Blog #13 – Kids Taking Over the Blog – Part 2
Pick one question from the following choices below and submit your answer by class on Monday, March 7. Let’s shoot for 300 words minimum. Dig deep!
1. During the suffragist movement, many women were arrested while demonstrating in front of the White House on charges of “obstructing traffic.” Do you think that this charge legitimate? Why or why not? Also, is it possible that by arresting these women that the government was violating their First Amendment rights (i.e. freedom of speech)? Why or why not? – Ellen
2. Do you believe it was right for Roosevelt to take advantage of the revolution in Panama to get the Canal. Was it worth to help this country? Would you have done the same if you were in Roosevelt’s position? Why or why not? – Brendan
3. Consider the following scenario: It is 2008; John McCain and Barack Obama are the two main party candidates and you can vote. A Rooseveltian candidate created a third party with a platform similar yet more drastic than the one you had planned on supporting much like what had happened in 1912. Who would you vote for? Why? – Saul
4. Today, there is a little known world-wide company called Unilever. Unilever is a British/Dutch company that owns most of the world’s home, beauty and food brands. They control more than 400 brands and millions of popular products like Axe deodorent, Dove soap, Pond’s cold cream, Suave shampoo, Vaseline petroleum jelly, Signal toothpaste, Surf laundry soap, Slim Fast weight loss foods, Lipton tea, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Breyers ice cream, and Country Crock margarine. With all this success they take advantage, just like the monopolies and trusts that Teddy Roosevelt busted. They have been proven to use child labor, (what we would consider) racist ad campaigns in foreign countries, degrading ad campaigns in America and animal testing. They have been accused o
f being a monopoly multiple times but have also been defended because they have “competitors” like Procter and Gamble and Nestle.
Do you think Unilever is a monopoly? Why or why not?
Do you think it is dangerous to have this big of a company with this many popular products? Why or why not?
Supposing Unilever is a monopoly, what can we do to fix it today? Explain. – Riley
5. Woodrow Wilson’s campaign slogan in 1916 was “He kept us out of war.” However, less than half a year after he was elected on this mantra, Wilson asked Congress to declare war, and on April 6, 1917, they obliged. Although he didn’t want to, Wilson broke his campaign promise, similar to many politicians today. What could Wilson have done differently so that the United States wasn’t forced into war?
– Also, do you think that modern-day politicians make promises just to get elected, knowing that they will break them later on? Or do they whole-heartedly support these causes and are prevented from following their planned course of action as Wilson was? Are both plausible or is there an additional explanation? Please explain. – Andrew
6. During the Gilded Age, powerful men dominated American business. They built huge companies and helped the society with its outcome. Carnegie’s Steel Company was created in 1870 and soon became the one of the largest and most profitable industrial enterprises in the world. The company was sold in 1901 to J.P Morgan for $480 millions. Did these decisions change our society as we know it? If you could be any important figure at the time, what would you have changed ? Would you have done more or less than what the person originally had done? Why? – Ophelie
7. If you were a Cuban during the Spanish-American war, would you have trusted America’s motives? Why or why not? How would you have reacted to the Platt and Teller Amendments? Explain. – Philip
8. As we have all seen in the news lately there are many protests and revolts in Middle Eastern countries. Egypt just successfully overthrew its leader Hosni Mubarak. There are now protests in Libya, Yemen, Tunisia, and the ongoing struggle in Israel. The U.S. has been very active in this area of the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we did this to take out Al-Qaeda and others “terrorists”. This new development of people over throwing their governments is very different than American imperialism. Americans believe that we should have the right to over throw our own government if it becomes tyranical – it’s written into the Declaration of Independence.
Do you believe that we should help these rebels to overthrow their oppressive governments, or should we leave them alone and see what happens? Why or why not? Or is there a different approach? – Sam
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/27/134111470/In-Libya-Radio-Tobruk-Issues-Rallying-Cry
There are a ton of great links on the North
Newsweek’s “Why Americans Love Revolutions” – http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/un-american-revolutions.html#
9. Do you agree with TR’s assessment of Taft when TR said that Taft was a status quo president who went along with what Congress said? Why or why not? Also, do you agree with TR running for a 3rd term to spite Taft even if they both lost? Why or why not? – Dorian
10. For a long time, the iPhone was only available on AT&T, raking in massive fortunes for both companies. Many phones are only available on certain networks, many clothing brands are only available at certain stores–do these arrangements/exclusive rights resemble trusts? Why or why not? Should any product be able to be sold by any company to prevent this? Or if a company invented a popular product, do you think that company should at least be able to sell the product for a few years without competition? Why or why not? – Calvin
11. Back during the Imperialism era and even today, most of the important decisions that occur in the United States, are debated in Congress.
