Misunderstood Governmental Intentions

According to the time period in which the policies for westward expansion were enacted, governmental intentions were good.  There is clearly some flawed logic looking back on their actions by today’s standards, but the government at that time truly thought they were doing the right thing.  

The first policy which was enacted after the end of the Civil War was the creation of six African American regiments who came to be known as “Buffalo Soldiers”.  The government continued unequal treatment and discrimination by giving these regiments the job that no other regiments wanted, to go west and control the Native Americans and their land.  They also gave them all of the old uniforms, equipment, and horses that the other regiments did not want. However, the government was trying to do the right thing by the African American people by giving them another line of occupation to pursue other than sharecropping, which was usually the only option for jobs that African Americans had access to.  Their intentions were good, but the delivery was skewed because of how twisted the values they upheld were.

The Native Americans tribes began to band together and fight back as they were continually mistreated.  Their successes in battle caused the Second Treaty of Fort Laramie to be signed in 1868, promising the Native Americans the land of the Dakota territory west of the Mississippi River if they would stop fighting.  Once again, the government’s intentions were good, as they were trying to protect the Native Americans from cruelty inflicted by the white settlers by giving them their own safe area of land.  But, by doing this, they were giving them a far smaller piece of land, and not allowing the Native Americans to have a say in where they lived, designating them to only one smaller area.  In the reservations, reformers came in and tried to completely assimilate Native Americans.  One specific example was that the reformers opened up “Carlisle schools,” in which they tried to completely eradicate Native American culture.  Although this sounds extremely harsh and horrible to us today, they genuinely thought they were doing the right thing, following the phrase “kill the Indian in him, save the man.”

Many Native Americans refused to leave their homes and move to the reservation, causing the government to initiate an order forcing them all to move to the reservation.  This order was for their personal safety, but was also not treating them as equal citizens, because they had no say over important decisions directly affecting their lives.  This tension reached a height at the Battle of Little Big Horn, where General Custer and his men were defeated by the Native Americans.  The Native Americans’ victory initiated the Dawes Act, which granted the title of land and U.S. citizenship to the head of the household in each Native American family.  The Dawes Act was far better on paper than in actuality, as 90% of the land that was given to the Native Americans just ended up going to the general public, because the Native American families took up such a small amount of space in the land that they were given.  Once again, governmental intentions were good, giving the Native Americans their own land that they completely owned, and could use to farm and earn their own source of income, but the reality of what they did did not align with their positive intentions.

         Although the government’s involvement at the time was not always as positive as they planned it to be simply because of ideals which were considered normal at the time, their intentions were for the betterment of the Native Americans, despite the forms in which it took which we do not agree with in this day and age.

http://americanhistory.abc-clio.com/Topics/Display/1187738?cid=140

Robber Barons versus Captains of Industry

American business was completely altered, becoming an economic powerhouse after the Civil War ended, with the help of major corporations, and the leaders who founded and led them.  Although some of the ways in which these leaders went about expanding and continuing to grow their businesses are frowned upon by today's standards which we hold ourselves to, it is certain that they were extremely successful in running these corporations. In class this week, we learned about the changes in the American economy as a whole, as well as focusing on specific people who pioneered these businesses. We watched a video about the American economy as a whole and how much American business changed and improved after the Civil War ended, each group taking notes on different aspects of it: main idea, key people, essential terms, and important events.  Each group then read biographies about John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, some of the most important leaders of American businesses, and took notes from the biographies pertaining to our topics.  Finally, we decided on the group essential question: should Carnegie and Rockefeller be classified as robber barons or captains of industry?

     I believe that Carnegie and Rockefeller were captains of industry, but that they could have also been considered robber barons.  Looking back on it with a more objective perspective now, able to assess the facts with emotions aside, both for the most part went about their ventures in business in legal and honest ways, although there were some situations in which they bent the rules.  Rockefeller was themoving force between the Standard Oil Company, and truly helped to shape and create the American petroleum industry.  Rockefeller was able to buy out every single one of his competitors except for Samuel Andrews, because he always managed to keep production costs down which not only was good for him as the leader of the company, but also used this to put other companies out of business.  Rockefeller is widely considered one of the richest, if not the richest, men in America's history as he gained complete monopoly over the oil business through the creation of the Standard Oil Company.  Rockefeller's use of vertical integration was key in his gaining of a monopoly over the entire American oil business.  However, once the Standard Oil Company became extremely successful, an issue was encountered, which formed Rockefeller's reputation as a possible robber baron.  Rockefeller decided to make the Standard Oil Company a trust, ultimately ending in the Antitrust Legislation by Congress and the Ohio Supreme Court's decision to make Rockefeller disband the trust in 1892.  This creation and disbanding of the trust, as well as his ventures into the global export market as well ruined his relationship with the public, contributing to his reputation as being a robber baron.  However, although the public criticized him, he continued to give away much of his money to charities, local education, and the Baptist church.

