The two pieces are often held to represent two different types of discourse: Lincoln’s address is categorized as rhetoric, while Dickinson’s work fits best into the category of poetry. Thinking back on the characteristics of rhetorical discourse discussed in this chapter, what case could be made, if any, for distinguishing Lincoln’s work from Dickinson’s? Do they belong in different literary categories? Refer back to the resources of language – argument, appeal, arrangement, and artistic devices – in thinking about these two pieces. Does each employ all four resources? (Resources are attached separately) Second Inaugural Address – Abraham Lincoln Fellow-Countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the swe.

1. The two pieces are often held to represent two different types of
discourse: Lincoln’s address is categorized as rhetoric, while
Dickinson’s work fits best into the category of poetry.
Thinking back on the characteristics of rhetorical discourse
discussed in this chapter, what case could be made, if any, for
distinguishing Lincoln’s work from Dickinson’s? Do they
belong in different literary categories?
Refer back to the resources of language – argument, appeal,
arrangement, and artistic devices – in thinking about these two
pieces. Does each employ all four resources? (Resources are
attached separately)
Second Inaugural Address – Abraham Lincoln
Fellow-Countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath
of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended
address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat
in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper.
Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public
declarations have been constantly called forth on every point
and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention
and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could
be presented.
The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends,
is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust,
reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope
for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all
thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All
dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address
was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to
saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city
seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the

2. Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated
war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation
survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish,
and the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were
colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but
localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a
peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was
somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and
extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents
would rend the Union even by war, while the Government
claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial
enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the
duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that
the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the
conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph,
and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the
same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid
against the other. It may seem
strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance
in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but
let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both
could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world
because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come,
but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall
suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which,
in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having
continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove,
and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as
the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we
discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which
the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do
we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war

3. may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until
all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty
years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of
blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with
the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must
be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether.”
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in
the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to
finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to
care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow
and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just
and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Success Is Counted Sweetest – Emily Dickinson
Success is counted sweetest
By those who ne'er succeed.
To comprehend a nectar
Requires sorest need.
Not one of all the purple host
Who took the flag today
Can tell the definition,
So clear, of victory,
As he, defeated, dying,
On whose forbidden ear

4. The distant strains of triumph
Break, agonized and clear!
10/4/2018 The Death of Horatio Alger | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/death-horatio-alger/ 1/5
By using this website, you consent to our use of cookies. For
more information, visit our Privacy Policy
(https://www.thenation.com/privacy-policy/)
X
CLASS FEATURE JANUARY 5, 2004 ISSUE
By Paul Krugman
DECEMBER 18, 2003
m
The Death of Horatio Alger
Our political leaders are doing everything they can to fortify
class
inequality.
The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made
outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming
a

5. society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard
they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the
socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation
ago.
The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an
article titled “Waking Up From the American Dream.” The
article
summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the
United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has
declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that
research together with other research that shows a drastic
increase
in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable
conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden
society.
And guess what? Our political leaders are doing everything they
can
to fortify class inequality, while denouncing anyone who
complains–or even points out what is happening–as a
practitioner

6. https://www.thenation.com/
https://www.thenation.com/privacy-policy/
https://www.thenation.com/subject/class/
https://www.thenation.com/admin-taxonomy/feature/
https://www.thenation.com/issue/january-5-2004/
https://www.thenation.com/authors/paul-krugman/
javascript:void(0)
javascript:void(0)
javascript:void(0)
javascript:void(0)
javascript:void(0)
10/4/2018 The Death of Horatio Alger | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/death-horatio-alger/ 2/5
of “class warfare.”
Let’s talk first about the facts on income distribution. Thirty
years
ago we were a relatively middle-class nation. It had not always
been
thus: Gilded Age America was a highly unequal society, and it
stayed
that way through the 1920s. During the 1930s and ’40s,
however,
America experienced what the economic historians Claudia
Goldin
and Robert Margo have dubbed the Great Compression: a

