ever change. Until that is, the Civil War started and signified a new period of change. Even in stressful times of war, Douglass continually put pressure on Lincoln and the American government for racial equality and the abolition of slavery. After the war, he took advantage of the Reconstruction and focused especially on the equal rights of blacks until the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Not soon after, the Compromise of 1877 put an end to the Reconstruction and Douglass’s hopes of any meaningful reform. Nonetheless, Douglass continued to fight for equality for all and spread his message to the youth of the world until the end of his days--“less than a month before his death, when a young black man solicited his advice to an African American just starting out in the world, Douglass replied without hesitation: ‘Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!’”(Finkenbine)

Throughout his life, Douglass faced oppressions that many of us could barely even dream of that affected the way he viewed the world. In his youth, much of his focus was on slavery, because slavery was an institution that affected his life profoundly. Growing up, he realized that slavery was just a product of racism, an equally terrible and prevalent affliction in the U.S. Finally, after learning about the world and seeing more equality in Europe as opposed to the U.S., Douglass saw that the true problem was that racism was just a piece of the puzzle, and that society’s resistance to change and equality affected each individual. These oppressions that he saw affected the way that he lived and the way that he used his voice and his life. The terrors that he saw and felt everyday inspired him to take action and speak up, so that the people of the future would not have to. Douglass took his oppression, his weakness, and he turned it into power and revolution, and each one of us can do the same thing. Using his voice, Douglass changed the course of American history, and like Pakistani school girl and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai once said, “If the whole world is silent, even one voice becomes powerful.” 

Works Cited

Chiasson, Lloyd E. and Philip B. Dematteis. "Frederick Douglass." DISCovering Authors. 2003. Gale. Web. 5 Jan. 2015.

“Frederick Douglass, 1818-1895.” Student Resource Center. 2008. Gale. Web. 5 Jan. 2015.

Finkenbine, Roy E. “Douglass, Frederick.” American National Biography Online. Feb. 2000. Oxford UP. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.

It’s Made of Plastic!

To what extent did the U.S. experience an economic boom during the 1920s? is a curiously worded question for a curious time in American history. The twenties were one heck of an oxymoron. Not only was it directly after World War I, it was the time that preceded the Great Depression, and, for such grim surroundings, still managed to have an especially stunning reputation. The twenties were seemingly the peak of human accomplishment in the U.S., the arts and technology working together to create talking movies, jazz, Fitzgerald, Einstein, surrealism, Hemingway, baseball, Lindbergh, and on and on and on. It was seen as a time of prosperity in the U.S., where per capita income increased by 33 percent and consumerism and the auto industry boomed. But at the same time, these seemingly great economic feats, like so many other things, are much more complicated than they seem. Here’s where the wording of the question comes in. It would seem like the twenties saw an undisputable economic boom. And if you thought that, then you would be, technically, right. But when held up to scrutiny, the apparent economic growth in the U.S. was in reality a façade for some deeper, more serious economic problems that were growing in America and the international community.

A bit of background and oversight on international economics at the time in a simple statement: Europe was devastated. Germany, being on the losing side of WWI, had a massive amount of debt to pay off. The Allies, having borrowed so much money from the U.S., had more to pay back than Germany did. To help matters, the entirety of Europe, including its workforce and its industry, was completely in tatters from the terrors of war, and France, having refused to raise taxes on its people, was completely broke. Needless to say, this was not the start of a promising economic future. What happened that allowed the U.S. to remain unaffected, and even “prosper”? Well, there was a two-part plan, so to speak: debt and tariffs. The U.S. didn’t really play that big of a part in the war physically, so all of its land and factories and agriculture were completely fine, and they had $2.6 billion in war debts waiting to be collected from the Allies who were owed $2.0 billion by Germany. Sadly, Germany didn’t have any money, so to keep this cycle of money from Germany to the Allies to the U.S. going, the U.S. started the Dawes Plan, where they loaned $2.5 billion to Germany so they could pay off their debt to the Allies (who again, in turn, had $2.6 billion in debt to the U.S. See where this is going?). The debt situation severely weakened and subdued the European economy, but what struck the final blow was the tariffs. At around the same time as the Dawes Plan, the Fordney-McCumber Tariff was enacted, creating tariffs of 60 percent, the highest in American history. As a result, the American people tended to buy American-made products instead of generating much-needed revenue for Europe. This short-lived and crushing plan swiftly put the U.S. into control of western economics, and at the same time, debilitating the European economy, and setting up a teetering global market, just waiting for a gust of wind to blow it over the edge.