     Carnegie also used many of the tactics which Rockefeller used in order to attain his success in the steel business.  Carnegie's implementation of vertical integration allowed him to control raw materials, transportation, manufacturing, and sales.  He also took the same point of view as Rockefeller, believing in the "Gospel of Wealth," that every rich man was made by God and has a duty to use his wealth for the good of the people.  Based on this belief, he also invested lots of money to advanced education, including establishing Carnegie Mellon University.  However, Carnegie's perception by some as a robber baron also comes into play because of poor public relations.  After the Homestead strike at one of his steel plants in Homestead, Pennsylvania, his relationship with the public was ruined. 

Video explaining the Homestead Strike:

     I believe that although Carnegie and Rockefeller made a few mistakes along the way, even if they ran their businesses perfectly, people would still find an issue somehow with what they were doing.  The nature of some people being in power while others are not, is that some of the people not in power will respond negatively to the people in power's decisions either because of jealousy or for valid reasons.  Power can corrupt people easily, and even some of the best people can make wrong decisions if they abuse the power that they are given.

 

 

Freedom from Above or Below

The essential question for this lesson was "who 'gave' freedom to enslaved Americans? Did freedom come from above or below? To what extent were Abraham Lincoln's actions influenced by the actions of enslaved Americans? In order to answer the essential questions, each group analyzed one document and found direct quotes from the document which showed the author's thoughts on the goal of the war, position on freeing slaves, and evidence of personal feelings towards slavery. After getting all of the quotes which the other groups found, we analyzed document x and document y, a letter from a general to the secretary of war about the fugitive slaves who were overrunning the city in which the union army had taken over, and an engraving of slaves from Jefferson Davis' plantation arriving at Chickasaw Bayou, Mississippi. We then categorized all of the sources into two categories, freedom from above and freedom from below.

I believe that freedom from below is truly what the slaves provided for themselves through their actions; Lincoln was the policy maker who made the change official, but the slaves themselves brought the change about. The slaves completely took it upon themselves to make their issue an issue for the government officials and policy makers, because if they had not taken that action, the government never would have taken notice of the issue and made any change. The slaves' crucial actions in their freedom are shown in the engraving. The engraving clearly shows the slaves following the union armies, and making their presence known in order to get the army to talk to the government, forcing the government to take notice of them and the cause that they were supporting. The importance of freedom from below is also apparent in the general's letter to the secretary of war. Once again, the slaves made themselves an issue for members of the union army because the union soldiers could not send them back to slavery, because their cause by that point included the abolition of slavery. The slaves actions towards the union army specifically made Lincoln take notice of the slaves' cause and made him realize that the change needed to happen faster, because the slaves were not going to back down.

I believe that in order to truly make social change, it must come from below. If the people below who are facing the issues themselves do not make an effort to get the people above to notice their cause, the people above will never be able to implement policies which will make the change official. The people above will never make the issues of the people below a priority because they do not directly affect them, so they need to have the issues put directly in front of them in order to make them take notice. In recent news, transgender issues have become pressing in our society, and it has become more of a nationwide focus to make sure transgender people are accepted, given fair and equal job opportunities, and are treated well. The recent Diane Sawyer interview with Bruce Jenner is a perfect example of freedom from below being crucial in making societal change today. Bruce explained how he is going to use his exposure to media to his advantage by being a champion for the cause of other transgender people everywhere. His support of this cause and broadcast on a major news network will get the attention of the government and policy makers, and ensure that the issues that transgender people face will be focused on much more.

