"A Place of One's Own: The Quest for Home Ownership" pp. 842-843

Even a hundred years ago, it has always been the dream of Americans to own their own home.  Unfortunately this was more of a challenge for immigrants and the black population.  Racial boundaries were set by white-property owners in the 1920s.  Even though a law for segregated housing was voted down in 1917, it didn’t prevent the racism and violence to keep neighborhoods “all-white.”  For example in Detroit, mortgages for blacks were turned down by banks, restrictive covenants not to sell homes to blacks were authorized by whites, and/or blacks were not shown homes by real estate agents  in white neighborhoods.  Whites were violent to black families who may have been able to avert any of the aforementioned.  According to, “A Place of One’s Own: The Quest for Home Ownership,” Dr. Ossian Sweet succumbed to white violence after purchasing a home inside a white neighborhood.  As Dr. Sweet and his family moved into their home with the assistance of nine others, violence erupted when white men mobbed around their home shouting obscenities.  Dr. Sweet had armed himself in preparation for such violence, and shots were fired toward the white crowd killing one and injuring two.  The police indicted all eleven blacks (including Sweet) for murder.  On Dr. Sweet’s behalf, Clarence Darrow was hired by the NAACP to be their defense lawyer.  The first trial ended in mistrial and not guilty verdicts were given in the second trial.  Darrow was able to justify Dr. Sweet’s actions as self/property defense.  The neighborhood around Dr. Sweet’s home was still primary white after he lived in his home for twenty-five years.  Detroit was a very segregated city, and so was the rest of America for many decades afterward.  “Home sweet home,” for non-whites was an on-going battle if one desired owning a home in white neighborhoods.

Q1.  Imagine you were Dr. Sweet and had chosen to move your family into the Garland home.  Would you have armed yourself and defended your home as he did even if it meant killing/wounding others? Why or why not?

Q2.  Knowing the risks of stepping across “racial boundaries,” would you have taken the risk as Dr. Sweet did to move a family into a white neighborhood in the 1920s?  Why or why not?

William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, The Scopes Trial: In the Defense of the Bible, 1925

1.  What is the author arguing?

John Scopes was on trial for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee after it was made a crime to do so when the antievolution Butler Act was passed in March 1925.  The act forbade to teach “any theory that denies the story o£ the Divine Creation of man as taught by the Bible, and to teach instead that man descended from a lower order of animals” (156).  Even though it was not allowed, Scopes tested the law and lectured on evolution in a high school classroom. There were two key players that partook in the trial of Scopes: William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow.  Bryan had studied the Bible for 50 years with fundamentalist interpretations.  He volunteered in July 1925 for the Scopes Trial to appear as a witness and defend the Bible’s creation story.  Darrow was a well-known criminal lawyer that defended Scopes and other educators for freedom of education.   Darrow believed that all educators should be allowed to teach evolution in all public school settings.  This document was the transcript of Bryan’s testimony (his stance on the Bible) as he was questioned by Darrow.

2.  How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their argument?

Bryan was widely known as the former Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party in 1896, 1900, and 1908, and a famous orator.  Darrow again was a famous criminal lawyer.  Both of their perceived characters impacted the trial before it even commenced.  As for their logic and pathos arguments it is undeniable that Bryan and Darrow both had immense knowledge of the Bible.  Darrow cross-examined Bryan repeatedly with dates and events that occurred in the Bible.  Bryan however made a very valid point which appealed to his logic, “If I had nothing else to do except speculate on what our remote ancestors were and what our remote descendants have been, but I have more interested in Christians going on right now to make it much more important than speculation on either the past or the future” (161).  Neither Bryan nor Darrow budged from their line of reasoning.

3.  What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

The Scopes Trial was a fight of faith, and the beginning of disputes between liberalism and fundamentalism.  Per fundamentalists teaching evolution in public schools including universities was taboo.   Scopes decided to challenge the Butler Act; which led to the renowned court trial involving Bryan and Darrow, who both engaged in continuous bantering back and forth about the existence of life.   

4.  Do you find the author’s argument convincing?  Why or Why not?

Bryan’s reaction to the evolution controversy was appropriate for 1925.  He was a fundamentalist and was defending his religious views.  In court how can one argue faith?  It was humorous to read that Bryan and Darrow both attempted to disprove one another, but instead caused them public embarrassment as they squabbled about the Bible. The Fundamentalists prevailed in the end; however it was interesting to know that Bryan never examined any other religion but the Christian religion.  Darrow called Bryan out on the carpet for that too.  Overall, I thought their arguments were not convincing but childish.  It was comparable to two small boys fighting on the playground, but neither one willing to give up.

