Analyzing Taylor's Argument

In both The Scarlet Letter as well as The Crucible, these two books help create American people today by showing them the way of their errors. Throughout both stories, the one thing that remains constant is that people are punished severely for crimes which did not demand a penalization to that degree. While reading these pieces of literature, many seem to notice the harshness and torment that was allowed back in the early ages of Massachusetts are still tolerated in today’s day and age. Although Americans have learned a lot from reading event as these, there is still a long road ahead. First of all, these two pieces of literature allow people now a days to see the perspective that people had back then.

As there are similarities between these two great writers there are also differences. One difference is their cultural background. In 1761, Wheatley came into America as a young slave girl stolen

In these excerpts, Catton clearly shows that the two men were quite different in their background. Where Lee embodied the knights and royalty of England, Grant embodied the strength and resilience of backcountry farmers. Catton also writes, “Lee […] stood for the feeling that it was somehow of advantage to human society to have a pronounced inequality in the social structure […] to them it could look for higher values - of though, of conduct, or personal deportment - to give it strength and virtue” (Catton). About Grant, he says that, ”He was one of a body of men who owed reverence and obeisance to no one, who were self-reliant to a fault, who cared hardly anything for the past but who had a sharp eye for the future” (Catton). In demonstrating that Lee wanted inequality in the social structure, but Grant was completely self-reliant, Catton shows that they had completely opposite beliefs.

Gains shows the reader how corrupt the justice system is in this quote. Gains character, Grant, isn’t happy about how the system works. He tells the reader how white men do everything in the government, they make up the jury and have a say but not a single colored man has a say in the government or the fate of another colored man. Gains stresses the point of the corrupt government due to racial inequalities.

I rather enjoyed learning further into all these events in history. He covered things that were not normally mentioned in the teachings of these events such as the details of Hamilton and Burr's duel. He goes over the Hamilton Burr duel and explains some things that might not be caught when one first learns about the duel. He mentions that there were no witnesses to the duel so that they may have “plausible deniability”. Ellis' purpose in writing this book was to bring light to how our founding fathers meet the challenges of setting the development for our nation. Ellis did a very good job at accomplishing this purpose. From this book I gathered that the founding “brothers” ,as Ellis refers to them, were all close friends at first and were torn apart by political rivalries and challenges but not all of them were torn apart and their friendships became even stronger due to politics. Groups of friends, even if it's only just two people, have the power to make great changes. I believe the book was very well written and he was very descriptive in the way he described scenes such as when he describes where the duel between Hamilton and Burr occurred and the rivalry between Jefferson and Madison. One part of the book that I found particularly powerful was how Ellis described Adam's quite rough and bumpy presidency, which was constantly impaired by Madison and Jefferson. I don't believe any scenes should be done differently in

The first aspect of choice showcased by Stewart is the delegation of authority. As per her statement, whenever she is close with a member of the management team, she shares problems that she faces as a leader and works with the junior manager to arrive at a decision. This also showcases her willingness and ability to share information as well as an attribute of trust towards her members of staff.

Before any logical argument regarding the contrasting of two works can begin, a foundation must be established that in some way

To start with, Sherman was a Spokane Indian living on a reservation. On this reservation it was expected of you to only learn what was needed, reading was not needed on an Indian reservation; however, Sherman became passionate about reading, and spent his life with his passion. On the other hand, Frederick is in a much worse situation. Frederick is a slave who is born for a life of slavery. His mistress and master make sure that reading, writing, and independence will never reach him. Frederick is only able to read with secrecy and cunning. Their situations are completely different, Sherman has more freedom that Frederick could imagine. Sherman says, “Our house was filled with books… crazy piles in the bathroom, bedrooms, and living room” (Alexie). This quote exhibits how Sherman has complete access to books, while Frederick has to scrounge for literature. In the end their situations were both grim, and they both did their best during

One predominant distinction between them is the different portrayals of satire to deliver each message. Both of these works utilize satire in a different way to provide a contrasting perspective for the reader. This affects the delivery of each message overall. In Taylor’s essay, we see the use of satire through his apologies. He does this to emphasize his argument as it is ironic that he has to apologize on behalf of the First Nations for the faults of white people. This portrayal also depicts Taylor’s tone in a mocking way, better convincing the reader on his perspective. An example of this would be when

\viewkind4\uc1\pard\fi180\li90\cf1\fs28 I'm Emma, Emma Whitney. I had been an Resident Advisor (R.A.) and a student counselor going on four years. I have never had a student have failing grades their first year. I was determined to keep that record.\par

Similarities that both writers have when it comes to their purposes is that they try to get their audience to understand that God and religion is important in their lives and they can only survive in this world because of him. “So they committed themselves to the will of God, and resolved to proceed”, from Bradford’s text is evidence that believed in God to protect them. “If God should let you go, you would immediately sink”, from Edwards’s sermon is evidence that if it was not for God they would not be able to stay afloat.

The rest will be presented further on in my essay. But before presenting my points id like to give you a brief idea of the two books and their writers.

Some people thought that Bradford’s work was great and other thought it was not

own decisions when it comes to going to school. In other words he truley believes that everyone, young and old,

Why did A.J.P Taylor’s analysis of the origins of the Second World War cause such controversy among historians?