The Bruce Jenner interview: http://abc.go.com/shows/2020/listing/2015-04/24-bruce-jenner---the-interview

Civil War Battles Scavenger Hunt

Last week, we ran throughout the school gathering notes about every battle that took place during the Civil War. Each student was given one battle to research, but chose them simply by looking at the description of the battle, and had to find out which battle it was based on that given information. Once the battle's identity was identified, we researched the battle's date, location, theater, and reasons that the battle began. Once all of the information was put together, we each made a shareable Google Doc that provided all of our information for other students once the scavenger hunt started. We then made a QR code and put a picture of that QR code along with the battle number and bit.ly link as a poster, and hung them all around the school, with directions to the chronologically correct next battle. We all then went throughout the school starting with the battle after ours, and proceeded to scan in to the various Google Docs using the QR code, and gather all of our notes about all of the battles. To wrap up the lesson, we went on our class padlet.com page, chose two theaters (eastern, naval, or western), and explained which army had the advantage in the theater. 

Created with Padlet

Throughout the eastern, western, and naval theaters, there were relatively clear overall winners.  In the eastern theater, the overall victor was the confederate army. The confederate army won far more battles in the eastern theater than the union army. Their victories in the eastern theater included the Second Battle of Bull Run (Second Manassas), the Battle of Bull Run (First Manassas), the Battle at Fort Sumter, the Battle of Cold Harbor, the Battle of Fredericksburg, and the Battle of Chancellorsville. In the western theater, the overall victor was the union army, in which the union army won far more battles than the confederate army.  The battle which they won in the western theater was the Battle of Vicksburg. The union navy completely dominated the confederate navy, winning every naval battle. The naval battles included the Battle of Baton Rouge, the Battle of Shiloh, the Battle of Hampton Roads (Battle of the Ironclads), the Battle of Fort Donelson, and the Battle of Fort Henry.

There are many commonalities between the strategies of the victorious armies in the battles that they fought in the theater in which they dominated. In the western theater, the union army was able to claim their victory by forcing the confederate soldiers into surrendering and retreating by coming out of the gate strong and winning the first few crucial battles to weaken confederate forces later on.  They also relied on the confederate army's already being in a weakened state.  For example, at the Battle of Vicksburg, Union victories at Champion Hill and Big Black Bridge caused confederate forces to weaken, forcing them to surrender and retreat to Vicksburg's defenses. The confederate army was also already weakened because of their high number of deaths, and missing and wounded soldiers. The confederacy also employed similar tactics in their wins in the eastern theater in using a powerful initial attack to weaken union forces, and relying upon union forces being previously weakened. For example, in both the Battle of Chancellorsville and the Battle of Fredericksburg, the confederate army hit the union army with a powerful initial attack on top of the fact that they had many missing and wounded soldiers.  The union army had 13,300 initial casualties in the Battle of Fredericksburg, and in the battle of Chancellorsville, their general was mortally wounded by his own men.  In the naval theater, the union navy also utilized powerful initial attacks or powerful attacks early on in battle to force the confederates to weaken their defenses until their defeat or retreat.  For example, in the Battle of Hampton Roads, the union fought back at the confederates' sinking of one of their ironclads by engaging four more to ultimately win the battle using so much force at once.  In the Battle of Shiloh, the union navy was too strong for the confederates two unsuccessful counterattacks, leading to their eventual retreat to Corinth.  

It is very apparent throughout all of the battles that were fought during the Civil War that the most effective strategy that was relied upon most to be victorious was fighting hard immediately to weaken the other army right from the start to put them at an immediate disadvantage.  Both the union and confederacy, regardless of which theater they were in, also relied a lot on disadvantages that the opposing army already had such as a lack of supplies, higher death toll, lack of reinforcements, and more wounded or missing soldiers.

Art's Role in the Election of 1860

Throughout the process of writing the script and making the EduCreations video, our group was able to have a new appreciation for art's formative qualities in shaping the Election of 1860 and southern secession.  Gathering our notes from "The Civil War in Art" website was key in being able to put together the pieces of art's relation to the different events taking place at the time causing such intense rifts between the country and different political parties.  The Election of 1860 was the boiling point for people who had strong views on slavery, because the future president of the U.S. who was going to be chosen would only divide the rift between the north and south further than it already was after events such as the Dred Scott vs. Stanford Case and John Brown's Raid at Harper's Ferry.  Lincoln's winning of the presidential election was extremely controversial, because only the majority of republicans were in support of his desire to abolish slavery completely in the west, while most democrats and southerners were opposed to it, still supporting the belief of popular sovereignty and the system of slavery.  This choice of Lincoln as president pushed the south further towards secession, and their eventual secession became the cause of the Civil War, in which art played a huge role in the people's understanding of the war.  Art representing the war or events of the war became extremely popular at the time because it was a way for the people to be able to understand all of the events going on around them.  These artistic depictions of the war became a crucial part of the way the people felt about the events of the war, and may have even changed popular opinions on certain battles and issues.