7. drastic
narrowing of income gaps, probably as a result of New Deal
policies. And the new economic order persisted for more than a
generation: Strong unions; taxes on inherited wealth, corporate
profits and high incomes; close public scrutiny of corporate
management–all helped to keep income gaps relatively small.
The
economy was hardly egalitarian, but a generation ago the gross
inequalities of the 1920s seemed very distant.
Now they’re back. According to estimates by the economists
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez–confirmed by data from
the
Congressional Budget Office–between 1973 and 2000 the
average
real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers
actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1
percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent
rose
by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599
percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they’re not an

8. artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income
in
the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of
inequality.
Never mind, say the apologists, who churn out papers with titles
like that of a 2001 Heritage Foundation piece, “Income Mobility
and the Fallacy of Class-Warfare Arguments.” America, they
say,
isn’t a caste society–people with high incomes this year may
have
low incomes next year and vice versa, and the route to wealth is
open to all. That’s where those commies at Business Week come
in:
As they point out (and as economists and sociologists have been
10/4/2018 The Death of Horatio Alger | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/death-horatio-alger/ 3/5
pointing out for some time), America actually is more of a caste
society than we like to think. And the caste lines have lately
become
a lot more rigid.

9. The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality:
As a
general rule, once they’ve reached their 30s, people don’t move
up
and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often
cite
studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official
under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser
to
the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of
Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during
their
working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist
Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly “the guy who works in the
college
bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s.” Serious studies
that
exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in
average
incomes over long periods isn’t much smaller than inequality in
annual incomes.
It is true, however, that America was once a place of substantial

10. intergenerational mobility: Sons often did much better than
their
fathers. A classic 1978 survey found that among adult men
whose
fathers were in the bottom 25 percent of the population as
ranked
by social and economic status, 23 percent had made it into the
top
25 percent. In other words, during the first thirty years or so
after
World War II, the American dream of upward mobility was a
real
experience for many people.
Now for the shocker: The Business Week piece cites a new
survey of
today’s adult men, which finds that this number has dropped to
only 10 percent. That is, over the past generation upward
mobility
has fallen drastically. Very few children of the lower class are
making their way to even moderate affluence. This goes along
with
other studies indicating that rags-to-riches stories have become

11. vanishingly rare, and that the correlation between fathers’ and
sons’
10/4/2018 The Death of Horatio Alger | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/death-horatio-alger/ 4/5
incomes has risen in recent decades. In modern America, it
seems,
you’re quite likely to stay in the social and economic class into
which you were born.
Business Week attributes this to the “Wal-Martization” of the
economy, the proliferation of dead-end, low-wage jobs and the
disappearance of jobs that provide entry to the middle class.
That’s
surely part of the explanation. But public policy plays a role–
and
will, if present trends continue, play an even bigger role in the
future.
Put it this way: Suppose that you actually liked a caste society,
and
you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to
further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-

12. nots.
What would you do?
One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so
that
large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More
broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate
profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital
gains,
so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could
more easily accumulate even more. You’d also try to create tax
shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still,
you’d try
to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the
burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear
most
heavily on people with lower incomes.
Meanwhile, on the spending side, you’d cut back on healthcare
for
the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for
higher education. This would make it more difficult for people
with

13. low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the
education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy.
And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as
possible,
you’d do everything possible to break the power of unions, and
you’d privatize government functions so that well-paid civil
servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees.
10/4/2018 The Death of Horatio Alger | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/article/death-horatio-alger/ 5/5
Paul Krugman Paul Krugman, an economics professor at
Princeton and a columnist at
the New York Times, is the author, most recently, of The Great
Unraveling: Losing Our
Way in the New Century (Norton).
To submit a correction for our consideration, click here.
For Reprints and Permissions, click here.
It all sounds sort of familiar, doesn’t it?
Where is this taking us? Thomas Piketty, whose work with Saez
has
transformed our understanding of income distribution, warns

