We're Sorry

Ever since the Europeans came over to the Americas via (the evil) Christopher Columbus, the indigenous peoples of this continent have not been treated kindly by history. The cutting-off-of-hands and disease and slavery that the Inca and the Aztecs saw was merely the beginning of the end for the mighty native civilizations that once lived where we stand today. Of course the most prominently studied example of native persecution in U.S. schools is the one most relevant to us, the “Americanization” of the Native Americans and, of course Manifest Destiny.

First, some historical context. The Civil War and Manifest Destiny are often taught as two separate things in U.S. history, when in reality, Manifest Destiny occurred during approximately the entire 19th century, well encompassing the time period when the Civil War happened. So, wait, the whole Native American deal happened at the same time as the slavery deal? Yep.  Well, the truth is that people honestly forgot about them for a while. In the face of a breaking nation, history has often glossed over the Native Americans during this extremely critical part of U.S. history. Native American nations actually played a pretty significant part in the Civil War. They knew that whatever side they fought for could potentially make or break their chances of survival--almost 30,000 Native Americans fought in the Civil War on both sides. But after the Civil War ended, as blacks were awarded freedoms and liberties (the terms “freedoms and liberties” used loosely), Native Americans were continuously treated as enemies of the state. The gamble that they had taken didn’t pay off, and the most of the Native American territory was quickly overtaken by the beginning of the 20th century.

The main reason why conflict between the United States and American Indian nations grew after the Civil War goes in conjunction with another situation: the westward expansion of the United States of America. After the Civil War, one of the big projects that was completed during Reconstruction was the building of the Transcontinental Railroad. This allowed for easier transportation throughout the continent, making it more appealing for those seeking riches, adventure, and land to strike it out in the wild west. Sadly, the image of the uninhabited and rough terrain of the west was only half true, and when people came seeking land, they had to take it from the people already living there: the Native Americans.

Originally, at the beginning of the 1800s, American policy towards Native Americans leaned more on the “separate nations” side, especially compared to post-Civil War policies. After the Civil War, the U.S. adopted an aggressive, no-tolerance policy on Native Americans in the west, forcing Native Americans off of their land through violence or by institutionalizing their children out of Native American culture and to “civilization”. Battles were fought all across the west until, eventually, the Native Americans had been conquered and shoved into reservations as a consolation prize.

    Today, we are a nation built upon the suffering of Native Americans, and countless others. Who knows what would have happened if the discovery of America went differently? Some say that it was inevitable that Europeans would have made contact and subsequently killed off the indigenous people. But we honestly don’t know, and we can’t change history, so as a result, all we can do today is to apologize and remember those who unwillingly facilitated the rise of our nation. It will never be enough to repay the losers of history, those whose stories are lost to us, but from all of us today, whatever meager consolation it may be: we’re sorry.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT: PROGRESSIVE EXTRAORDINAIRE

Yes, I am aware that MLA formatting requires that titles to NOT be capitalized. Seriously though. That is just how progressive President Teddy Roosevelt was: his progressiveness was so progressive, that the emphasis was extremely necessary.

           Here he comes, father of the presidential progressivism, Teddy Roosevelt. As you can see from my graphic organizer, Roosevelt was a president with drive. He knew what he was going to do for this country, and he cracked down with his policies. Roosevelt felt that the country was going quickly downhill with the power rapidly falling to huge mega-corporations. In response, Roosevelt ushered in the era of progressives, with his Square Deal, where he busted giant trust companies and created the United States Department of Commerce and Labor. He listened to his people and to their culture. When Upton Sinclair spoke out for the workers in American industry, Roosevelt listened and changed things. The meat packing industry and the state of factories in the U.S. in general improved tenfold under Roosevelt’s administration. Roosevelt was the first president to speak for the welfare of the American environment and created what would become the Department of the Interior. Taft, although he passed 90 anti-trust laws, he didn’t really do much else in the way of progressivism. Wilson did do many things to reform the government, such as cracking down on bankers and establishing a better anti-trust act. However, the most important thing about Roosevelt was his drive as a progressive president. Roosevelt just had a certain spirit and pizazz that Wilson and (definitely) Taft could never match. His confident and can-do attitude lives on today in his policies and his actions, remaining as inspiration for the rest of us. A reminder that to change things, we need to get things done.

