Author: Jeffrey Pitts

According to Wikipedia, “The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.”

The broken window fallacy was supposed to explain the things seen and the things not seen. If someone breaks a window, the owner must use his money to replace the window. That is the thing seen. What about the thing not seen? If the window was never broken, what would the owner of the window would have used the money that was supposed to replace the broken window on? The owner of the broken window would have used that money on something else, but he had to use it on the broken window. That is the thing not seen. What the owner would have used his money on if the window was never broken.

This happens all the time in different examples, but it is the same fallacy. People argue that building a bridge, for example, creates jobs, therefore helping people. And it does help people get jobs. However, what would have the money used on the bridge be used for if the bridge was never built? Maybe for other projects or expanding the business, which also increase jobs. And with the bridge, once it is built, you do not need the workers any more. They lose their jobs. However, if you use the money to expand the business, people fill those new jobs, and these jobs stay, so the people stay.

What is “Philip Dru”? “Philip Dru” is a book written anonymously by Edward M. House. According to Wikipedia, “Edward Mandell House was an American diplomat, and an adviser to President Woodrow Wilson. He was known as Colonel House, although his title was honorary and he had performed no military service.” “Philip Dru” was a political novel published in 1912. According to Goodreads, “The story is about a man, Philip Dru, who leads a revolt against the United States government because it had become too corrupt. After the revolution, he scraps the Constitution and makes himself “Administrator.” He then changes every concept of national and state governments to reflect his view of governance.” Here is a very quick summary: Philip Dru was a man who joined the military. He was a military genius, but he lost his sight while in a desert. He won a military competition against other military generals, soldiers, etc., held every five years, in his mid twenties. He was a military genius. He was asked to rejoin the military, but refused. He then went into politics. He discussed several issues in the book. In the end, he leads a revolt against the government because it had become too corrupt.

What was the income tax amendment of 1912? Amendment sixteen to the Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913. It grants Congress the authority to issue an income tax, but they did not have to issue it based on the population.

Would I have voted for the income tax amendment in 1912, based on the arguments in “Philip Dru”? Well, if you read the book, you will see that the message of the book is progressivism (according to Wikipedia, “Progressivism is a political philosophy and movement that seeks to advance the human condition through social reform – primarily based on purported advancements in social organization, science, and technology.”). The reason for progressivism alone would make me not want to vote for the income tax amendment. Plus the fact that taxes are literally people controls.

But I would also not vote for it because of the implausible plot line. It would just never happen. Like a man in his mid twenties winning a military game in which other sergeants and generals enter who have had years of military experience? And near the end of the book, Dru tries to raise funding for his massive army, which is completely taken care of by one young lady in just a few weeks. Also, Dru’s army of 500,000 who have had no military training fight against America’s army of 600,000 who have had years of military training, and Dru’s army win. That is just impossible. There is no way anyone reading this would believe this was real, even if you wanted to. Also in the end of the book, Dru goes on to control the whole country as a dictator. The plot line is just completely implausible. This never happened, and it would never happen.

It is for these reasons that I would not have voted for the income tax amendment of 1912.

What is money? Money is the most marketable commodity that is used to be traded for goods and services. Money is also hard. Hard money does not mean it is hard like a rock, but rather, it is hard to make, or find. That is why gold and silver have been used as money for thousands of years. Because gold and silver are hard to mine, and they can be made into small, portable coins. However, nowadays, gold and silver are too valuable for every day purchases and are too heavy to carry around large amounts of. So the government decided to make paper money backed by gold. Basically, you could trade gold for paper money for gold when you wanted to buy things, but then people started to realize that paper money had the same value as the gold, so they started to trade paper money for goods instead of gold. The government could not print more money without mining more gold, and it worked great! until the government started printing as much money as they wanted without actually mining more gold. This is called inflation. Inflation is when the prices of goods and services go up when the value of your money go down. Have you ever noticed that prices on goods going up? The cause of that is the government printing as much money as they want. Inflation have destroyed entire countries in the past, and I would hate for inflation to be the cause of the destruction of the US.

