Textile Workers Strike for Better Wages and Working Conditions

In the later years of the 1920's, a system became known to workers as the "stretch-out system". The stretch-out system was basically employers cutting employees dramatically. The workers would be taking on the work of 2, 3, and sometimes 4 men. This drastic increase in work was due to the employers cutting workers and hiring as little as possible. Many people desperately wanted jobs,  leading people to take jobs in terrible working conditions. Many workers got together and attempted a strike for better conditions but many were fired. The employers knew that they could find someone else to do the work. Textile workers seeked help from the National Recovery Administration with no results. The NRA was of very little to no help at all.

1: Why do you think the NRA would not help the workers?

2: Do you think having the job was worth it even with such terrible working conditions? Why or why  not?

A Place of One’s Own: The Quest for Home Ownership

One of the hottest topics of the 1920's was home ownership. Many more people were changing from family farms to individual housing as industrialization grew and became more prominent in the culture. A black man named Dr. Ossian Sweet purchased a home in a white neighborhood. The white neighbors were not happy, as they believed that it would decrease the value of their homes and the neighborhood. The white neighbors also believed having a black man live there would possibly increase crime. The white neighbors were frustrated and began vandalizing his house (one example is by throwing rock in the windows). A few white men entered Sweet's house without permission. Sweet killed one and went to court for it arguing that any person no matter what their color or race is should have the right to defend themselves and their home.

1: Do you think the white neighbors were trying to send a message to the black community? Why or why not?

2: Why do you think segregation continued for so long even after this trial/incident?

William Jennings Bryan - In Defense of the Bible

In this very famous trial, William Jennings Bryan was defending his belief in Christianity against the well thought-out arguments of Clarence Darrow relating to evolution.

Throughout the trial, both Bryan and Darrow made very good points for each of their arguments. Though Darrow sometimes asked questions that could be considered pointless and relating to nothing important, Bryan demonstrated quite clearly not only what he knew, but the level of comfort and confidence in the knowledge he had about Christianity. Seeing the tension between the two parties is not hard at all. Darrow asked some irrelevant questions as seen on the first page: “Do you think about things you do think about?” Darrow also made comments that were somewhat inappropriate such as “You insult every man of science and learning in the world because he does not believe in your fool religion.” Throughout the questioning, Bryan remains calm and does his best to answer every question given to him. I think that Bryan did a good job of defending himself and his religious beliefs. I also think that Darrow did a good job questioning Bryan and getting answers. Bryan sometimes would not know the answer to a question posed by Darrow but always did his best to answer. If Bryan didn’t know, he would simply say so, having then to reply again to Darrow’s further questioning and digging for an answer. With this I conclude that both parties did well to support their own position and cause.

In Defense of The League of Nations

I agreed with everything that Wilson said in his speech on the League of Nations. I believe the League of Nations speech he gave was one of his strongest and most convincing speeches. Wilson had many good ideas, facts and plenty of convincing evidence.

Wilson starts off talking about how joining the League of Nations would be a way to keep the world safe and at peace while still keeping the nations safe. He states this clearly by saying “This is only the first of several treaties. They are all constructed upon the same plan. The Austrian treaty follows the same lines. The treaty with Bulgaria follows the same lines. The treaty with Turkey, when it is formulated, will follow the same lines.” By saying this, Wilson makes sure that everybody knows the treaties will all be completely fair. Wilson also addressed the fact that the League of Nations is not to rise up and use its power against others but it is to keep safe every nation. He, again very clearly, states this by saying “They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they will never use their power against one another for aggression; that they never will impair the territorial integrity of a neighbor,” meaning they will not try to take over another and that they will not use violence against each other. Wilson afterwards states that if one of the nations do want to start war or break the rules of the treaty, there are up to 6 months for the circumstances to be looked at “maturely” and if then still not decided, there will be another 3 months they do not go to war. Wilson’s point in doing this was that when people are angry, they often act out of character due to the passion of anger or the heat of the moment. He provides evidence for this later in his speech by giving the example of the people he knew who would often swear when angry. He told them that when in the lines of the city, they must not swear. Therefore when they got angry, they would drive out of town to swear but often by the time they got out of town, they would not be angry anymore. Later on in the speech, Wilson brings emotion into play by speaking of the fallen soldiers who died “not to prove the might of the United States” but to bring justice. Wilson wraps it up by summarizing all of the points provided in the speech. The treaties would be completely fair and would not disadvantage anybody, including the United States. The treaty would help the US avoid war by making every nation promise to not use violence as well as providing the nations “cooling space” (as stated by Wilson) so that they could look realistically at the situation and not make bad decisions.

Like I said before, I agreed with Wilson and thought that it would be smart to be in the League of Nations. I think this way because everything he said he had evidence to support. He also had a solution to almost every problem. One of the biggest reasons I agreed with him was because of the 6 months rule. I know that when people are angry they are much more prone to lash out and people generally have bad reasoning when they are angry.