https://www.educreations.com/lesson/view/civil-war-in-art/30171152/?s=y2DuYz&ref=appemail

Citations:
Abraham Lincoln:
Painting a national treasure: https://www.jeremypenn.com/2014/08/painting-abraham-lincoln/
Abraham Lincoln 2:
Stufffromthelab.com: https://stufffromthelab.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized-stuff/page/46/
All other pictures:  http://www.civilwarinart.org/exhibits/show/causes/introduction/the-election-of-1860-and-seces
Jefferson Davis:
History.com: http://cdn.history.com/sites/2/2013/12/jefferson-davis-portrait-AB.jpeg

Union and Confederacy Advantages and Disadvantages

Northern and southern strategy in the civil war | Create infographics

The north (Union) and south (Confederacy) both had extremely different advantages regarding agriculture, geography, labor, and population, which all put them at an advantage or disadvantage during the Civil War.  Agriculturally, the north and south differed greatly because of the weather and conditions that certain crops require to grow and thrive; the north possessed far more corn than the south did, but the south possessed all of the cotton in the United States.  This put the north at an advantage food-wise because they could provide more soldiers with more food, considering the versatility of corn and possible uses in many kinds of food.  Basic foods made with corn also would have been cheap to produce in large numbers, so the military could be fed in large numbers for a cheaper cost.  But, the south had the advantage over the north clothing-wise.  The south created all of the cotton in the U.S., and therefore was able to have direct access to it to use for military uniforms, and could  make nicer uniforms because they had the option of making them themselves with their own cotton, rather than having to rely on hand-me-downs or less high quality material.  

The north had far more industrial workers than the south did (1,300,000 versus 110,000), which put them at an advantage and a disadvantage.  Having more industrial workers allowed for the north to be able to have more materials for the war effort like weapons, produced in less time.  But, it also put them at a disadvantage because the more industrial workers they had who had jobs that they loved and spent their whole lives working to perfect the craft that they specialized in, the less people would want to leave their jobs to fight in the war, and risk their lives for a cause that would not change their way of life because slavery was already outlawed in the north.  The south had a far higher number of slaves, 3,500,000 versus 430,000 in the northern border states, which gave them an advantage because the slaves were considered property and could be forced into fighting in the war for the confederacy in a way that the north could not force free industrial workers to fight in the war for the union.  Finally, the north had an advantage over the south in a purely numerical way, considering that the population was far higher in the north (23,000,000 versus 8,700,000), which meant that they simply had more people who were able to fight in the war.

Finally, regarding geography, the north had an advantage or a disadvantage depending on how the situation is perceived.  The north had 22,000 miles of railroad while the south only had 9,000 miles, so the north would have been able to ship more supplies or soldiers across more land faster.  The north also had more factories than the south, 110,100 factories versus 20,600, which meant that they could produce more materials for the military in a shorter amount of time.  But considering the more industrialized nature of the north, the south had far more open land which could have been used to make camp for the confederate army, or could have been used to hide in during war or an attack.

Although the north seemed to have many advantages over the south, southern morale was much higher than that of the north.  Southerners were fighting for their way of life, whereas most northerners lives would not change much whether they won or lost the war.  Seven of the nation's eight military colleges at the time were located in the south and they were intensely training their soldiers, ready to fight for their years-old traditions. 

Addressing the Elephant in the Room

The debate over slavery was clearly the “elephant in the room” for American politics in the early 19th century.  It was such a big issue because it was so volatile and controversial, and because of the controversy regarding it, the government wanted to avoid it and stay out of it as much as it possibly could.  The government’s lack of a want to tackle the slavery debate is very apparent in the Dred Scott Case in March of 1857.  In this case, an enslaved black man living in Missouri filed a suit against the state, saying that he and his wife should be free because they had once lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal.  The Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7 to 2 because they were slaves and therefore did not have a right to sue in court.  Antislavery supporters were disgusted with the decision, but President Buchanan supported the court's ruling.  President Buchanan's actions in supporting the court's ruling in an effort to try and avoid governmental involvement with the slavery issue shows just how much people wanted to tip toe around the issue, for fear of people becoming explosive over the topic.  Slavery was clearly a huge part of American society and culture at the time, but people didn't want to address its existence.  