From Rags to Riches: The Story of Two American Immigrants

All throughout the history of America, immigrants have had it hard. In the late 1800s to the early 1900s, the U.S. was full of legislation against immigrants. In addition to governmental restrictions, they have braved a plethora of social, economic religious, and racial troubles. Imagine having to face injustices everyday simply because you were not born in the United States and in addition to all of that, the simple fear of being in a place where you barely know the language.

Throughout all of this, immigrants still come and confront countless hardships. This is why I regard my grandparents, Robert and Annie Lai, as survivors, heroes in their own right.

In 1982, Robert and Annie Lai moved from Taipei, Taiwan with their two children, Peter and Tony Lai to the United States. After skipping around Hawaii, Springfield, Dallas, and San Francisco for seven months, they settled in Stoutland, Missouri and opened their very first restaurant. With Annie knowing barely two words in English and exactly $100 to their names, Midway, a tiny highway establishment in rural Missouri, was barely alive.

“100 dollars was just enough to open a bank account,” Annie said. “We were so poor, we couldn’t afford underwear or mattresses. My cousin sold tights for a living, so we would cut them up once they were worn to use as underpants.”

Midway was open for 24 hours a day and they, along with another couple, worked for five years without taking a single day off. Annie, throughout the entire time, spoke minimal English and worked as a server. She says that she was often harassed by some of the more vicious patrons, who would deliberately place hairs in their food to demand refunds and say things like “Go back to your country!” and “You don’t know how to cook!”.

“He started yelling at me. I ran off to the bathroom and just started crying,” she said. “But for every mean person, there are a dozen nice ones, and an old lady helped me back. He seemed to really be sorry.”

After years of working, they raised enough money to start a new restaurant in Richland, called Richland Restaurant. After the first day, they arrived to find that none of their employees had shown up. They closed the restaurant for renovations for 45 days to do some scheming. Once they opened again with a brand-new facility, still no one came to the “foreigner’s” restaurant, instead going to the restaurant next door. In retaliation, they lowered the price of their buffet to $2.99 and bankrupted the neighboring establishment. Richland Restaurant became so popular, that along with their income from Midway, they were able to accomplish one of their dreams: sending their children to college.

“We came here for kids, you know, education. The good thing about American schools is that you choose what you want,” says Robert. “In Taiwan, before the education reforms, your major is chosen by test scores, not by interests.”

Although life as an immigrant is hard, it just goes to show that if you take risks and work hard, you might just get lucky. Robert and Annie say that they would never go back to Taiwan now, and that most Americans were very nice people.

“We worked hard, and had it hard for a long time,” says Robert. “But now it’s finally good.”

The Class Divide and Corporate America

The Gilded Age. A term coined by Mark Twain, it describes the period of rapid economic growth after Reconstruction, from approximately 1870 to 1900. It is also referred to as the Second Industrial Revolution, or as I like to call it, The Industrial Revolution: America Edition.

The Second Industrial Revolution brought on the rise of the United States’ place in the global economy today. Fueled by cheap and abundant resources (natural and otherwise), America’s economy exploded, producing today’s industrial and corporate legends, people like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan. Thousands of new methods and patents sprung up, furthering industry--Carnegie, himself the head of a giant steel corporation, revolutionized business by inventing the methods of horizontal integration (buying out neighboring competition) and vertical integration (buying out all supplies). The spread of railroads, most notably the Transcontinental Railroad, standardized time zones and travel across the US. Countless inventions and inventors surfaced--Edison’s lightbulb, Tesla’s AC electricity, the Wright brothers’ planes.We were simmering with ideas and quickly claimed our own spot on the global stage. Of course, all of this development and industry was only one side of the coin. And, sadly, the flip side was not a happy picture.