Now, back to domestic affairs. One would think that all of these tariffs and the fact that per-capita income increased by 33 percent or exports increased by 60 percent would be indicators of a healthy, sustainable economy. Sadly, in this case, one would be mistaken. Although these statistics and facts are true, the economy, as can be seen just a few years later, was far from sustainable. The economic growth seen by the U.S. was facilitated by a short term strategy and a series of ineffective plans, including the implementation of trickle-down economics and (again) tariffs. Trickle-down economics (implemented later by Reagan) was a policy where governments would give big businesses and other wealthy entities big tax breaks and other benefits with the idea that they would invest in other ventures and stimulate the economy as a whole. Sadly, when implemented, it was found that the rich would rather save money than frivolously spend and invest it and the “trickle-down” benefits to the poor were never really seen. Tariffs and trickle-down economic policies ended up benefiting the rich and hurting the poor, creating a concentration of wealth, increasing the class divide, and artificially inflating the market. As you can see, those statistics only tell part of the story; when you omit the fact that over half the people in the same decade were living below the poverty line and two-thirds of Americans were living at “minimum comfort level”, the twenties did indeed seem like a prosperous time. As a side note sub-factor, consumerism was also booming--the auto industry employed 6 million people by the end of the decade. But, not only were people starting to buy things that they couldn’t afford on credit, the ultimate consequence of the mass production consumerism of the twenties was the oversaturation of the market. Companies quickly found that households often didn’t need more than one toaster or one car, and as a result, companies that stuck with one model rather than operating on an constantly updating system (buy the new iPhone! with even more gizmos!) were quickly weeded out. By the end of the decade, the U.S. had a whole lot of metal, but not a lot of cash.

Ultimately, when discussing the extent of the economic boom of the twenties, we must also look at what came after: the Great Depression. Look, you can’t have one day with economic prosperity and suddenly the next with poverty; history just doesn’t work like that. The nature of history is that one event fluidly transitions into the other--every single thing that happens in one decade becomes a factor in the next, and the twenties were no exception. The Great Depression was a result of poor and unsustainable economic strategies implemented in the 1920s. All of the faulty tariffs, debts, taxes, and policies eventually started to add up. They temporarily boosted the market, inflating our economy for a short amount of time and for a small amount of people before it became completely unsustainable due to a lack of proper infrastructure and crashed. So, while it would be technically true to say that the U.S. experienced an economic boom during the twenties, calling it “effective” or “sustainable” would be equivalent to calling alcoholism a sound solution to life’s troubles; it might have worked well enough for a few hours, but shortly afterwards, you’re left with no money, a pounding headache, and a whole pile of problems.

Boy Nobody: I am the Weapon by Allen Zadoff, Review by Isabel Lai

This book may not be my favorite, but its definitely up there. It reminded me a lot of another one of my favorite books, Proxy by Alexander London, in more ways than one, but especially in the ending. The love that I have for Allen Zadoff for writing a logical and well-thought main character is beyond words—one of the many great features of this young adult novel, including, but not limited to, a riveting plot, a fascinating moral dilemma, and a wicked sense of ironic humor.

People today have a ridiculous irrational fear that the government is out to get them. Pretty dumb, right? It’s not as if they have secret super-assassins to eliminate anyone, anywhere, for any reason. Don’t laugh. Meet Boy Nobody.  Recruited by The Program when he was 12, this teenager wouldn’t exactly be considered your average 16 year old. With his complete stoicism and perfect reflexes, he was practically born to be an assassin, becoming the new kid, dropping into people’s lives and eliminating his target before his “new best friend” even realizes that he disappeared. Now, he has a new assignment: take down the mayor of New York. Why? Just another mystery. His “new best friend”? His daughter Samara, a spunky and fiercely independent individual, that is perhaps more than she seems. Except this mission is different than the others. For the first time, Ben has made a friend. And maybe, this might be the first assignment that he fails.

