Join a journey through danger and sacrifice in Pittacus Lore's "I am Number Four"

You are one of the nine left of your kind. You are on the run from a terrorizing species willing to do whatever they can to catch you. You are dangerous, deadly, and feared. You are a Garde. If you love adventure, action, and suspense, you will love the book “I am Number Four” written by Pittacus Lore. This is one of my favorite books of all time. The story takes place in America where a boy is on the run from the deadly Mogadorians. They boy is a Garde, and he is one of the last of his kind. The Mogadorians and the Grade have been battling for many years but after the Mogadorians overthrew the Garde’s precious home, the last of their kind have been on the run on Earth. The boy seeks to find the others so they can defeat the Mogadorians, and their powerful leader Setrikas Ra. The Garde must stay under the radar, harness their powers, and learn what great power comes from numbers and love. If you love science-fiction, adventure, and the true powers of friendship, join the garde in this baffling and adventurous tale. If you love intensity, I recommend the fantastic book, “I am Number Four.”

Was industrialization worth the cost?

The ending total results of Industrialization were not worth the costs. Industrialization even though it ended with a somewhat good result had so many bad effects while in the making.

First of all Industrialization polluted the environment. In a photo by the Detroit Publishing Company it shows how the growth of factories made huge stacks of smoke polluting the air, because of this pollution in the air cities needed streetlights to see in the day and many people got very sick. Another effect of this pollution is that it infected streams and plants and animals near these streams died.

      In an informational poster by Lewis Wickes Hine it shows how humans became “junk” through child labor. Children were forced to work with low wages during this time. Also because children were working all of the time to make money their education was taken away from them. Without much money and no education this labor basically strippes these kids from a good future.

      Finally, an accident report by Crystal Eastman shows how many deaths there were due to work in the industrialization period. When industrialization was at it’s height year there were 526 deaths and in three months of that period there were over 500 injuries. If you lived during this time how would YOU feel if you or a family member died due to work? These deaths would have devastated families, and money, or any sort of payment and result can not repay the families who have lost someone.

 Despite the good results of the end result, all of these problems made Industrialization not worth it's costs.

Was it Worth the Cost?

Industrialization was a time when many factories were being built and when new technologies were being made. But were the new technologies worth the price? No, I think that the new technologies were not worth the price. First, kids were working hard and not getting paid well instead of being in school or having fun. A poster by Lewis Wickes Hines (1913 - 1914), shows and informs people about kids working in factories and how it turns them into human junk. It shows the process of kids working in the factories. Factories bribed kids into working for them by getting them started with high wages and then they turn the kids into human junk. Instead kids should be playing or learning. New technologies hurt many kids by putting them into low wages and the technology was definitely not worth the cost. Second, factories produced lots of smoke and that hurt the environment. When the factory population was growing during the time of industrialization, it started to really hurt the environment. The picture of Factory Smokestacks by the Detroit Publishing Company shows how much smoke it lets off into the environment. The smoke goes into rivers, swamps and wetlands. The thick smoke also hurt people's lungs and bodies, it also made people sick. New technology was definitely not worth the cost of smokestacks and ill people. Lastly, many accidents took place in factories. In many of the factories during industrialization, many accidents took place. From an accident report from Eastman Crystal (1916), it talks about how “526 men were killed by work-accidents in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.” Industrialization had many problems and had killed many people. New technologies were not worth the cost of many deaths of people in the work industry. New technology was definitely not worth the cost.