The industrial growth that happened in the 1870s hinged upon one especially important factor: resources. Whether it be the United States’ endless supply of land, lumber, ores, and oil, or its large influx of cheap immigrant labor, resources were key in the rise of industry. Despite this, a widespread movement called nativism against these new immigrants soon emerged amongst the “natives”. Much more often than not, immigrants, if they could get into the country, were shoved into filthy urban tenement houses, where they shared apartments meant for one family amongst several. Immigrants were quickly pushed to the bottom of the social, political, and economic hierarchy and were exploited for extra work. The vast majority of the nature of poor-ness and immigrant-ness in the United States was like rectangles and square--being poor didn’t necessarily mean you were an immigrant, but being an immigrant practically assured your status as a lower-class being. And therefore, immigrants became inherently poor. Being poor in the United States meant long hours. Think 40 hours a week is tiring? Try working 70 to 80 hours a week in a dangerous factory just to make ends meet. This was a no-holds-barred capitalist system with nothing even close to workers’ rights. With the big corporations in control, a new “scientific” idea came into being, social darwinism, the idea that human society progresses through a pseudo-evolutionary process, that the poor are meant to be poor (and “perish”) and the rich are meant to be rich (and “survive”). Social darwinism and nativism worked hand in hand to beat the life out of the poor, working class immigrants seeking a new life in America. Nativists and their government buddies worked hard to help, passing legislation like the Chinese Exclusion Acts in 1882 or the Page Act of 1875, making it much harder to immigrate into the country.

One of the most significant issues that this period highlighted is class differences. Although the United States was founded upon principles of equality, there has always been an abundance of discrimination. The advent of the Second Industrial Revolution brought on a stigma against immigrants so strong, that we are still facing it today. The idea of nativism appealed to the general population because of a potent combination of “they’re stealing our jobs!”, “we were here first!*”, racism, and “they’re not real Americans!”. Racial discrimination at the time was so emphasized that being not-white often became synonymous with inherent poor-ness. The struggle between the worker and the rich became blurred with the fight between the immigrants and the nativists. People need someone to feel superior to, just like bullies. And immigrants, inherently poor and weak, posed easy targets for the nativists, the very rich and very powerful bullies. 

Quasi-Slavery and the Reconstruction

“The slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun, then moved back again toward slavery”

The end of the Civil War: a time of peace, freedom, and racial equality, a world where everyone lived in harmony and prosperity. Well, at least, so we like to dream.

The period of the Reconstruction was a time of harmony, but one of contradictions and conflict. To every law, every idea, every thought, there was a strong and very marked opposition. Slaves were freed, only to return to farming in a system that was not so unlike before. Laws were gruelingly debated and passed, then promptly vetoed. Major milestones were achieved, yet it felt as if nothing progressed. As abolition of slavery, equal citizenship regardless of race, and black suffrage (in the forms of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, respectively) came to pass, loopholes were found and heavily exploited in the form of Black Codes, laws designed to keep freedmen in a slave-like state. Many admirable efforts were made towards civil rights for ex-slaves. Domestic terror groups sprung up to meet each one without fail. The Reconstruction saw the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau, attempts to confiscate and redistribute land to ex-slaves, and many black senators, representatives, and even a governor. Sadly, projects like these were short lived or faced too much opposition to continue effectively or even at all. The “redeemers” fought against the Radical Republicans, back and forth and back and forth until a bargain was struck. And so the Reconstruction fizzled out--not with a bang, but a compromise.

One of the more pronounced contradictions comes in the form of abolition versus slavery. The advent of the Reconstruction came along with the largest step towards racial equality in the history of the United States at the time: the passing of the 13th Amendment. The outlawing of slavery was well received with the abolitionists and slaves. It was not as well met with others. Rich, white plantation owners saw their workforce disappearing before their eyes. Poor, white people felt uneasy--no matter how poor they were before, they were at least better than the slaves. Most had simply lived too long in a world where the status quo involved whites being superior to blacks. Even before Radical Reconstruction was forced down the throats of the South, towns everywhere (including in the North) had already started passing Black Codes, ordinances restricting the rights of ex-slaves. They made sure that blacks were working under a white employer at all times and denied them the right to travel freely or congregate. And still, the troubles for freedmen did not end there. Having been denied both education and a level playing ground, blacks struggled for work and inevitably fell back towards sharecropping, a system where landowners gave tenants a plot of land, tools, and room and board for half or even up to two-thirds of their pre-ordained crop. Tied to land they did not own and desperately trying to avoid debt, ex-slaves spiraled down into a state of quasi-slavery and despair.