However important the topic of money is, it is not the topic for this essay. The topic for this essay is ‘Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money?’ What is honest money? Well, it is not something I can really explain. I think I can better explain this with an example. So, U. S. money is paper, but it is backed by gold. That is honest money. The money is honest. It has value. Back in Roman times, they used gold coins to buy things, And it worked great, because gold had value because it was rare, and hard to mine. This money worked very well, however, the government decided to try to make more money without actually mining more gold. Romans shaved off little pieces of gold off of the existing gold coins, and melted them down with other metals, like iron, or copper. Now, there are more coins acting as money in the system. These half-gold half-other metals coins are not honest money. Do you get what I’m trying to say? And now, since there are more coins in the Roman money system, people have to mark up prices on everything, making everything more expensive. And since there is less gold in the coins now, from shaving off little pieces of the existing coins making them worth less, and melting those shavings down with other metals to make more coins which have less gold and other metals in them, the coins are worth less. These two problems make the prices of goods and services go up (making more coins out of existing coins), while the worth of the coins are going down (because the coins are no longer one-hundred percent gold and the coins are now smaller because of shaving gold off them meaning they have less gold in them), at the same time! Also, that’s why U. S. coins have ridges on them so people can see if people have been shaving off little pieces of them. The new coins that have pieces of gold shaved off, and the coins that have been melted down with other metals are not honest money. Also, back then, coins were measured by weight, not value. People used scales to weigh the money to figure out how much you could buy. If the coins that had pieces shaved off of them are put back into the system, that coin will not be as heavy as it was before it was shaved, making it worth less. And the metals melted down with the gold from shaved pieces of coins might not be as heavy as gold. So they might be the same size, but they are full of different metals, all different weights depending how much extra metal they put in with the gold. Depending on this, these new coins might be heavier or lighter than the real coins were. So now, there is more money in the system, and the current money is losing value. This is also happening in the America today.

Hopefully you can see what I’m trying to explain to you.

America used to give people paper money worth gold the government had in reserve. They could not print more money without mining more gold. And back then, people traded their paper money with the bank for gold the bank had in reserve to buy things with, but it was not long before people began to realize that the paper money had value, because it basically had the same value as gold, so they started trading that instead. It worked great. Do you understand? They could not print more money without mining more gold. Paper money backed by gold in reserve? Now that is honest money. However, the government began to get greedy, as they all do. They started printing money without mining more gold. They made money out of nothing! When you make money out of nothing, that is fake money. The U. S. A.’s main source of currency (paper money) is fake. It is not honest money. The United States of America’s main source of currency is not honest money. It used to be, but since then, the government got even more greedy, and started printing money out of thin air! The money used to be worth something, but when you make money out of nothing, it is not honest money. It is not real money. It has no legitimacy. Also, it is much harder to mine gold than to print money, so the government thought it would be a good idea to use paper money instead of gold. Big mistake. This just paved the way for future government officials to print money out of nothing. If the government continues to print massive amounts of money every year, the money may soon become worthless. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “How can it be dangerous? If the government prints too much money, people who sell things for money raise the prices for their goods, services and labor. This lowers the purchasing power and value of the money being printed. In fact, if the government prints too much money, the money becomes worthless.“

Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? How does a national government issue its own money? In simple terms, the Federal Reserve prints it, and releases it into the system. But does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? What kind of money are we talking about? I will assume that we are talking about American currency. As I just explained, the paper money we as Americans use used to be honest money, paper money backed by gold in reserve. However, the government recently started printing money out of thin air. This makes the money fake. There is no honest money. American paper money is not honest money. So, if the government prints dishonest money, then releases it into the system, then gets some back from taxes and what not, it is still dishonest money. Now, if we are talking about any other government from a different country, it would probably be different. Their money might be honest. But in American currency, the money is not honest, therefore, the national government can not secure honest money because there was no honest money to begin with.

People can also use their own ‘money’. It is called bartering. People used to do it all the time before gold or coins were used as money. People traded one thing for another, just as long as both people were willing to accept it. Why don’t we do this today? Because money gives you a larger market. If you want to trade an apple for an orange, you would not only need to find someone who wants an apple, but also is willing to trade it for an orange. With money, you can sell your apple to anyone who wants an apple, and then spend the newly acquired money to buy an orange. Money widens the market. This is only one reason out of several others of why we use money instead of bartering.

What happens when a national government issues too much money? If there is too much money in the system, then prices can rise and the value of the money decreases, causing inflation. Inflation is when the prices of goods and services go up, while the value of your money goes down. There are some countries that have experienced hyperinflation. The prices of goods and services go up every day, sometimes the prices even double or triple every day! That is what happens when the government prints too much money. And soon, the money becomes worthless, pretty much worth nothing. Did you ever notice how much a penny is worth? It can not buy you anything in today’s world. One hundred years ago, a penny used to be over eighteen times the value today! And with the minimization of inflation, money was worth a lot more than it is today. And the prices of products and services were also a lot lower than they were today. Butter back then was thirty-six cents, eight dollars and seventy-two cents in today’s dollars. The common dollar had much more value one hundred years ago than it now does today.