Industrialization... a Loss For Everyone

The small benefits that industrialization posed were not worth the terrible and inexcusable costs for many reasons. A poster made by Lewis Wickes Hine (1913-1914) shows the negative effects that industrialization had on children all across America. Industrialization revoked child labor and this informational poster shares the negative impacts of child labor. Child labor forced children into many harmful jobs that resulted in many injuries and sometimes death. The poster explains how employers would lure children to work with them by proposing high wages to them. Their wages quickly dropped and their lack of education made people believe that they were “junk” because they had no future along with no education. Nothing is worth a child’s life, future, or education so small benefits of industrialization were not worth the costs of child labor. Industrialization affected the environment as well. In a picture published by the Detroit Publishing Company, smokestacks tower above buildings as they pollute the air in New York from 1890 to 1901. The thick smoke that penetrated the air made citizens and wildlife sick as well as ruined the beautiful look of the city. In other instances, industrialization caused air pollution that was so heavy, that some cities needed to turn street lights on during the day so people could see. Not only did industrialization pollute the air, but it polluted the lungs of people and animals. The smoke caused diseases that raided people's bodies. No living thing should die because of air pollution and industrialization caused terrible air pollution. In this instance, small benefits of industrialization were not worth the costs of air pollution. In addition, industrialization killed and injured many people because of work related accidents. An accident report written in 1916 explains the amount of deaths in one year that all resulted from industrialization. In just one year, 526 men were killed from accidents which were caused by industrialization. Also, Allegheny County lost more than 500 hundred work men a year and most of those workers were young, skillful, and strong. These deaths could have been avoided if industrialization had been stopped. When workmen died, their families were sometimes left with nothing because no one was working or bringing in money for food, shelter, or any other essential items. The deaths of these workmen didn’t only affect them and their families, but all of society as well. Other families became worried about their loved ones who could also fall victim to industrialization. Society should never be ruined or distorted by anyone or anything, so the benefits of industrialization were not worth the costs in this situation. Overall, the small and over rated benefits of the industrialization were not worth lives being taken, illnesses being spread, the environment being destroyed, and air being polluted. Industrialization may have its benefits but none of them were even close to being worth the costs.

The price was not right

I do not believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs. In a report about industrial accidents in 1916 it says in 3 months there were over 500 deaths in philadelphia that were Industrial related accidents. This shows that it was very dangerous to work in factories even as an adult. Since there were more factories popping up because of the inventions in the industrial revolution that meant more deaths and industrial related accidents. Likewise in a poster “Making Human Junk” it shows the affect Child labor in the industrial revolution had on children. It says that they were good at first and had good wages but soon it started to drop they got lower wages and wouldn’t have a different future they would just be stuck there because they wouldn’t know how to do anything else because they had to work for their entire childhood just to be able to get food on the table. Another reason for why the benefits were not worth the cost were in a  photograph taken by the Detroit publishing company, shows three factories giving off a lot of smoke. This causes a lot of problems first off it was pollution that was being given off by the factories which went into the air polluting it. This pollution also caused other problems. Since there was so much pollution that in big cities they needed streetlights to see during the day. Pollution was one of the biggest problems in the Industrial revolution, because it is still a problem today. Pollution is what is causing global warming and it all started because of the industrial. If we didn’t have the industrial revolution and reduced the pollution being given off then global warming would not be a problem today. In conclusion those are the reasons for why I think that the Industrial revolution benefits were not worth the cost.

Was it worth the cost?

In my opinion I say that i  do not believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs.
Around 1913 and 1914 the factories it started getting harder and harder for the kids and many of them where getting sick and dirty

At the factories when people were working in them gas and smoke was around the city because of the factories

It talks about for industrial accidents and it is bad.

Because factories did bad things to the cities and made kids.
The acciedent report was a bad thing it was on July 1st 1900s to July 30rd 1907 526 men died from working accidents in factories

It Wasn't Worth it!