"Was There a Sexual Revolution in the 1920s?" (pp. 838-839)

The decade of the 1920s was sexier than ever before.  It was a decade of sexual progression and equal rights to sexual satisfaction.  Sexy became arousing, and the economic and political lives of Americans were influenced by this new morality.  Because of this new sex craze it had older Americans feeling that America was “in danger of going to hell in a handbasket.”  The attitudes and behaviors of youths and young middle-class men and women led to new dances, wearing skimpy dresses, and public proclamations about sexual emancipation.  It was unavoidable too; media publicized this rage in magazines, movies, and newspapers.  It wasn’t only the talk of sex that extended across America.  By the end of the decade contraceptives and sexual activity were widespread too.  America broke away from society’s boundaries during the 1920s and guided us into a sexual morality evolution.

Q1.  It was after World War I that America saw an increase in sexual behaviors.  Did the return of deployed soldiers to America cause an increase in society’s libido?

Q2.  Even though there was a widespread acceptance of contraceptives, do you think abortions increased in the 1920s because of new sexual behaviors such as petting?  Why?

Woodrow Wilson, Defense of the League of Nations, 1919

Woodrow Wilson, Defense of the League of Nations, 1919

Who Wrote:

Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States from 1913-1921, issued on September 26, 1919

Audience:

It is apparent throughout the address that Wilson was not only speaking to his countrymen but also the Senate and entire world.  Wilson reiterated that his address was for all his countrymen regardless of their origins.

Represent:

Through the Defense of the League of Nations, Wilson redefined the purpose of the league and treaty to drum up support.  At the onset of the proclamation Wilson rallied for support for the League of Nations with an opening argument of what the League of Nations really meant and what the covenants of the treaty were.  Immediate action was necessary to persuade the Senate and Americans that the League of Nations was an “instrument to preserve liberty and the peace of the world, to take the future and lives of millions from petty dictators and give them back to the people.”

What being said:

Predominantly, Wilson’s Defense of the League of Nations was targeting Germany and dictatorships.  The objective of the treaty was to implement government control to be “in the hands of the people.”  Wilson also stated that this was the first of many treaties to come that would establish democracy, and intended to be proactive for liberation of men in Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey.  Using the metaphor “fall down like a house of cards,” Wilson demonstrated that America is an important element to the covenant of the League of Nations. 

Additionally in his speech, Wilson stated that “United Moral forces” will be mobilized to fight for the liberation regardless of the strength or weakness of the country.  However, Wilson established that Germany was not ready to join. Wilson explained that America and the other nations entering the agreement of the treaty were promising “never use their power against one another for aggression,” and additional stipulations that would never resort to war without fair judgment by the League of Nations.  By agreeing to the treaty the nations made a pact: express their intentions of war in advance so the other nations were able to judge the reason for the conflict and the opposing nation’s intent of “right and justice.”

Further into the address Wilson defends Article X and Article XI in the covenant of the League of Nations.  He used metaphors again to convey his argument; Article X was an agreement by the nations to respect each nation’s territories and political independence.  Article XI allowed members to advise the league of any disturbance of the peace.  Wilson was striving to protect the Shantung Province with Article XI, and stated that China was also joining the league.

In the closing of his address, Wilson emotionally rallied America together.  He took blame for sending the soldiers overseas (“I ordered their sons overseas.”), and wanted America to know it was for liberty and justice.  Wilson reiterated that America went to war in France in hopes that we would not be in war again, and with our membership in the league these lives of the soldiers who died in combat would mean something. 

How being said:

Wilson was very compelling (almost obsessive) about his views of the League of Nations.  His address appealed to the logic and emotions of his countrymen.  Wilson believed it was imperative that America join, and sought support for the League of Nations.  Very descriptively Wilson described the hillside in Paris where American soldiers were buried to psychologically plead his cause.  Wilson admitted that future war may not be avoided; however that nine months of “cooling space” would help nations re-think their cause.  In his closing Wilson laid all his “cards” on the table with that America stood for “the truth of justice, and of liberty, and of peace.”

What proof:

Wilson blended use of logic and emotional appeal, along his own perceived character to persuade the audience that for peace to exist so did America’s association to the League of Nations.   Wilson was extremely intelligent and strategically planned the use of his rally in Colorado to justify the passage of the League of Nations.  As Wilson quoted, “It is not merely a settlement with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of European and Asiatic society.”  From the heart (or fixation) Wilson knew what was best for America and for democracy was to join the League of the Nations.  Unfortunately even though Wilson was passionate about joining the league, in the end it was his arrogance to blame that we never did.