14. that
current policies will eventually create “a class of rentiers in the
U.S.,
whereby a small group of wealthy but untalented children
controls
vast segments of the US economy and penniless, talented
children
simply can’t compete.” If he’s right–and I fear that he is–we
will end
up suffering not only from injustice, but from a vast waste of
human
potential.
Goodbye, Horatio Alger. And goodbye, American Dream.
https://www.thenation.com/authors/paul-krugman/
https://www.thenation.com/corrections?title=The+Death+of+Ho
ratio+Alger&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thenation.com%2Farti
cle%2Fdeath-horatio-alger%2F
http://www.thenationreprints.com/services/reprints/
Surname 1
Ali Alyami
Professor : Ian Woods

15. English 119
Date : 01/ 29 / 2019
Civil Disobedience in Pursuit of Justice and Equality is always
Justified
Civil disobedience simply means the refusal to comply with set
laws which are in most
cases considered unjust. Civil disobedience involves activities
that are carried out to show
dissatisfaction with certain acts and especially of the
government. People use civil disobedience
as a way of letting their grievances out and ensure that the
government is made aware of the
issues that are taking place in the society. Debates have been
raised in the past on whether Civil
disobedience and especially if there is pursuit of justice and
equality is justified. The argument
that civil disobedience can be justified if it seeks to bring
equality and justice in the society is
logical. Certain facts make the claim true and logical, but of
course with conditions. Civil
disobedience can only be justified if the means used are not
violent, the actions are accompanied
by a desire to make a change and also if there are righteous

16. intentions. With such conditions at
hand, civil disobedience can be justified; it makes the
government more accountable, sometimes
it is the only way to publicize issues in the society, sometimes
the law is also wrong and it may
be the only tool to deal with a flawed democracy.
Civil disobedience will always make the government more
accountable in their service to
the public. Such is one way of seeking justice and equality to
the members of the society.
Governments have been known to abandon their responsibilities
to the people who own them.
Deciding not to obey what the government and the set laws
stipulate may be the only way to get
Surname 2
them on track. Civil disobedience has helped shape America and
ensured that justice is granted
to all members of the public. The government gets to know that
people are informed of their
rights and will do anything to ensure that they get what is right.

17. Sometimes civil disobedience is the only tool that the public has
to make known the
injustices that are happening in the society. Sometimes having
people on the streets marching
peacefully may not adequately help address the issues in the
society. Getting someone famous
arrested because they chose to lead people into violating the
laws may be the only effective way
of getting things heard by the government. We cannot deny the
fact that acts of civil
disobedience have a great impact towards social justice and
equality. To some such is a costly
way of seeking justice but the sacrifice always serves the
purpose. The happenings in the society
would need the courage to violate the laws and go against the
government to ensure that they are
heard. Sometimes the society has only civil disobedience at
hand to make their grievances
known.
Laws are made by elites in the society who may frame them to
serve their personal
interests at the expense of the people the government is meant
for. The laws only favor the few
while the majority of the population in the society suffers social

18. injustices and inequality. The
laws may thus be wrong and not working for the good of the
majority in the society. In such a
case, civil disobedience is justified to ensure that the laws
governing the country are meant for
the overall good of everyone, and especially the majority in the
society. Democracy sometimes
has to be fought for, sometimes what we call democracy does
not really exist or it may just be
flawed. Democracy is derived from the laws governing the
country and the laws must be aligned
to the interests of the majority. The laws are streamlined
through civil disobedience.
Surname 3
In conclusion, civil disobedience is justified but with
conditions. The acts of civil
disobedience can only be thought of serving a purpose if they
aim at bringing change to the
society, if they are nonviolent and also if the intentions are
righteous. Civil disobedience meant
to ensure justice and equality is a justifiable act. That is the

19. only way the government can be
made accountable to their people, it is a way of streamlining the
flawed laws and sometimes it is
the only tool that people have to address the issues that are
existing in the society.
Sent from my
iPhonehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsMhttps://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=paaen3b44XY