Does a national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? Honest money in this scenario is paper money backed by gold the Federal Reserve or banks have in reserve. Paper money used to be honest money, when it used to be backed by gold. The government could not print more money without mining more gold. But, lately the government has become greedy and started printing tons of money every year without actually mining more gold. Therefore, the money is now no longer backed by money. Or, money is backed by gold, but an extremely little bit of gold. This makes gold very expensive. The paper money is no longer backed by gold, so it is not honest money. Does the national government need to issue its own money in order to secure honest money? The nation government issues money, and the money we use circles back to the national government when people use it. The national government secures this money, so the national government does need to issue its own money to secure money, but if the money was not honest in the first place, how can it be honest later? The money is no longer backed by gold (if it is then it an incredibly low amount of gold) so it is no longer honest. So the national government does need to issue its own money in order to secure money, but if the money was not honest in the first place, it can not be honest later. The national government can not secure honest money because there was no honest money to begin with.

Can this money become honest again? How I think this is possible, is if the government prints no more money, and they mine more gold. They mine gold until they equal each other. Then the money will be honest. Also, I have heard that one of the reasons the government prints money is because of the ever growing population. However, they are printing too much money, and prices rise. In fact, if they did not print any more money, and the population did grow, people would have to be paid less so they can spread out the rest of the money to the rest of the population, and that actually lowers prices of goods and services. If the population is growing, they do not need to print more money to satisfy the whole population. The money will be spread out across the population so that more people get paid. And with people getting paid less, businesses will lower prices of goods and services to satisfy the population.

Do you know about counterfeiting? Printing money illegally? I am sure you do. But, did you also know that you can counterfeit legally? The government does it all the time. That’s right. The government prints money all the time, and that is also counterfeiting. The government counterfeits all the time. Counterfeiting is basically getting something for nothing. If someone printed money (nothing) and traded that for something (goods and services) they are basically stealing from the people who have the ‘something’. The government prints money out of thin air and uses it to buy things. The government is basically stealing from people using paper as money. Paper has no value. The government prints money out of paper. Now, when paper money was backed by gold, it had value. It was honest money. Now, the government just prints money without mining more gold. They are printing money out of nothing. Paper money is fake. Why do we still use paper money if it is fake? There are laws that say that you are only allowed to use money that is approved by the government, which is the paper money. You are not allowed to use any other type of money.

Were you ever aware that when you use paper money, you are really using fake money? Well now you do. However, did you know that there alternatives to paper money that are not illegal? I have two examples. One: Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the first ever decentralized cryptocurrency. It is digital currency. Now you may be thinking how this is any different than paper money. For one, it is impossible to inflate. Whoever has Bitcoin owns a part of it. You have a say in if someone wants to make a change to it. And to make a change to it, you need the majority vote, which is basically impossible. And the more people who own it, the more valuable it becomes. The second choice is the Goldback. The Goldback is like paper money, but with major differences. Yes, it is physical, you can hold it. However, it is made out of pure gold, also making it impossible to inflate. And because it is made of gold, the vale of it rises with inflation, whereas the paper money’s value decreases with inflation. And you can use it just like you use cash.

Both of these choices are accepted world wide, making them acceptable in several countries. Now, some countries may not accept it, but the U. S. does. And both of these choices are widely better than paper money. A lot better.

William Sydney Porter, better known by his pen name O. Henry, was a well known American writer. He lived from September 11, 1862 through June 5, 1910. He was mainly known for his short stories, although he also wrote poems and non-fiction. His most well known works consist of The Gift of the Maji, The Duplicity of Hargraves, and The Ransom of Red Chief, and several other short stories. His short stories were his greatest works. His greatest  and most popular short story was his classic The Gift of the Maji. His writing style in his short stories can include surprise endings, humorous language, and tearful smile, among others.