Even the most civilized of people had extreme emotions attached to their positions on slavery; the ignoring of slavery in politics led to a lot of the extreme reactions regarding it, because constantly trying to put it off and ignore it made emotions build even higher.  This idea is evident in D.C.'s reaction to the separation of parts of Kansas into proslavery, antislavery, and free-soiler, and all the violence that occurred as a result, known as "Bleeding Kansas." In response to the events of Bleeding Kansas, Republican senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner, gave a fiery speech titled "The Crime Against Kansas", in which he claimed that southerners were trying to force slavery on the western territories.  South Carolina senator Preston Brooks took great offense to the speech, and in an effort to defend southern honor, went to Sumner's senate desk and beat him with his cane.

When people actually did address the issue of slavery and debate it, most did what was more popular with the people, and did not challenge the people or the system of slavery at all.  Ignoring the issues behind slavery only continued the system and made it stronger.  This is apparent in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858, a series of 7 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas over slavery during their run for the a spot in the senate of Illinois.  Douglas supported popular sovereignty, believing that the majority of people in a state should vote over the legality of slavery.  However, Lincoln believed that the majority did not have the right to take away people's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The problem with this is that Lincoln did not agree with slavery, but even he did not want to address the issue, saying, ""I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and blacks."  

Finally, the ignoring of the issue of slavery not only made emotions hit their boiling point, but in some cases, that emotion led to extreme actions and violence.  John Brown's Raid on October 16, 1859 at Harper's Ferry, Virginia was one of those extreme situations.  Brown, along with 21 other men, raided the federal arsenal in an attempt to arm the slaves and assist them in starting an uprising.  But, Colonel Robert E. Lee was there with his troops surrounding the arsenal, and killed almost half of Brown's men before the rest of them surrendered.  John Brown was then hanged on account of treason, but was seen as a martyr by northerners, and was revered by them as a leader and a hero.

Slavery not only was avoided by the government and American society as a whole, but also led to intense violence and extreme measures being taken by people because there was no way for them to talk their issues and opinions on the matter through successfully.

Slavery's Entrenchment and Morality in Early American Society

Slavery’s entrenchment in American society by the the early 19th century began when cotton became such an important crop in America, and comprised more than half of the U.S.’s total export revenue.  According to the University of Oregon’s “Mapping History” modules that we analyzed during class, with the cotton industry booming by the 1860’s, the worth of cotton increased to 191,800,000 dollars in total.  Given the very high worth of cotton and its importance in American agriculture, more of it was needed to be produced, resulting in more slaves being needed, to harvest more cotton to be manufactured.  The increase in the number of slaves in the U.S. at the time as the cotton industry continued to grow, led to there being about 3,954,000 slaves living in the U.S. on the eve of the Civil War.  With so much of the population made up of slaves, it made slavery continue to stay in the states because they could not simply force millions of people to leave their homes and abandon the industries they made successful.  

A system of slavery based on race affects human dignity because of the implication and assumption by this system that one race is superior over the other.  Enslaved Africans were told so many times over and over again both verbally and via the actions of their white masters, that their lives were worthless, that everyone was replaceable, and that they were born inferior to whites, that they eventually began to believe that.  This acceptance of oppression and horrific treatment because that was all they had ever known, led to slavery becoming so longstanding; most of the slaves did not know any other way of life, and simply went along with it because it was what they were conditioned to believe was normal.

A system of slavery based off of race ignores basic human dignity and liberty.  It objectifies human beings, and makes people feel superior or inferior to others simply based on their race and heritage, something that should never define how people treat you.  It also made people ignorant and unsympathetic, one example being George Fitzhugh’s Cannibals All!, saying, “The Negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world.”  Views like this were preposterous and ignorant, brought about by white people who were never affected negatively by race-based slavery, and did not understand the horrible hardships both physically and emotionally, that the African slaves were put through every day of their lives.  