    The quote in the prompt perfectly represents the situation that ex-slaves were faced with during the Civil War and Reconstruction. It reflects upon the cruel irony of being suddenly freed from slavery, a jubilant celebration, with the end in sight, only to be shackled in the chains of a slightly more subtle “peculiar institution”--one fueled by legal jargon instead of whips. We now enjoy romanticizing the period--as if the amendment of a bill or the winning of a war was enough to destroy thousands of years of racial prejudice and discrimination. An effortless flick of a switch, turning the tide of a nation. In reality, the Reconstruction Era was only one battle amongst many in our history against injustice--the introduction of our federal government into this still ongoing war.

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 .

Celebrating the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the major turning points in history. It started America on the path towards equality that we are still fighting towards today. Nowadays, people seem to forget the significance of the Civil Rights Act—the changes it made and the people that struggled for it. Sometimes we need a reminder of why the Civil Rights Act was (and remains) one of the most important laws ever made.

            The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was first proposed by President John F. Kennedy—the idea was to end segregation between races once and for all. It banned all instances of public displays of segregation and discrimination from employers. Although the United States had been working strongly towards ending segregation since 1955, the Civil Rights Movement desperately needed infrastructure. The government, in passing the Civil Rights Act, provided a widespread element of approval and the aspect of enforcement that the Civil Rights Movement previously lacked. By banning segregation in places that the government could enforce, Kennedy gave the United States the final nudge it needed to get on the path to true equality. Although the Civil Rights Act was not the beginning of the revolution, it remains one of the most important laws in the history of the United States—the landmark that signaled the beginning of the end and the start of a generation striving to end inequality.

            The United States has a long history of discrimination—even before we were the United States, colonists demonstrated their elitist mind-set by portraying Native Americans as heathens and vicious savages. Today, the battle is still being fought. Even in contemporary times, racial discrimination exists—though not as prominently as before. Of course, we also face different kinds of discrimination. Discrimination against those of different sexual orientations, discrimination against sexes, and discrimination against those of different religions happen on a day-to-day basis. Stereotypes against women have been around since Aristotle and tensions between people of different religion and people of different race have existed since the beginning of time. Beliefs that reflect these are keeping us from reaching that societal model of equality. Why are those who keep us from a social ideal doing so? What can we do to stop discrimination? These are very important questions each of us should be asking ourselves every day. To rectify social injustices and possibly answer some of these questions, perhaps we should put ourselves into someone else’s shoes. Why does discrimination happen? Conceivably, the answer could be irrational fear. Instead of using logic and reason to respond to new ideas, people react with irrational panic at new and scary thoughts—such as the mass anti-Catholic hysteria in the early 20^th century. In every generation there are those that continue to discriminate, thanks to the teachings of their forefathers.

 But of course, it is not all so bleak. For every one closed-minded, discriminating bully, there are 10 equally open-minded and kind people. How can we help discrimination? We can start by educating the next generation about the history of discrimination and the importance of equality. We can ensure that these radical ideas are no longer quite so new and scary. The Civil Rights Movement is a parallel to today—although, at the moment our own revolution isn't quite as volatile. The government could not have passed the Civil Rights Act if the people did not first start their own protest 1955. We cannot wait for the government to change us—we must start our own revolution to bring about change. The government can pass laws to supplement change, like Kennedy did with the Civil Rights Act, but ultimately, those who bring change in society are the common people. Do everything you can in your everyday life to change the social norm of discrimination. We must always remember to keep an open mind—to not act in haste. To think before we condemn. We can work towards a more equal America, nay, a more equal world, if we all work together as a united people! Let us change the world together as one like so many others before us. Vive la revolution!

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>