Practical Argumentation by George K. Pattee (summer reading list .txt) 📖

from southern Italy. (S. E. Moffett, Review of Reviews, Vol. 28, page 55.)

B. The condition of the cities and especially of their slum districts is alarming, for

1. The number of immigrants is increasing astonishingly, inasmuch as,

a. 8,385 immigrants arrived in 1820.

b. 788,992 immigrants arrived in 1882.

c. 1,026,499 immigrants arrived in 1905. (Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905. page 42.)

2. Two-thirds of the total number of immigrants in 1902 settled in the cities. (Editorial in Outlook, Vol. LXXI, page 154.)

3. These congested districts foster unsanitary conditions, physical degeneration, and crime. (Deputy Clerk of Children’s Court, New York City, North American Review, Vol. CLXXIX, page 731.)

4. Charitable organizations are unable to cope with the problems in congested districts, for

a. The number of immigrants is increasing too rapidly. (Report of Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905.)

C. The present immigration is politically harmful, for

1. Immigrants of the kind that are now coming in do not make good citizens, because

a. They are indifferent to civic manners, for

1’. They cannot appreciate the spirit of American government, as has previously been shown.

b. They are easily influenced in all political affairs by pecuniary persuasion, for

1’. Their sole object in this country is to acquire wealth. (Prescott F. Hall, Secretary of the Immigration Restriction League, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 172.)

D. The number of immigrants is too great to be assimilated properly, since

1. Most of the immigrants are extremely clannish, for

a. “Little Italies,” “Little Hungaries,” and “Ghettos,” exist in great numbers and size throughout the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 114.)

2. Most of the immigrants never try to learn the English language, for

a. They have no need for it, since

1’. They seldom come in contact with English-speaking people. (Ibid.)

3. Their tendency is not to become citizens, for

a. Thirty-one per cent. of the immigrants return home after having been here a few years. (Report of the Commissioner-General of Immigration, 1905.)

b. Those who remain cannot for the most part appreciate our government, for

1’. They have been continually trodden upon in their home countries.

2’. They have had no opportunity to interest themselves in government. (N. S. Shaler, Atlantic Monthly, Vol. LXXI, page 646.)

4. The argument that because we were able to assimilate the immigrants in the past we shall be able to do so in the future, is unsound, for

a. The character of the present immigrants has changed, as shown previously.

b. In the future we may expect a much larger immigration. (Prescott F. Hall, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 172.)

E. Immigrants lower the standards of American labor, because

1. They create harmful competition, since

a. More immigrants are coming now than we really need, for

I’. In 1906 at least 200,000 aliens came here who were of no use whatever. (Commissioner of Immigration for New York, Popular Science Monthly, Vol. LXVI, page 175.)

b. They work for lower wages than do Americans, for

1’. They are able to live more cheaply. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)

2’. They place a lower value on their labor. (T. V. Powderly, North American Review, Vol. CXLVII, page

165.)

 

2. They tend to destroy the independence of the American laborer, for

a. They work under conditions that no American laborer will tolerate, for

1’. They create degrading forms of employment. (W. H. Wilkins, Nineteenth Century, Vol. XXX, page 588.)

b. Their selfish desires keep them from organizing with American laborers for protection.

II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of immigration in a proper manner, for

A. It would change the character of the immigrants for the better, since

1. It would keep out the unenergetic races of southern and eastern Europe, because

a. Ninety-three per cent, of illiterates come from southern and eastern Europe. (International Encyclopaedia, under Immigration.)

2. It would decrease the amount of pauperism, for

a. The southern Italians, who are the most illiterate, produce the most pauperism. (Ibid.)

3. It would raise the standard of morality, since

a. Ignorance is closely coupled with immorality, for

1’. The southern Italians have a very low standard of living in the United States. (Henry Rood, Forum, Vol. XIV, page 116.)

b. The educational test would exclude such people.

4. It would decrease the amount of crime, for

a. It would keep out most of the immigrants from southern Europe, for

1’. Ninety-three per cent, of the illiterates come from this source.

b. The criminal tendencies of people from southern Europe are well known. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)

B. The educational test would improve the condition of the cities, for

1. They would be more sanitary and less criminal, since

a. These evils are due largely to congestion.

b. Under this test the cities would be less congested, for

1’. Immigration would be reduced twenty-two and six tenths per cent.

2’. Educated immigrants are not likely to settle in the slums.

c. If the cities were less congested, charitable societies could remove more evils from the slums, and in time even eliminate the slums.

C. The educational test would aid the country politically, for

1. We should receive only those immigrants who are intellectually capable of becoming good citizens, for

a. Education enables a man to become interested in the government in which he lives.

2. Bribery would cease, for

a. Greed for small amounts of money is not so strong among the intelligent. (Prescott F. Hall, Ibid.)