Allen Zadoff has pulled off a masterpiece in character. The first book in The Unknown Assassin series, I’ll admit that I was highly skeptical when I took this off the shelf. It looked like your typical YA novel. Evil secret government organization. Love interest. And don’t get me started on “assassins”, or “super-soldiers”. Too often, assassin books go terribly wrong—the so-called “cold-blooded murder” that is promised by the blurb is actually a sappy romantic that avoids killing people at all costs and falls in love with everyone, a “special snowflake” assassin who nobly goes against the terrible system that they were forced into. Is it too much to ask for what we were promised? This is not the case with Boy Nobody: I am the Weapon. “Benjamin” (his alias in New York) is exactly what we were promised—completely logical and an accomplished fighter that we get to see in action. You might think that reading a book narrated by someone resembling a robot would be boring, but I found it refreshing. Everything Benjamin does makes perfect sense, and just because he’s a super-killer doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have his own sense of humor, which shines through all throughout the book.

With a fast-paced and unusual plot, amazing characters, the second best ending I’ve read in a book and a beautiful writing style, Boy Nobody: I am the Weapon will undoubtedly become one of the greatest books of this year. It’s got a deceptive blurb, but don’t be too quick to judge. You’re missing out on something great.

★★★★☆

Sounds cliché, but has genuinely unique characters and plot in a fast-paced action assassin book

For Glory! For God! And For More Money! : The Story of American Imperialism

Ah, imperialism. As the world powers saw the last of the world’s territory disappearing before their eyes at the turn of the 19th century, decided to implement the policy of imperialism (where countries expand their sphere of control over other countries/territories, in this case, militarily) even more fervently than before. Europe was going crazy with conquering! Africa was quickly gobbled up. Asia was turning into a punching bag. Island life was quickly becoming a terrible lifestyle decision.  But wait! Where does our favorite gun-toting, freedom-loving country play into this? It’s time for a spotlight! Obviously, American imperialism has always existed, especially with that whole Native American deal, but it really started kicking into high gear at the end of the 1800s. The U.S. (somewhat forcibly) opened up trade with Japan, bullied our way into Hawaii and other islands, and annexed the Philippines in the Pacific. We also started to interfere in our own hemisphere, building the Panama Canal, poking our noses around in Mexico,  and sparking the Spanish-American War in Cuba, helped along by yellow journalism. Basically, the U.S. joined the party and started to demonstrate empire-istic tendencies across the world, for various reasons.

    This brings us to today’s resolution: was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy for the United States to follow at the turn of the nineteenth century? This question is a bit difficult to answer. When you analyze the benefits and the harms of imperialism as a policy for the U.S., you have to look at both the economic/political side and the moral side and compare them, which is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. However, for reasons that will soon be clear, I ultimately would say that yes, imperialism was indeed a proper and legitimate policy for the U.S. circa 1900.

    Imperialism took off in the U.S. for a multitude of reasons, but the main benefits of imperialism as a policy was its use as a political, and to perhaps a lesser degree, an economic tool. So, the U.S. is still a new, baby nation. But it’s starting to become way more relevant. It’s gone through its own civil war, had its fair share of leaders and wars, and went through an obligatory “take over stuff” period. This period of time is a make-or-break point. The U.S. has become huge economically after its own Industrial Revolution. And now, well, this imperialism thing comes along, a bit like a hazing ceremony. Peer pressure. You going to be one of the cool kids? Or are you going to be a pack mule? You either get into the game or you get trampled. The documents provided for us doesn’t really give much information about this tension, about the global scene. There is one, that’s kind of close, but not really, from Alfred T. Mahan, a U.S. Navy officer in the late 1800s, who wrote in his book The Interest of America in Sea Power, “Americans must begin to look outward. The growing production of the country demands it. An increasing volume of public sentiment demands it. The position of the United States, between the two Old Worlds and the two great oceans, makes the same claim.”(Doc 2). Basically, he’s saying that the U.S. needs to function as an economic liaison between Asia and Europe, to take advantage of the opportunities that are being presented to us. Albert Beveridge, a Republican senator says about the same thing in a speech he gave to the U.S. Senate in 1900, “We will not abandon our opportunity in the Orient...the Pacific is the ocean of the commerce of the future...The power that rules the Pacific...is the power that rules the world.” Imperialism is a strong political and economic policy, and those that advocate for it have these things in mind.