Jack Griffith Chaney, better known as Jack London, was an American novelist, journalist, and activist. He was also one of the first American authors to become an international celebrity and earn a large fortune just from writing. By 1913, he was making more than ten thousand dollars a month. Ten thousand dollars in 1913 is about a quarter of a million dollars in today’s money. He lived from January 12, 1876 through November 22, 1916. Jack London was most famous for his books (and you might recognize these because they are still famous today), White Fang (1906), Call of the Wild (1903), The Sea Wolf (1904), among other well known literary and journalistic accomplishments and works.

According to Wikipedia, “Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce was an American short story writer, journalist, poet, and American Civil War veteran. His book The Devil’s Dictionary was named one of “The 100 Greatest Masterpieces of American Literature” by the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration.” He lived from June 24, 1842 through 1914. His most well known work was “The Devil’s Dictionary”. It was published in 1906 as The Cynic’s Word Book, after originally being an occasional newspaper item. According to Wikipedia, “Described as “howlingly funny”, it consists of satirical definitions of English words which lampoon cant and political double-talk.” According to the washingtonpost.com, “All his life, Bierce savagely skewered organized religion, which he defined in his book The Devils Dictionary as “a daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the Unknowable.” Likewise, he considered faith “belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”“

Which of these three authors, O. Henry, Jack London, Ambrose Bierce, would you prefer to read on your own time? Let’s see… O. Henry wrote well known humorous short stories. Jack London wrote famous books, some of which are the famous White Fang (1906) and Call of the Wild (1903). Ambrose Bierce wrote “The Devil’s Dictionary”, which is a dictionary, but the definitions to the words he puts in it are preposterous and very funny. I have read some of it and I can attest to it being funny. Honestly, I would rather read O. Henry’s short stories. I love short stories and his are amazing. I have read some of them, and I think that they are really good short stories. I would also like to read Bierce’s Dictionary, because it is hilarious. I also like London’s books too. They are very interesting to read. I like all of these works that each of these people wrote. They are all amazing.

I am a big reader. I love to read. But, I can not read every book. Nobody can. Actually, until these lessons where I was required to read Mark Twain, I thought that he just wrote novels, like The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (of which he is  best known for). I had no idea he wrote such humorous short stories. I found these stories both entertaining, and funny. Mark Twain “was praised as the “greatest humorist the United States has produced,” with William Faulkner calling him “the father of American literature.””, according to Wikipedia. And I can see why.

According to Poetry Foundation, “Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known as Mark Twain, was born in Florida, Missouri, in 1835. A distinguished novelist, fiction writer, essayist, journalist, and literary critic, he ranks among the great figures of American literature. His novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885) is generally considered his masterpiece. His novels A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876), and The Innocents Abroad (1869), a travelogue and cultural critique, are also highly regarded. Twain’s travelogues Life on the Mississippi (1883) and Roughing It (1872) are prized for their humorous insights into American life in the late 19th century. Many would agree with H.L. Mencken, who wrote of Twain in A Mencken Chrestomathy, “I believe that he was the true father of our national literature.”” I believe, that he was one of the greatest writers in American history. His books and short stories alike, are entertaining and funny. According to Biography, “Mark Twain, whose real name was Samuel Clemens, was the celebrated author of several novels, including two major classics of American literature: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. He was also a riverboat pilot, journalist, lecturer, entrepreneur and inventor.”

Would you read more of Mark Twain’s writings even if they were not assigned in a course? Like I said, I was only introduced to Mark Twain’s short stories when I tool these lessons, but I knew about his books. His books are okay. I read a few of them when I was younger, but I did not find them interesting (maybe that was just because I was young). I bet that if I read them now, I would understand them and enjoy it. And also, once I was reintroduced to Mark Twain in this course, I found his short stories I was required to read funny and entertaining. If I found some way to read more of Mark Twain, I would. I would read Mark Twain when it is assigned in a course, and when it is outside of a course. I like the way he makes his stories seem almost real, but at the same time, it is a funny story. It is very entertaining. And I would suggest that you read his books if you also love to read. If you do not like his works, that is okay. But my opinion is that his books and short stories are great.