12. Do you think the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 where necessary during America’s first major war since 1865 or were they pointless breaches of 1st Amendment rights? Why? Could there have been a middle ground somewhere? If so, what? If not, why not? – Michael
13. If you lived back before the passage of the 19th Amendment, would you ever become a women suffaragist? If so, why? If not, why? Also, what organization (National Woman’s Party, or NAWSA) would you join and why? – Cierra
This really isn't a photo but a photo of a drawing.
14. What do you think was the real reason that America went to war in 1898 with the Spanish? Was it either a general desire for war (to avenge the bombing of the Maine)? Were there humanitarian reasons? “Large Policy” or “Formal” Imperialism? Or was it to expand and meet our economic needs? Choose one of the four and explain why. – Devon
15. Why do you think the American people were so against America’s involvement in the Great War in 1917? If you were alive back then, would you have been against it? Why or why not? – Drew H.
16. Who are some examples of women activists in today’s society? Have we (women) truly acheived equality after all these years? Why or why not? – Emily
17. Compare the labor riots of 1919-1920 in America and the riots / protests occurring in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia going on today and how the government responded to both. Why did both the Middle Easterners and laborers rebel against conditions and treatment? – Lenny
18. Though President Wilson was quite the “timid” pacifist, he often went over senators’ heads to ask for the opinion of the sovereign people. Why do you think he did this repeatedly? Do you think going over the senators’ heads contributed to his fall from grace in Paris and during the League of Nations rallies? Explain. – Erin
19. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone, and Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. Can you name 2 other inventors whose inventions have greatly impacted life in America? Please name both inventors, what he/she had invented, and how it has impacted America. – Brittany
In answer to calvin’s question number 10, I think that yes products sold to specific companies and only those specific companies is a form of trust. It is a form of trust because they are relying on the company they think is best to promote their products. I think in the world of today a company’s product, if it is their own, is entirely up to them to sell to whomever best represents their product. I also think that if a product is invented and it is wisely invested in… that was a great thing and the person or company should receive the amount of money when it becomes available. I think these things because in America, we have a democracy and each company, just like each person should be responsible for what they sell. Like in calvin’s example with the iphone, it is clear that apple has entrusted two companies, Verizon and AT&T to sell their product because those are the best companies that will sell them. Really it is like keeping secrets with a friend. There are some who you trust that will keep your secret and promote and help you in the best way they can, or you can tell a person that you are not friends with or do not trust as much and have your secret not accepted or if it is, not accepted with the full amount of respect and thought which is necessary for it and therefore the secret teller is not being promoted the way he or she deserves. This is relatable to the Calvin’s questions because when telling someone a secret you get to choose your friend—the best choice. The same goes for companies. If they want to choose who they think is best. Go for it. It is good the united states doesn’t determine the way things are sold.
1. During the suffrage movement I do not think that it was right for the police officers to have done what they did. I did not feel that it was a legitimate charge to charge the women for protesting their constitutional given rights. I feel that they had every reason in the world to do what they did and they should not have been punished for it. Many of the women did this because when they moved back east after living out west for such a long time, the voting laws changed. In the west women were allowed to vote. When those women came back to the east, the faced the harsh reality of not being able to vote anymore and took action for it. I very strongly feel that the fact that the women were being arrested violated their first amendment rights (freedom of speech). They legally had the right to be out there and protest their freedom, but the police would not have that so they arrested them. I feel that the womens anti violent riots had no reason to be taken that seriously by the police officers. They should have let the women peacefully protest. The women were just fighting for their freedom.
The people were probably mad because there wasn’t truly a point for us to go into the war. People probably thought that this would just bring deaths to their loved one who shouldn’t need to die. If I was living back then, I believe that I would be against the war. I don’t see any reason to have any wars. People should be able to just not fight, there is absolutely no point in it. I don’t think that the U.S. should have gone to war because it wasn’t originally our war to fight and we shouldn’t have gotten involved. I don’t think the U.S. should have gone into war, and I don’t believe it should ever go into war again.
