Category: 12th Grade English

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mason Locke Weems was an American minister, as well as an evangelical bookseller and author. He is best known for his biographies of historical figures. The best known one was a biography on George Washington, The Life of Washington. He wrote this book in the year 1800.

The Life of Washington was widely accepted after it was written. According to Google Books, “The effect of this “single, immortal, and dubious anecdote,” and others like it, has made this book one of the most influential in the history of American folklore. Originally published as an eighty-page pamphlet entitled The Life and Memorable Actions of George Washington, it quickly attained immense popularity.” This book helped to influence folklore about the life of Washington. I think that one reason why this book was widely accepted was because he was the first president of the United States of America, which is kind of a big deal.

In this book includes a lot of Washington’s successes in his life, but it also talks about his childhood and his private life, some of which we know nothing about, so he kind of came up with some stories to fill in the gaps and make Washington seem like a better person than he probably was.

How believable is Weems’ book on Washington? Some of these stories he tells about Washington are completely believable, because we have historical evidence that it actually happened. However, some stories he told about Washington he either exaggerated, or it just did not happen. He once said in his book, Washington, as a boy, threw a stone over the Rappahannock river which was over 300 yards long. Now, maybe some baseball pitchers can do this, but Washington as a kid? I doubt it. Some stories he completely made up to make Washington seem ever the more great than he really was. However, some stories are historically accurate. Weems also talk about Washington’s theology. He says that the public loves Washington. He says Washington was the model of greatness. He also gives a detailed description of Washington’s death. He says God has rewarded Washington greatly, and how angels arrive to bear him up to heaven. I would say that this highly unlikely that this would happen. Weems also gives us a detailed description of his childhood. He says that he played strategic army games with his friends, and he was amazing at them. He says that Washington was fast on his feet. He said Washington won every footrace because he was fast. He also tells the famous story of young George cutting down a cherry tree. We all know that story, right?

How believable is Weems’ book on Washington? I would say mostly not believable at all. Most of these stories are made up, but some are true. However, they are so intertwined, I could not figure out which of his stories were true, or false. However, it was widely accepted after Washington’s death, and helped add to common folklore. It was a bestseller, so apparently it was a really good book back then.

 If I wanted to make money by writing a self-improvement book for Americans, what topic would I chose? The topic would be related to self-improvement, so it would be a book that helps people improve their own knowledge, character, or status. I would rather write a book that helps people improve a person’s character. That would be my topic. I would write a book that helps people improve their character. I would do this by using the Bible for references to write the book. The Bible is full of lessons about how to model your character and it gives examples of who to model yourself after. I would use the Bible to write a book about how people can model their character and examples they can use to model their own life after. However, this book might not be a self-improvement book, but more like a Biblical counseling book. But, I would rather write a Biblical counseling book focusing on the topic of self-improving your character based on what the Bible says, rather than a regular self-improvement book focusing on improving your character. I would write this book to help people improve their character using Biblical methods so they can not only improve their character based on the Bible, but they can also grow closer to God while doing it. That way, people can improve their character based on what the Bible says and at the same time, grow closer to God. That way, if the reader was having trouble with their character, they might read the book, find inspiration, and the book can help the reader change their character and give them examples of Biblical people to help them. However, the book could not only help them with this, but it could motivate them to get deeper into the Bible and grow closer to God and help them become a better Christian.

If I wanted to make money by writing this book, I would chose the topic improving you character based on what the Bible says. I would write this book, and maybe make money. There is a chance that I would not make a lot of money, but that is fine. I would not really care about the money, but it would be nice to get some. I would write it to help people improve their character based on Biblical standards, and it might even encourage them to get into the Bible themselves and grow closer to God. This is why I would this book, to help people improve their character based on what the Bible says. That way, people can grow in Christ and improve their character at the same time. That they put off the old man, and put on the new man in Christ.

Ephesians 4:22-24

“that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness.”

 This topic refers to Thomas Paine’s The American Crisis, published during the American Revolution. A critique is kind of like a criticism. So what I am supposed to to is write a criticism referring to Pain’s American Crisis from the point of view of a loyalist to the British.

Paine’s idea of this pamphlet was idealizes the American citizens and the countries origins, and uses this to encourage them to fight for independence rather than be subjects loyal to Britain. He encourages them to continue to fight for independence in their strive for freedom from Britain.

If I were loyal to Britain, I would say that the colonists are wasting their time, that Paine was wasting his time writing these pamphlets. That even though they wanted independence, Britain still owned them, and they were loyal to Britain whether they liked it or not. I would also say that America would prosper much better if it were under Britain rather than independent from it. That the men trying to fight for independence would all die in the war, and America would still be under Britain’s control. I would tell Paine that he was giving the colonists false hope, telling they to fight for independence and claim freedom from the British. That his false hope encouraging the colonists to fight for independence would get the colonists killed. That him and his pamphlet would cost the colonists their lives.

If I were loyal to Britain (which thankfully I am not), this would be my criticism of Paine’s pamphlet. I do not know if it would do any good though.

The author of Common Sense, Thomas Paine, was an American Founding Father, even though he was born in England (he was actually encouraged to move to Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin in London). He was also a political activist, philosopher, political theorist, and revolutionary. He is most remembered for his pamphlet called Common Sense. Common sense was written by Paine from 1775-1776. It was a forty-seven page pamphlet that advocated independence to the thirteen colonies from Great Britain. Paine argues for two main points in Common Sense. He argues for independence from Britain, and also for the creation of a democratic republic. This pamphlet inspired the people to fight for their independence from Britain. It also had a huge impact on the American independence movement. In this pamphlet, he continually calls the founding fathers and the colonists to take action against the oppression of the British government. Because he was born in Britain, he understood the injustices of Britain. Because of this, he made it clearly obvious in his pamphlet to call for independence from Britain. He argues this throughout his pamphlet.

What is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? There are many arguments displayed in common sense. For starters, Paine argued that it was crazy for an island to rule over a continent, and of course he was talking about Great Britain ruling over America. He also argued that if America were free from Great Britain, they could avoid European conflicts. He went on to argue that London was way too far away from America to rule it, and that the King and Parliament would eventually rule over America for Britain’s benefit instead of the America’s, which was the exact opposite for why the Pilgrims left in the first place. Some loyalists to Britain argued the America has thrived under Britain’s rule, but Paine argues that America would had thrived even more if it was an independent country. He argued that one of America’s greatest strengths was trade and commerce, and because of this it would have been even more successful if it had not been limited to trade with only the British. He also argued that Britain only protected America against Britain’s enemies only for Britain’s benefits. Paine argued that Britain’s enemies had no quarrel with America, and that America would eventually be pulled into Britain’s wars. He communicated with the colonists through his pamphlet on a more personal level, and he said that the moving to America was to escape the tyranny of Britain, but they were still under it’s rule. He said that with independence, they could gain freedom from Britain, which is why they left Britain to move to America in the first place. With his pamphlet, he was able to invoke passion into the colonists throughout the colonies. Now, these were all valid arguments, but what is the most illogical argument in Common Sense? According to LitCharts, “Paine’s argument throughout Common Sense relies heavily upon a logical fallacy: he consistently appeals to God as the definitive moral authority.“