The Gettysburg Address was a speech given by the President of the United States, President Abraham Lincoln. This speech was delivered during the American Civil War at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery. The Soldiers’ National Cemetery is now know today as the Gettysburg National Soldier Cemetery in Pennsylvania. What was the main point of the Gettysburg Address? According to study.com, “The main message of the Gettysburg Address is that ideals are worth dying for and that it is up to the living to carry on the work of those who died to protect ideals. The ideals of equality and freedom are the bedrock of the United States as a nation.” Lincoln gave this speech in the wake of the American Civil War’s deadliest battle. This speech was delivered on November 19, 1863. Why was the Gettysburg Address written? According to gettysburgbattlefieldtours.com, “As the Battle of Gettysburg was a Union victory often cited as a turning point in the Civil War, the 17 acres of land was purchased to dedicate to the Union soldiers who lost their lives in the battle. The speech was to memorialize dead Union soldiers and emphasize the importance of maintaining united states.” He gave this speech to the citizens of Gettysburg themselves, as they were the audience because of where Lincoln spoke the speech at and where the Battle of Gettysburg was located.

During the American Civil War, there were two sides, the North and the South. The North was known as the Union, and the South was known as the Confederacy. Lincoln was on the side of the Union, which is why he gave this speech to the Union. Lincoln also had every intention of reuniting the North and South. He strove for unity rather than completely disregard the South.

Did the Gettysburg Address use Christian language and imagery to support the Union cause? It did. For example: Paul in first Corinthians wanted to recognize his fellow Christ-followers’ very important work to try to unite everyone under one God, and that their work was not in vain. In Lincoln’s speech, he mentions that the soldiers who were trying to reunite the North and South under one union, and their work to help reunite the North and South was not in vain.

Lincoln utilized another Christian image in his speech. He stated that the struggle of the Civil War was not only for the Union, but also for human equality. In the Bible, Jesus was always encouraging people that all people were equal in his eyes. So equal, in fact, that He died for everyone, not just a few.

Now, we do not know if Lincoln actually meant what he said in his two minute speech, or if he said it just because he thought the people would like it. But one thing is for certain, he did use Christian language and imagery to portray his support for the Union cause, whether he meant what he said, or he said it just to make the audience happy.

What is money? Money is the most marketable commodity. You trade it to buy things. How did we get to paper money? Well, in the past, people bought thing with gold, because it was hard money (hard money means it is hard to find, or make). However, gold is very heavy and far too valuable to use for every-day modern-day purchases. So the government decided to use paper money instead. You could trade gold for paper money, and when you wanted to buy something, you go to the bank and trade in the paper money for gold. And paper money made sense because paper money was easily divisible to use to but things and it was portable. It was not long before people figured out that the paper money also had value and started to use paper money to buy things instead of gold. The government could not print more money without mining more gold. It worked great! however, the government became greedy and started printing more money without mining more gold. This caused inflation, prices going up with the value of paper money going down.

Counterfeiting is when people illegally print money. Can governments counterfeit? Yes they can, and they do. For example, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve controls how much money is printed in the US every year. Technically, paper money has no value, so all money is fake. When banks create money out of nothing (a.k.a. paper and ink),and pump it into the system, that is counterfeiting.

Mark Twain wrote a critique of James Fenimore Cooper. I it, he criticizes Cooper’s writing technique. Twain’s critique was known as a legendary attack. In this critique, Twain was funny, which I think is odd, but cool. He was also scathing towards Cooper’s writing technique. This critique was a rhetorical masterpiece. Twain lists eighteen rules of romantic fiction that Cooper violated. Rule #18 was Twain’s strength, “Employ a simple and straightforward style”. Something that Cooper did not do. He ridiculed Cooper’s techniques. If you read this critique, you would almost feel sorry for Cooper, but if you read Cooper’s book(s), you would understand and be on Twain’s side. I know I was.

Here is an example of Cooper’s works. It is called “Deerslayer”. This book has no visible plot and makes no sense. Let me show you what I mean. The book begins with two men lost in the woods. One man, Deerslayer, was an expert hunter. The other man, Hurry Harry (what kind of a name is that?!), was not. Harry also speaks in two different dialects at the same time, making him very hard to translate. Deerslayer finds the place where they were hiking to, but Harry does not recognize it, even though it was Harry who picked out the spot. Later, they were talking about a man called Tom Hutter, who lives on the land they were hunting on, but does not own the land. If Tom does not own the land, why is he living there? There is then an extended dialogue about Indians who can shoot a target the size of a fly at five hundred yards. That is not possible! No man’s eye could pick something like that up! Tom lives on a floating house called the ark. It is a fortress! It is a huge houseboat, and it has bullet proof walls. The lake that the boat is on right now, Deerslayer does not recognize it. Later Tom says the lake has no pale-face name yet, but Deerslayer’s tribe calls it “Glimmerglass”. How can Deerslayer know the name of the lake if he does not even recognize it? Even later in the book, it describes that Deerslayer and Harry are looking for Tom again, so they search downstream in their canoe. They come upon a turn in the river that the canoe could barely get through. Then go a little farther and see Tom on the shore with no sign of the ark. He says it is hidden in the brush, and it is. Two things do not make sense. Number one, if Deerslayer’s canoe could barely fit through the river in some parts, how could the massive ark fit through those places? And also, if it was that big, it would be too big to be hidden in the brush. It was just not possible. And there are many other instances in the book that make no sense to the reader that Cooper wrote either because he did not care, or he was just not thinking.