13-publish this one not the first
If I lived back before the passage of the 19th amendment I would probably not support women’s rights to vote, but I wouldn’t not support it. I would remain neutral for as long as I could, but sooner or late I would join a women suffragist party because women are made equally as men just like blacks and whites are just as equal as one another. The biggest reason I would support womens rights to vote would be for them to have more of a say. They are just as much as an American as any other man. The womens vote for president could make a difference on our history, without some women votes some presidents might not have gotten elected, or would have gotten elected. The passage of the 19th amendment is one of the most important times in our history, even though we were behind many countries to allow our women to vote, and give them more of a right, some countries still in this day and age don’t allow womens votes or even womens rights fro that matter, I would join either party I don’t really have a preference, probably the first party to recruit me or whomever made the best argument for why I should join them. Both parties were beneficial to the passage of the 19th amendent allowing women to vote, so either party would work for me. It’s a good thing we allow women to vote because if we didn’t our country would seem EXTERMLEY sexiest. The rights of women to vote were then followed by desegregation, which is basically the same. Denying someone their rights because of their race or sex. I couldn’t imagine being a women in the early 1900’s you would be treated with no respect that would be very horrible.
I believe that teddy had all of the right in the world to take advantage of the revolution in panama to get the canal built. The building of the canal was nessecery because it was a way to cut down the amount of travel time for passenger ships and ships that were taking goods from one side of the united states to the other side. This is politics were talking about. There is no fair when it comes to what you want and what would be in the best interest for the country. During times of hardships and indifference you give people a chance to take advantage of you and when you do this it is your loss. We shouldn’t have to give up on what we want or what is in the best interest of the country to satisfy people or to be fair to people. I know that this sounds harsh but this is the way that politics works. If you are down and out of the fight people will start to take advantage of you. If I was in President Teddy’s shoes I’m sure that I would have done the same thing. Being president is a hard job and if you don’t take opportunities when the present themselves shame on you. I would not have been hard or rough on the Panamanians but I would take the land that I need in order to make the canal. Sometimes people have to make difficult decisions but, I believe that if it benefits your side you should defiantly make the decision that will propel your side to victory. The revolution in Panama was at an unfortunate time for them. I don’t believe we should be looked on as the bad guys because we did what benefited us.
I think the real reason why America went to war in 1898 with the Spanish was for imperialist reasons. I think we had finally caught on that all the great powers of the world had taken over small, weak nations in order to achieve their success. Our country had been built up since it’s formal creation and was now poised to become one of the most powerful and formidable in the world. The general desire for war could have been there (possibly just to show off how great our nation had grown), but I think all other reasons for war lead to the overall one, which was that we wanted to imperialize. This may come out bad, but I think the bombing of the Maine could not have come at a more perfect time. I think at the time we were looking for a viable excuse to go to war, other than just saying that we wanted to finally turn into an imperialist nation, and when the bombing of the Maine happened we just rolled with it. Now that we had finally found our excuse for war, we could finally imperialize our first nation and get ourselves over that hump. For example, two little elementary students are dating and ere they have just reached that awkward point where they both want to hug each other, but neither is willing to do it yet. Once one of them finally just does it, they can hug all the time and it won’t be weird! This is what we were looking for. We used “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!” as an excuse to get that first hug in there, and now we figured it wouldn’t be weird if we started hugging all the time! We could finally get labeled as an imperialist nation and get on par with the other great powers of the world.
Calvin G.
On question about unilever. I think that it is a monopoly in its own right. Monopolies usually acquire every business that is in the same business, like a chip company taking over another chip company. Unilever is taking over almost everything ranging from everything. They have control over Axe to Lipton, and Vaseline to Dove. They have branched out to become extremely successful and I think by taking over the head or leading companies of tons of different industries, they have become a monopoly. I don’t think it is dangerous because a president and branch of authority probably head each different company. The Unilever probably only takes care of the main problems like budget and controls the companies production. I think that if Unilever was a dangerous thing to have around, we would have heard conspiracy theories about how they planned on taking over the world next. Since it is a monopoly, and a quite large one, someone probably wants to get rid of it. But there really is no reason to. Each company it owns is completely different and has a strong competition against others. Dove fights off plenty of soaps and Axe is easily less popular than shampoos like Old Spice. The entire monopoly does what it can to be diverse and though it does have many leading companies in the field, it is not shutting down many other companies, so there is really no reason to split it up. The main reason that it lacks danger, is that the companies that it owns, are basically separate companies by themselves and a just financed and watched by Unilever, they are not products of the large company and they are not eating up anymore.