D. The educational test would aid the work of assimilation, for

1. It would bar to a great extent the clannish immigrants, as

a. Clannishness is largely a result of superstition and ignorance. (Henry Rood, Ibid.)

2. It would practically force the immigrants to learn the English language, for

a. Their clans broken up, they would naturally come in contact more and more with English-speaking people.

3. It would produce among the foreign-born element of the United States a wider interest in civic affairs, for

a. Those who have some education can better appreciate our government than those who are illiterate.

b. It would admit only those who, by reason of their education, small though it may be, have had the chance to study somewhat their home governments. (N. S. Shaler, Ibid.)

E. The educational test would tend to raise the standards of American labor, for

1. It would cut down competition, since

a. It would shut out many laborers, for

1’. Most of those affected by this test would be common laborers.

b. It would tend to equalize the rate of wages, because

1’. Immigrants would not be willing to work for lower wages, for

a’. The slums being gone, they would need more money for existence.

2. It would aid the independence of American labor, for

a. Immigrants would no longer be so reluctant to cooperate with American laborers for protection, for

1’. It is well known that, as a rule, only the most ignorant classes refuse to join unions.

b. The low industrial competition would be removed, as previously shown.

F. The educational test would be practical, for

1. It is not a test depending upon the representations of immigrants or the decisions of inspectors. (Prescott F. Hall, Forum, Vol. XXX, page 564.)

2. The educational test has worked well in Australia. (Professor Frank Parsons, Annals of American Academy, Vol. XXIV, page 215.)

G. It would lessen the burden of education for the government, for

1. It would force prospective immigrants to get their elementary education in Europe.

2. The immigrants would have some education as a foundation for more.

CONCLUSION.

The affirmative has proved the following:—

I. There is great need for further restriction of immigration.

II. The educational test would accomplish the further restriction of immigration in a proper manner.

Therefore, immigration to the United States should be further restricted by an educational test.

EXERCISES

State the propositions upheld in the following arguments, and put the material into brief form:—

1. At all events, this is clear: that throughout those six months the government knew perfectly well the danger in which General Gordon was placed. It has been said that General Gordon did not ask for troops. Well, I am surprised at that defense. One of the characteristics of General Gordon was the extreme abnegation of his nature. It was not to be expected that he should send home a telegram to say, “I am in great danger, therefore send me troops.” He would probably have cut off his right hand before he would have sent such a telegram. But he did send a telegram that the people of Khartum were in danger, and that the Mahdi must win unless military succor was sent forward, and distinctly telling the government—and this is the main point—that unless they would consent to his views the supremacy of the Mahdi was assured.

My lords, is it conceivable that after that—two months after that—in May, the prime minister should have said that the government was waiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon was in danger? By that time Khartum was surrounded, and the governor of Berber had announced that his case was desperate, which was too surely proved by the massacre which took place in June.

And yet in May Mr. Gladstone was waiting for reasonable proof that they were in danger. Apparently he did not get that proof till August.

A general sent forward on a dangerous expedition does not like to go whining for assistance, unless he is pressed by absolute peril. All those great qualities which go to make men heroes are such as are absolutely incompatible with such a course, and lead them to shrink as from a great disgrace from any unnecessary appeal for exertion for their protection. It was the business of the government not to interpret General Gordon’s telegrams as if they had been statutory declarations, but to judge for themselves of the circumstances of the case, and to see that those who were surrounded, who were the only three Englishmen among this vast body of Mohammedans, who were already cut off from all communication with the civilized world by the occupation of every important town upon the river, were in real danger.

I do not know any other instance in which a man has been sent to maintain such a position without a certain number of British troops. If the British troops had been there treachery would have been impossible; but sending Gordon by himself to rely on the fidelity of Africans and Egyptians was an act of extreme rashness, and if the government succeed in proving, which I do not think they can, that treachery was inevitable, they only pile up an additional reason for their condemnation. I confess it is very difficult to separate this question from the personal matters involved. It is very difficult to argue it on purely abstract grounds without turning for a moment to the character of the man who was engaged and the terrible position in which he was placed.

When we consider all that he underwent, all that he sacrificed in order to save the government in a moment of extreme exigency, there is something infinitely pathetic in reflecting on his feelings, as day after day, week after week, month after month passed by—as he spared no exertions, no personal sacrifice, to perform the duties that were placed upon him—as he lengthened out the siege by inconceivable prodigies of ingenuity, of activity, of resource—and as, in spite of it all, in spite of the deep devotion to his country, which had prompted him to this great risk and undertaking, the conviction gradually grew upon him that his country had abandoned him.

It is terrible to think what he must have suffered when at last, as a desperate measure to save those he loved, he parted with the only two Englishmen with whom during those long months he had any converse, and sent Stewart and Power