When I was sixteen years old, I made this plan that I would use to build a life for myself. I wanted to get an easy job over the summer to earn money, so that I could invest some of it into successful companies. The rest would be used for college. I do this for two years before I go to college. I also raised and bread rabbits when I was younger. I started raising rabbits at a very young age, so I have had several years of experience. I put in my plan that I would major in computer engineering in college. Since I was two years ahead in school, because I homeschooled, I did dual enrollment for my first two years of college. After that, I went to college and graduated two years early in computer engineering. While in college, I bought an old car, but as long as it got me from point A to point B, I was good with it. I got a well-paying job after I graduated and I rented an apartment to live in. I lived in that for two years before I made enough money to buy a house. It was a small house, but it was close to family, so I was good with it. I worked hard at my job, and attained many promotions. I worked up in company and made a lot more money than what I started with. With my spare time, I like to blacksmith, so I build things in my garage/forge, like knives and other weapons, because I like weapons. I did this for the rest of my life, until I retired. I would  not change anything about this plan.

This week, I learned of two stories written by Washington Irving. They were The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, and Rip Van Winkle. I will give a small summary of both books so you know what I am talking about.

The Legend of Sleepy Hollow is about a school teacher who was new to the small town of Sleepy Hollow. He was a young man, and very superstitious. His name was Ichabod Crane. Ichabod is fascinated with the ghost stories shared with the people of Sleepy Hollow, especially the one about the headless horseman. It is said that a man lost his head during the Revolutionary war, and searches Sleepy Hollow every night in search of his head at the church. No sooner than Ichabod began to play the role of school master in this small town, did he crossed paths with a young woman named Katrina Van Tassel, the only daughter of wealthy farmer Baltus Van Tassel. Since then, he tried to win her heart. However, Katrina had many suitors, including prankster Brom van Brunt, who is also an expert horseback rider. Brom tries to get rid of Ichabod with pranks and tries to humiliate Ichabod, but fails. Ichabod is then asked to a party by Katrina, and accepts. He dances with her the whole time the night of the party, while Brom looks on with jealousy. Ichabod then returns home disappointed and downhearted. It is not said in the text, but it is assumed that Katrina says to Ichabod that she is interested in Brom. On the way home, Ichabod passes the supposedly haunted church. He sees a rider on a horse and calls out for them to identify themselves. Instead the rider chases Ichabod. In the light Ichabod sees that the rider chasing him is headless, with a sack on the horse which Ichabod supposed had his head. Ichabod aims the horse for the bridge leading outside the town. It is said that the headless horseman cannot cross the bridge. Ichabod makes it across and the headless horseman stops before the bridge, supposing Ichabod made it across and is now safe from the headless horseman. However, the headless horseman precedes to throw his head at Ichabod knocking him off the horse. Ichabod’s horse turns up the next morning at the Van Ripper house, and Ichabod was nowhere to be found.

Rip Van Winkle is a story about a Dutch-American named Rip Van Winkle who went for a walk in the Catskill mountains. He meets a man carrying a large barrel of liquor and decides to follow him. The man leads Winkle to a group of people playing ninepins. The men say nothing. Winkle drinks some of there liquor, and falls asleep. He wakes up and the men are gone. He realizes he is an old man. He travels back to his village and it is entirely different. He does not recognize anyone. He talks with some of the people and nothing explains what happened. He then meets his daughter, who is much older than when he last saw her. Things start to make sense then. He was asleep for twenty years, and he tells the villagers what had happened, and an old villager confirms Winkle’s story.

Were the detailed descriptions of the people around the two main characters equally important in the two stories Washington Irving wrote? I think they were. If you did not have the detailed descriptions of the people surrounding the two main characters, you probably would not understand the story as well as if you did have the descriptions. That goes for all stories as well.