On question about unilever. I think that it is a monopoly in its own right. Monopolies usually acquire every business that is in the same business, like a chip company taking over another chip company. Unilever is taking over almost everything ranging from everything. They have control over Axe to Lipton, and Vaseline to Dove. They have branched out to become extremely successful and I think by taking over the head or leading companies of tons of different industries, they have become a monopoly. I don’t think it is dangerous because a president and branch of authority probably head each different company. The Unilever probably only takes care of the main problems like budget and controls the companies production. I think that if Unilever was a dangerous thing to have around, we would have heard conspiracy theories about how they planned on taking over the world next. Since it is a monopoly, and a quite large one, someone probably wants to get rid of it. But there really is no reason to. Each company it owns is completely different and has a strong competition against others. Dove fights off plenty of soaps and Axe is easily less popular than shampoos like Old Spice. The entire monopoly does what it can to be diverse and though it does have many leading companies in the field, it is not shutting down many other companies, so there is really no reason to split it up. The main reason that it lacks danger, is that the companies that it owns, are basically separate companies by themselves and a just financed and watched by Unilever, they are not products of the large company and they are not eating up anymore. David B.
Question 13
-If I lived back before the passage of the 19th amendment I would fight for women’s rights. I would do so, because to me, freedom/independence is important. I don’t think it’s fair to be put into a sphere of a house wife and a mother, when you can be seen as so much more. I’ve been told that being a mother is the hardest job around. If women are working just as hard as men, then why were they seen as secondary to man? There are woman out there that are much more insightful than most men, and without that amendment, women’s rights would have been harder to achieve. I wouldn’t go to the extent of risking my life by not eating in the prison, but I would use my right to the first amendment to my advantage. I think that fighting for something you believe is great, but when it gets to a certain point, is enough, enough? I can’t say that I wouldn’t have been so involved because I didn’t live back then. And it would depend on my age. I’m only 15, so voting doesn’t apply to me at all so my opinion isn’t very strong towards it, but if I was older then it would have a different affect on me. The saying “Everyone is entitled to an opinion”, can come into play because everyone should be able to choose what president they want, senator etc. If they don’t like something, woman shouldn’t have had to sit on the bench, while the men were able to play in the game and call off all the plays they wanted to make. In other words, they were the decision makers, and sometimes they didn’t have the best interest on their minds. The party I would have belonged to was the NAWSA because like me, I care deeply about something, but I don’t go all out and I don’t act aggressive on things. I get into things, but only for short periods of time, so I would have gotten bored of it. So starting of not as aggressive, I would want to be in it longer, and work harder.
4. Unilever is nowhere near a monopoly. There are equivalent corporations all over that are similarly organized. as for competition, Unilever does compete with Nestle, P+G, SC Johnson, PepsiCo, and others.
If the quotation marks imply that these competitors can’t stay in business alongside Unilever, it is completely absurd. As for animal testing and child labor, if it is even true as there is no substantial evidence put forth by the question, Unilever isn’t the only corporation doing this.
These kinds of corporations aren’t dangerous to our economy at all. In communications, there are comparable instances that aren’t dangerous to us, like Vicaom, who owns BET, Comedy Central, Nick, MTV, and Paramount. (well maybe the MTV is hurting our intelligence, but that is beside the point). Viacom competes with CBS networks, Fox Networks, and others for a balanced Cable Spectrum. So, to answer the “dangerous” aspect, acting like Unilever is one monolith towering over every corporation is completely absurd. Unilever has competition, and isn’t dangerous. The “racism” argument is a case-in-point example of absurd modern-day political correctness. Cultural standards are much different in India, where “racism” is taking place. having lighter skin there is to them as wrinkle-free skin is to us. It isn’t a matter of race or discrimination. Given, if it were advertised here as it is in India, it would have a different meaning. in response to animal testing, here is no real viable way to test for skin allergies in a synthetic setting, and animal testing only takes place when there is no alternative. Rest assured there would be a much worse effect if someone found out Unilever was using human test subjects.
