Bread Rhetorical Analysis

“From 1781 to 1789 the Articles of Confederation provided the United States with an effective government.” This statement is quite bold considering that the Articles lasted only eight years. In some ways this form of government was effective and in some ways it was not. It did provide the newly formed American colonies with the means to govern themselves in the manner that they wished to be governed and set the rules for operations of the United States government. On the other hand, it was ineffective because there was no president or executive agencies or judiciary, nor was there a tax base or even a way to pay off state and national debts from war years. They could also be called ineffective because of their limited scope and the

In “Bring Back Flogging”, Jeff Jacoby addresses the problems within America 's criminal justice system. He gives many reasons why imprisonment simply does not work, and suggests that corporal punishment should be used as an alternative. Published in the Boston Globe, a newspaper well known for being liberal, Jacoby provides a conservative view and directs his argument towards those who strongly support imprisonment and view corporal punishment to be highly barbaric and inhumane. However, in order to shed light on our current situation, Jacoby discusses the dangers that we face though our criminal justice system a nd shows concern that imprisonment is doing more harm than good. In effect, Jacoby looks to the past for solutions, and

Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto is an eye-opening analysis of the American food industry and the fear driven relationship many of us have with food. He talks in depth about all the little scientific studies, misconceptions and confusions that have gathered over the past fifty years. In the end provide us with a piece of advice that should be obvious but somehow is not, "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." He follows the history of nutritionism and the industrialization of food, in hopes to answer one question….. how and when "mom" ceded control of our food choices to nutritionists, food marketers and the government.

Charles Beard’s suggested that the Constitution was a document that was only created to protect the framer’s wealth. Beard believed that the reason why the rich framers wanted to protect against majority rule was to prevent the majority to overthrow the rich. Beard did manage to fit most of the framers under “rich” categories such as lawyers, landowners, and merchants. But, he failed to realize that the framers limited majority rule to protect the rights of minorities, also.

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

Charles Beard has argued that the Framers of the Constitution were no more than privileged men eager to protect the interests of their class. The participants of the Constitutional Convention were wealthy, property-yielding men that would gain the most from the laws they were invoking (such as property rights, public securities, trade and shipping, and free enterprise)There is evidence that would support Beard's claim of hierarchy in the writing

During their respective elections, which had both been considerably controversial and revolutionary, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson had affirmed their claims to their representations of the American common man, a stereotypical figure in antebellum society. Moreover, they had perpetuated their implementations of democratic systems of government, especially in reference to their political opponents’ lack thereof. However, it had not been the case that both opponents were wholly justified in their claims, as some of their actions and plans during their presidential terms had indicated.

Upon reading and reviewing the text, I began to understand the Jeffersonian Era, and how it was different from the Early Republic Period. Also, why Jefferson was an important president during this era, and some of his problems. This highlights the troubles and triumphs the young country had as it began to shape its identity and place as a nation.

In his book, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (1913), he supposed that the Constitution was an elaborate ploy to support the economic superiority of the Federalists. His reasoning behind this was due to his observation of the Founding Fathers, for he realized the three leading authors were all Federalists. These three men, like several other Federalists, were members of the upper class; a social class of land owning white men. This exemplifies why Beard would believe that the Constitution was created due to greed. The Federalists that created the Constitution were elites who simply wanted more money, more power, and more land to their names. According to the Progressive Historians, this amount of power came at a cost for the Anti-Federalists. They thought the Federalists would steal power away from the state, and with it the power of the common people. Although Beard and the Progressive Historians are correct to an extent, the principle of Federalism counters these

In the short play A Raisin in the sun conflict’s both internal and external occure for in three of the main characters regarding their dreams. When the opportunity came for them to accomplish their dreams through using the insurance money they’ve come across from the loss of a family member, one of the main characters, Walter, wishes to be successful in life; but he needs the insurance money to do so. He wants to use the insurance money to open up a liquor store because he believes this would change his life. A exceptional quote that shows his determination to be successful in life is when he speaks to Ruth “You tired, ain’t you? Tired of everything. Me, the boy. The way we live-this beat up hole-everything”(

One of Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s first disagreements began with the idea of a National Bank. Hamilton suggested that the government should create the Bank of the United States Jefferson protested because this was not allowed by the Constitution. Hamilton opposed the view of Jefferson and stated that the Constitution’s writers could not have predicted the need of a bank for the United States. Hamilton said that the right to create the Bank of the United States was stated in the “elastic” or the “necessary and proper” clause in which the Constitution gave the government the power to pass laws that were necessary for the welfare of the nation. “This dilemma revisits the ever lasting dispute between the “strict constructionists” (Jefferson) who believed in the strict interpretation of the Constitution by not going an inch beyond its clearly expressed provisions, and the “loose constructionists” (Hamilton) who wished to reason out all sorts of implications from what it said”. Just a few years later, under President Jefferson, the federal government of the United States

He illustrated how the philosophical differences of the “America’s two greatest surviving Revolutionary leaders” influenced the democracy we now have today. For example, according to Larson, Thomas Jefferson trusted popular rule and distrusted the elites, in contrast, John Adams distrust common people and believed in aristocracy. This difference in views and beliefs led to the ratification of the Constitution and creation of a national banking system. Larson also explained how the events happened at the time influenced or affected the election in 1800. For example, America’s reaction to the French Revolution caused coalition and accusation of both political parties.

Pocock thoroughly supports the argument with research and many footnotes throughout. This article was well written, well organized and gives enough background information for the reader to understand the insurrection. This reviewer recommends this

committed to reforming the federal government to save American democracy from what he considered to be the abuses of capitalism. His work was influenced by his contemporary context, in which he and other Progressives hoped that the Supreme Court would prove more amenable to federal regulation of trusts and congressional labor laws to protect industrial workers. Beard clearly admired the Constitution's framers and the work they accomplished, but he also demystified those framers, the process by which the Constitution was framed, and the motivations for doing so. He analyzed each individual convention delegate (in alphabetical order!), described their economic background and interests, and demonstrated how they each stood to benefit financially from passage of the new governmental structure. None of the delegates represented the interests of small farmers or mechanics; most of them came from towns or coastal regions where personal property was highly concentrated.

To argue is point he brings up the feud between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson: “Where Jefferson wanted to construct the Constitution narrowly and favored a decentralized country with a weak federal government, Hamilton and his allies favored a broad interpretation-” (Taylor). With this example the author establishes is credibility with his understanding of politics in colonial times. It will also connect with a general audience who would have heard the names of Alexander Hamilton and