This makes a perfect transition into the second part of the question, the “legitimate” side: morals. From a moral standpoint, imperialism does not stand. There’s no point in beating around the bush, because morals are subjective. Every single person will have a different opinion. And when I look at the evidence, the people that are supporting imperialism and argue a moral standpoint sound like they’re trying to justify it to themselves. These justifications come off as incredibly racist (“It seems to me that God, with infinite wisdom and skill, is training the Anglo-Saxon race”) and also inconsiderate to the native people (Doc 1,3,5,6). I’ll be honest, “We insist that the subjugation of any people is ‘criminal aggression’”, sounds about right to me. But, like I said, morals are subjective.

So, let’s zoom out. The world was teetering. The U.S. was in the perfect position to make its own global debut. That’s what imperialism allowed us to do. We showed the world that we meant business. Taking that opportunity turned us into a world power and the 20th century became America’s. Culturally, France has been the center of the world for the past 200 years, but with the end of the Post-Impressionistic Era, around 1900, art shifted to the new capital: New York City. Militarily, the U.S. played a huge role in both World Wars. Economically, we became a(n even bigger) powerhouse. Perhaps using imperialism was the best method to achieve this. Perhaps it was not, but it is undeniable that using imperialism led straight into the U.S.’s debut as a global power. So, was imperialism a proper and legitimate policy? It was certainly proper. It was a suitable policy to use at the time. But legitimate? Just? Maybe not. But ultimately, ethics are subjective. Maybe we actually believed that we were helping people. But, imperialism undeniably worked, and in face of this question, I believe that at the time, it was indeed suitable and legally justifiable, if not morally so.

Eisaku Sato: Nobel Peace and Nuclear Proliferation

It’s around 20 years after the end of World War II and the surrender of the Empire of Japan. Japan is an entirely new nation—vowing to never engage in war again, the country has no military and has become focused on attaining ideals of peace and democracy. Even though Japan’s not going to fight in any battles, they’re in a delicate position, participating in a more diplomatic conflict; tensions in Asia with the Vietnam War are heating up and the Japanese have to carefully balance their arrangements between the United States and the People’s Republic of China. However, despite being caught in the crossfire of a US-China struggle, Japan has a relatively steady relationship with the world as the scars of World War II heal. As a tentative trust is established, they can turn their focus on boosting their economy rather than spending all of their time and energy on diplomacy. Now, enter Eisaku Sato: Prime Minister, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, and an extremely controversial man. A leader born out of peace, not necessity, and trained as a lawyer, Prime Minister Sato was elected into office by the people of Japan in 1964 and remained there for 3 terms, retiring in 1972, just 3 years before his death. Sato became popular among the people because of his extremely successful economic policies and controversial because of his, perhaps less successful, but equally influential foreign policy strategies. In 1974, he was awarded one half of a Nobel Peace Prize, sharing the title with French-Irish human rights activist Seán MacBride. The justifications of the Committee’s decision were stated that “as Japanese Prime Minister he represented the will for peace of the Japanese people, and that he had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. In the Committee's opinion, the award to Sato would encourage all those who were working to halt the spread of nuclear arms” (Nobel). Despite this, many others contested the choice—one of pioneer manga artist Fujia Akatsuka’s iconic characters mentioned “Since Eisaku Sato won the Nobel Peace Prize, I’ve been unable to believe in anything at all” (H. Sato). Officially, a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” (Nobel). In the past, there have been many controversial Peace Prize recipients. People protest that the person’s actions were not enough, or counteracted by other actions. In 1973, Vietnamese politician Le Doc Tho became the only person to decline the Peace Prize, feeling that he was not deserving of a medal awarding efforts towards peace (Nobel). This study will attempt to analyze Sato’s actions both in a historical context and from a current point of view to determine whether the summation of the decisions the Prime Minister made were worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. First, this study will evaluate the public view and opinions, both past and present, concerning Prime Minister Sato and his Prize. Then, this study will attempt to establish the change and consequences of his actions, both immediate and long term. Finally, it will place his actions in a historical context, determining why Sato made the decisions he did. Now, an analysis of the public’s view of Sato will be performed.