Question Eight (8)
I don’t believe that helping a country over throw their government is very reasonable, however this is an oppressive governmental system that shows their purpose through violence and murder. President Mubarak is the current leader of Egypt and a/the violent instigator of the country. The people the Egypt want president Mubarak out. In the first place, Mubarak was elected through fraudulent tactics. He has been office for over 30 years and his ruthless behavior is rising in severity as the years go on. He has had his position from 1981 to this very day in 2011. He is a former politician and military leader, and he has the smarts to maintain power in such an economically unstable country. He has now resulted to killing people who want some change in the oppressive system. He may have now stepped down from his position, but a new Middle Eastern conflict rose in Yemen, Libya and Tunisia.
I think that we should aid the rebels of Libya and Yemen and other revolting countries and give them necessary help to overthrow the government. I would advise helping rebels overthrow their government because in their country, they don’t have the luxury of voting someone out of office. In America, we have the privilege to vote standing government officials out of office, which means that an overthrow of government is the only way to resolve the problem. We also need to ensure that our ally Israel, the democracy in the Middle East, remains unharmed by Egypt’s reckless actions.
There is a large downside to this plan of aiding the rebels, first how will we afford this affair since congress indicated today that our national debt is increasing four billion dollars per day. Also, what will happen once the government is overthrown. An example of a rebel affair gone right and then wrong was in 1913, in Mexico, ruthless bloodthirsty general Victoriano Huerte was installed into the president’s chair. Rebels finally pushed him out July of 1914 and hoped for a more reasonable leader, but instead Huerte was succeeded by Venustiano Carranza, another leader who despised of Wilson’s military meddling. My point is, in these unstable revolting countries, you must tread carefully and be cautious with every step we would take to aid the rebels.
If thier was a party similir to the progressive party in the election 2008 oboma vs Mccain, I would vote for Mccain. Every year for the past thirty years there had been a party, the independent party, and the candidate is Ralph Nator. I feel people don’t vote for the independent party because Nator is just a billionare that wants his political opinions to be justified, but with Roosevelt it was a little diffrent. Roosevelt was a prooven politician, being elected before Taft he had a lot of credibility. But with Nator there is none. I would also vote Mccain because I agree with his policies. The policy I agree with most is how he promised to put a lot more into making the automotive industry more promising and better, while Obama didn’t pay much attention to it. I also belive Mccain was wrongly judged because of his party/age. I feel that people don’t trust a republican in offfice because they belive that they have no knowledge of how to set up a sound economey, people think that republicans are just good at going to war. The republican party was wrongly blammed for the collapse of the housing market, which was Bill Clinton and the demoacrats fault because they gave loans to people that had awful credit. In a row if I had to choose id pick Mccain, obama, the the third party because this country doesn’t need reform it needs a better economey. I would also vote for Mccain over Omama because Obama wasn’t really born in america and a lot of people vote for him for all the wrong reasons.
In response to #15
I believe that the American people were so resistant to the great war because of a couple of reasons. First of all war is never a good thing, and with reports coming back from Europe, both armies were losing men in vast numbers, greater then in any previous war, these reports were instilling fear in the hearts of American citizens. Also Americans did not see a war in Europe as an issue that Americans should have to deal with; they believed America should continue to follow the ideals of Isolationism. America could profit from a war in Europe by acting as supplier to both sides; America could remain neutral and still be able to see the economic uplift created by war. President Wilson got elected to office on the promise of keep us out of a war, it was clear that most America was not exactly eager to go themselves into another war, especially with horrible new weapons that had been introduced during the course of the war, by taking America into the war President Woodrow Wilson is breaking the single biggest promise of his campaign for president, its like lying. If I were an American at this time I would be very apposed to war, because at the age of 16 I know would soon be eligible to be drafted into a war that had nothing to do with me. At this time 300,000 Americans men were evading the war and leaving the country. The only reason the Americans got involved was because we tries to have the best of both worlds, but the British didn’t want us to provide for the Germans and so Germany provoked us into a war in the hope we would side with them. I think it would have been better for the United States to stop supplying and let both sides exhaust themselves to the point they can no longer fight and let the war end with no clear winner, rather then have me go die in a trench in Europe.
Answer to five.