Women's Reform

19th century American society did not respond well to women's demands for equality.  Women finally began to speak up for their rights, and realize that their objectification as inferiors to their husbands was not right or just.  However, considering that women's role as complete caretaker of the home in the 19th century was so entrenched in American society and was all that they knew, society did not take well to women's desire to change society's perception of them.  The first true women's rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, New York in July of 1848, and many people at the time believed that women should not fight for their rights and should remain submissive.  This popular opinion is seen in a newspaper article in the The Mechanics Advocate at the time the convention took place, "We are sorry to see that women, in several parts of this State, are holding what they call "Woman's Rights Conventions," and setting forth a formidable list of those Rights, in a parody upon the Declaration of American Independence." 
Although women are treated far more equally today than they ever have been in the past, there is still some inequality between societal treatment of women and men.  Although women are supported in their holding of high ranking jobs and their life outside of the home, women are still treated differently than men.  The Pantene commercial which we watched in class really displayed just how differently men and women are perceived by society, even if they're doing the exact same thing.  Every example that was brought up in the commercial I have seen first hand, and I completely agree with the commercial's belief that we still have a long way to go as a society in terms of our perceptions of women in all parts of life.
http://youtu.be/-K2kfgW7708

Temperance Movement

Daily Evening Journal, Friday, Dec. 8, 1854
Crime in the City. [editorial]
In speaking upon this subject, it is useless to recount the enormities committed against the moral feelings of the whole city, during the first year of the present mayor's administration, when murders were perpetuated with impunity, and known violators of law permitted to go unpunished and unrebuked, provided their sinning was on the side of rum and intemperance. From the moment that he refused to appoint a Marshal, for whom more than a thousand citizens petitioned, vice and immorality held a jubilee, for they saw that the executive power of this city was their friend and ally, and rum shops sprung up at every corner of the street, drunkards staggered in every alley, while prostitution reared its brothels at every thoroughfare leading to us, and held carnival in the very heart of the city itself. Virtue was confronted on the streets by known harlots, young men decoyed to houses of infamy in open day, and beneath the very shadow of the Mayor's office, the courtesan bargained for the price of her embraces, and led her victims to a place of assignation.
Public opinion cried out against these outrages of decency, but the executive power of the city was as dead to petitions, to remonstrances, and to cries of help for redress, as it was destitute of those high principles of morality that alone can adorn an official position. No descents, as are done in other cities, was made upon known houses of ill-fame, and the quiet of four suburban villages was destroyed by their hellish orgies, while thieves made their dens the receptacles of their stolen plunder, and vice, hideous, loathsome and revolting, revelled in and disgraced our city. The people, at last, publicly rose against the Mayor, pulpits exposed his heedlessness and disregard of the honor of the city, and he retorted by accusing them of falsehood in their statements in regard to the amount of crime among us. A change was made in the city marshal, Irishmen made constables and appointed watchmen, and halycon days were once more to shine upon the city; but the Scriptures were still true, and the "last (year) of that man was worse than the first."
What think you, reader, is the amount of crime this year, compared with last? CRIME has nearly DOUBLED, and where last year, we had but 583 cases before the Police Court, we have, in the eleven months of this year, nine hundred and seventy-one . . . .

Unknown, "Crime in the City," Daily Evening Journal, December 8, 1854.  Accessed January 12, 2015,  http://www1.assumption.edu/users/mcclymer/95Fall97/EveningJournalDec8.html 

The author of this article believes that temperance is the solution to all of the problems that the city, Worcester, Massachusetts, was facing at the time.  The author of this newspaper article believes that the root to all of the problems that the city has been facing is because of alcohol consumption.  This newspaper article as a whole if continued to be read is a political piece, trying to persuade the people of Worcester to vote for a mayor who supported temperance and did not want alcohol running the city, because the author believes that the increasing problems that Worcester is facing at the time, are based off of the increase in alcohol consumption.  The author has some facts to back their claims, such as the crime rates almost doubling between the years 1844 and 1845, but the author is clearly biased, and supports the temperance movement, so some of the facts or claims may be embellished in an effort to prove their point.  The author's descriptions of increased crime rates, prostitution, and opening of liquor stores in Worcester represent what most of the country was truly like at the time, and how the high amounts of alcohol consumption within the U.S. at the time may have lead to all of these negative societal changes.  With the author's negative descriptions and emphasis on all of the bad ways in which alcohol is affecting the city at the time, and how the mayor of the city is encouraging their drinking and unlawful behavior, it is clear that they are trying to get other people to support the temperance movement too.