    In order to properly determine whether or not Sato deserved the Prize, understanding who Sato is and how the public regarded him can be useful. To do this, this study will analyze several newspaper articles to discern the public’s perspective on Sato. Opinion on Sato’s competence as a leader varied wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other. Admirers credited him as a leader that was not afraid to compromise and for boosting Japan to her place as an industrial power. Critics expressed disapproval of his overly-cautious nature and accused him of “being an obedient servant of American interests” (Nobel). In Japan, Sato was initially a popular man, but slowly, his popularity ratings declined until a Japanese poll recorded only 23% of the population was in support of him. In 1971, during a ratification of a bill in Parliament, several members, stood up and demanded his resignation, focused on his policies with China (Halloran). Sato stepped out of office just eight months later. When Sato was awarded the Prize, a sensation broke out in Japan. The Tokyo press offered the Nobel Committee “the best black humor award” (Abrams). At Sato’s acceptance ceremony of the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, demonstrators threw rocks and shouted “militarist Sato” and “no to war prize” (Culbert).  In the past, the American view on Sato was generally favorable, citing that he “preferred to move cautiously behind the scenes” and calling him a “shrewd leader” (Krebs). The American media most likely had an encouraging view of Sato because of his obvious support of the west—bringing Asia’s only major non-communist country and third largest world economy closer to the US. The Nobel Committee saw him as the embodiment of Japan’s will for peace and an example to the rest of the world, all while acknowledging the controversy of their decision in Japan. And yet, even now, controversy surrounds the decision. Global authority on the Peace Prize Irwin Abrams calls Sato “a statesman of not very high moral standing” and begs the question, “Does a prize not reward a statesman for what in his office he should be doing anyway, keeping the peace?” (Abrams). Seeing these texts reflects and justifies the ideas projected by  both the U.S. and the Nobel Committee (a portrayal of a man who carefully tread the path to a peaceful and weaponless world) and Japan (a criticism of a man who obediently follows the word of America and supported the U.S. war in Vietnam). Now that an analysis of the opinions and arguments for and against Sato has been done, a thorough examination of the change and consequences of Sato’s actions must be done so that an unbiased conclusion can be drawn.

    There is a reason why the Nobel Peace Prize is such a highly respected award. It’s not enough to just want peace. An ideal laureate has to make it happen—remember, to facilitate “fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” (Nobel). To be such a candidate, the consequences of Sato’s actions should have reflected one or more of these principles. The primary action of Prime Minister Sato that earned him a Peace Prize is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is a three-pillared treaty that emphasizes nuclear nonproliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy (Nuclear). This, to the Committee, is proof of Sato’s will for peace and change—an example to all other nations of the world to follow the example of Japan to halt the spread of nuclear arms. However, Japan was not the first country to sign the NPT—actually, 91 other countries had signed the treaty before Japan did (Godsburg).  In fact, Sato himself was quoted in support of going pro-nuclear in Japan, in December of 1964 saying,“If the other fellow has nuclear weapons, it is only common sense to have them oneself. The Japanese public is not ready for this, but would have to be educated” and in 1968 continued to challenge the anti-nuclear mindset in Japan with a speech entitled “How to Survive in the Nuclear Age” (Kase 57-59). Sato was not a revolutionary or a pioneer in the regard of the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and his country’s signing of the NPT did not change the course of history any more than those of the 184 other countries that participated in the NPT. An analysis has been done on what the consequences of his actions were. Now, an investigation must be done on Eisaku Sato’s motives—to relate what he did to the events of his time.

Before hasty decisions are made, the actions of Eisaku Sato must be put into historical context. The mindset and current events of the time were very different than of those today. Objections to Sato’s award often stem from the mindset that he had concerning peace—the reasons that he did what he did. This study has already analyzed the actions Eisaku Sato did to earn the Nobel Peace Prize and found that he had signed the NPT. It was found that Sato was not the first to sign the NPT and that Sato was personally in support of having nuclear weapons in Japan. The NPT was an important treaty, but why did Sato sign it if he was in support of nuclearizing Japan? The answer comes in two parts. First, Japan did not want nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons in Japan were, understandably, still taboo—in 1969, 74% of Japan was opposed to nuclearization (Kase 57). Although Sato was personally in favor of nuclear weapons, Japan was not. Sato responded accordingly to the opinion of Japan—perhaps because he wished to represent the people, perhaps because he caved to pressure. Sato was a politician and he wished to appear popular in the eyes of Japan. Secondly, signing the NPT was a part of a plan to appeal to the United States. The U.S. made a somewhat unofficial deal with Sato. President Nixon agreed to stop the United States’ occupation of the area of Okinawa in exchange for a sum of money and, to some degree, Sato’s continued cooperation (Sekiguchi). One of Sato’s claim to fame was getting back the small island Okinawa from the United States. Relating to his mindset, Sato was in strong support of the Vietnam War—another reason for public disapproval of the awarding of his prize.