I think that Wilson could have approached the situation in Europe with a different view. Instead of having the point that we weren’t ever going to join the war, but that we were going to profit, was wrong. If we would have avoided any relations with Europe it at all costs, or gone to Europe with the mindset that he would fix the conflicts the result may have been different. Both of these alternatives could have worked. If he had completely ignored any diplomatic relations with any of the countries involved it would have sent a message to the other countries that clearly we want nothing to do with the war. Or if he had decided he wanted to help resolve any disputes peacefully he may have been able to avoid getting sucked into war. I don’t believe that it was his fault that we got sucked into war, because no matter how many times we tell ourselves that we didn’t want to be in the war, this was a lie and America was just yearning for a chance to show the world that they were just as good as everyone else.
I do believe that politicians will make promises during their election campaign that they can’t always, or don’t keep. Sometimes there are just rotten people. They may promise to the voters that they will reduce taxes, or increase school funding, or rid corruption from the government, but many times this doesn’t happen. But there are also people, including Wilson, that make promises of things that they truly wish to do, and are not able to do it. A good example is President Obama. Though he promised to make the economy better, because of circumstances throughout the world, he is more focused on foreign relations then our own country.
Sam
I apologize for the lateness of the blog; I had technical difficulties I had to deal with. However, here is my response to question 15:
When the first World War (at that point called “the Great War”) was first brewing in Europe in the mid-1910’s, most Americans were glad that the war was happening overseas and away from US soil. Many American didn’t feel compelled to get involved with the affairs of the Central and Allied Powers. Many, I believe, just wanted to let the war burn itself out.
Why were the American people so opposed to involvement in the war? Why did many fight against Wilson’s decision to thrust the country into war? The question is no doubt a complex one, but I believe the main reason has to do with the amount of fighting America had seen at this point in their history. Keep in mind that only 19 years earlier, the US had fought in the Spanish-American war, and barely 40 years before that, we fought in one of the worst wars in our history: the Civil War.
Now, 60 years may seem like a long time, but put it into perspective. World War 2 is still considered one of the worst wars in the history of the world, largely because of the obscenely large death toll. This war came to an end in 1945, which was only 65 years ago. The Americans of 1917 still felt the effects of the Civil War, just as we feel the effects of World War 2 today.
That being said, I believe that Americans were just “warred-out” (excuse my crappy wordplay). Not only did they fight in the Spanish-American war, but they also were host to the Civil War. If I were an American, I’d feel similar to this. I’d be asking the question “when is enough, enough?”. There comes a point where you have to sit back and ask yourself if it’s really worth getting into the business of other countries, and that’s exactly what president Wilson should have done.
19. Television is one the most important inventions of the day. The television provides a nationwide connection, political and social news, sports entertainment, and entertainment for all ages. The television was invented by Paul Nipkow in 1884. If they invention was not created we would not be able to learn about problems going on nationally and internationally. It helps us as country bond because we may watch and see the same experiences together. The television also relays news faster than a newspaper. A newspaper may take days and even weeks to get a message from one state to another.
The automobile is also one of the most important inventions because it speeds up everyday activities. If Karl Benz 1885 and Gottlieb Damlier 1885 never came up with their design and the car was never thought of by anyone else then we would still be on horses. The automobile takes us from a to b faster than walking by foot or riding on a horse will ever take us. The automobile was also the starting points for planes and motorcycles.
13.
If I was a suffragist I think that I would have joined the movement. First, it wasn’t fair that they denied women the rights that they were entitled to. Women and men were both citizens so they should have had the same rights. One thing that might have changed my mind was the fact that the women had to go to jail. At first, when they only went for three days, I would have been willing to stand up for what I believed. When they were being sent for six months, then I may have been discouraged. Even though it is important to stand up for what you believe in, I would have been afraid to be beaten because of it.
I think that I would have joined the National American Women’s Suffrage Association because they were the ones who were going to see results. I think that the National Women’s Party’s tactics for getting results were too time consuming. If I was going to put myself in danger for what I believed then I would have wanted the opportunity to see results in my lifetime. The National Women’s Party wanted to try and win support state by state and it would have taken a very long time. Going directly to Washington and pushing for the Susan B. Anthony Amendment would have been much faster. Going directly to the source of where the vote would take place seems like a much more efficient way to get what you want, than working really hard all around the country for a really long time.