In conclusion, the Nobel Peace Prize is a highly respected award. Although their committee habitually makes appropriate decisions, they do sometimes make mistakes—it is when this happens that the people must find these discrepancies rather than blindly accept a decision. This study is attempting to establish whether or not Prime Minister Eisaku Sato of Japan is worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize. It will hopefully answer questions pertaining to the nature of a Nobel Peace Prize and challenge common assumptions about Prime Minister Sato and his relationship with Japan and the United States. First, this study analyzed the public opinions and arguments for and against Sato. It was discovered that the awarding of the Peace Prize to Sato in Japan was met with opposition and incredulity, even going so far as to throwing rocks at him at his acceptance ceremony in Oslo. They believed that his motives, opinions, and actions were not that of a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. Second, the study analyzed the change and consequences of the actions that the Nobel Committee cited Sato on and found that Sato was not the first (and was in fact the 92nd) country to sign the NPT—which definitely does not differentiate him from other world leaders. Finally, it broke down the motivations of Sato and saw that his mindset was not paralleled in the Nobel Committee’s decisions. Rather than being in support of peace, he advocated the Vietnam War and the nuclearization of Japan. Judging by his decisions and opinions (including those of supporting the Vietnam War and having nuclear weapons in Japan), Eisaku Sato is not worthy of an ideal Nobel Peace Prize. However, perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize has deviated from its original path. Sato is not the only controversial decision in the 100 years of Nobel Peace Prizes. Instead of awarding peace and fraternity, the Peace Prize has become a trinket to award the “Goodists”—the people that like to be seen as good (Stephens). Although Eisaku Sato is a good Prime Minister who facilitated the rise of Japan as an economic power, he is still very much a politician, and most definitely not an ideal Nobel laureate. But perhaps, he is an ideal candidate for what the Prize has become.

Works Cited

Abrams, Irwin. “Reflections on the First Century of the Nobel Peace Prize”. The Norwegian Nobel Institute Series Vol. 1, No. 5, Oslo: The Norwegian Nobel Institute, 2000. Nobel Peace Prize: Research & Information. Web. 7 April 2014. <http://www.nppri.org/pdf/Vol1_No5.pdf>.

Culbert, Patrick, ed. "Exiled Author Claims Nobel Award Belatedly." The Dispatch[Lexington, NC] 11 Dec. 1974: 24. Google News. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/mh7v8ep>.

Godsburg, Alicia. "Non-Proliferation Treaty Signatures." The Nuclear Information Project. Federation of American Scientists, 3 Dec. 1998. Web. 09 Apr. 2014. <http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt3.htm>.

Halloran, Richard. "Sato Comes Under Increasing Attack Over His Foreign Policies." Editorial.New York Times 21 Oct. 1971: 2. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/kw8vudm>.

Kase, Yuri. "The Costs and Benefits of Japan's Nuclearization: An Insight into the 1968/70 Internal Report." The Nonproliferation Review 8.2 (2001): n. pag. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Monterey Institute for International Studies, Summer 2001. Web. 9 Apr. 2014. <http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/82kase.pdf>.

Krebs, Albin. "Eisaku Sato, Ex-Premier of Japan, Dies at 74: Shared Nobel Peace Prize in 1974 for Efforts in Asia." Editorial. New York Times 03 June 1975: 36. ProQuest Historical Newspapers. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/nler9hd>.

Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014. Web. 18 Feb 2014. <http://www.nobelprize.org/>.

"Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 07 Apr. 2014. <http://www.state.gov/t/isn/npt/>.

Sato, Hiroaki. "Controversy Is No Stranger to Nobel Peace Prize" The Japan Times. The Japan Times, 31 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/myksqtu>.

Sekiguchi, Toko. "Okinawa-gate: The Unknown Scandal." Time. Time Inc., 01 May 2007. Web. 10 Apr. 2014. <http://tinyurl.com/jwepdot>.

Stephens, Bret. "A Perfect Nobel Pick." Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition ed.Oct 13 2009. ProQuest. Web. 18 Feb. 2014 .

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>