I strongly believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth not the costs. Child labor, pollution, and injuries/deaths have all been outcomes of industrialization, and this proves why I feel that the benefits were not worth the costs. According to Making Human Junk, it shows how they are making the kids work instead of having an education and a normal life. It shows how industrialization is bad, and children are suffering and unhappy. Although these new technologies might be useful to have, children are suffering and working constantly which is unfair to them. To add on, in the excerpt the Accident Report, it explains how hundreds of men were injured and killed by work accidents throughout 1906-1907. Industrial accidents were happening constantly and it was not worth badly injuring/killing people only because of new inventions. Lastly, the photograph of factory Smokestacks in New York shows factories producing pollution. The pollution shown in the image is spreading and damaging the air, causing harm to not only people, but trees, plants, and animals too. I feel that industrialization was not worth the price because it is harming the earth, which is more important than new inventions. Overall, I feel that there were many things that were not worth the costs of new technologies.

Industrial Revolution: Product Prices Worth Paying?

There were many things that made the Industrial Revolution great, but still many things that made it terrible. Though there were the new inventions and things that still affect the world today, there were still many things that had went wrong. There was child labor, which was a huge problem, there were 526 people dying from one workplace in a year, and there is also pollution from factories ruining the health of people that live near them.

The industrial revolution was something that had many costs, but the question is, were the prices worth paying? Yes, there were benefits, and yes, there were harms. The disadvantages were massive though. For example, Harry Reece created a poster in 1913. It was titled “Human Junk.” It showed how child labor can ruin the lives of young children, turning them into “junk” that had no future and low pay. Reece was not wrong, however. The lives of children were tough, due to the industrial revolution. Because of the high demand for new products, the children had to work long hours. No matter the amount of work they did, they still got the same low pay. These kids resemble junk because they have close to nothing to look forward to in life.

The problems with the industrial revolution didn’t stop there though. There was still all of the pollutions and harms to the environment. Detroit Publishing Co. Took a picture of smokestacks from factories. Not only do they make for a bad view out your window, but they also can make for bad health. Because of all of the smoke from factories with new machines from the industrial revolution, people can breathe in the smoke and get very sick. These were big problems already, with the huge amount of immigrants that had just arrived, it was already hard enough to find fresh air to breathe.

Although there are the topics about the industrial revolution harming children and the environment, these aren’t the only thing that were impacted. There is already dangers in the environment because of the smoke, but there is also the fact about safety and security. The article titled “industrial accidents in Pittsburgh”, written in 1907, is a report on how many people have gotten injured and killed in workplace accidents. Although there are many new things, and interests for new technology, many people died in the making of these. Apparently, in a Pittsburgh workplace, in one year there were 526 deaths. 17 out of those people weren't even sent to the hospital. This is not only a risk to workers safety but also a risk to the economy with so many people dying.

All of these prices are a lot to pay. The environment and society can’t afford them! Even though many different amazing things came from the industrial revolution, some of them were not worth the cost that America had to pay. There are problems from child labor, to over 500 people dying in a year from work, to pollution from factories ruining the health of people living in the areas. These are a lot to pay for, and I don’t think that some of the prices are affordable for the environment.

no, money during industrialization was not worth the cost.

  The Industrial revolution did have a big impact on our country, but if you dig just a little bit deeper was it worth it. I think the industrialization wasn’t worth the tons of money that was spent. Poster by Lewis Wickes in 1913 to 1914, Making human junk supports about how industrialization is bad because it’s facts support the process from when young children start out looking good at first, but throughout it all, children were used of for their work. Human Junk poster showed the big impact of child labor. Likewise, The image of Smokestacks by Detroit Publishing Company in 1890 to 1901 purpose is to show what industrialization did to the environment and due to all the polution put in the air, more money was spent. This I feel is unnecessary. Lastly, “The pittsburgh survey” written in 1916 shares the reasoning behind it all about the accidents that happened during the time of the industrial revolution. In addition, since accidents were caused, it made less people want to work and therefore shares and shows why spending all of the money in the industrial revolution was not worth the cost. For these reasons shared from Making Human Junk, The Photograph of factory smoke, and the Accident report, I therefore conclude that I don’t think spending the money wasn’t worth the costs.

Was it worth the cost

I believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs. In the coming our way ad People find more writers and more helpful than ever people demanding typewriters. This industry is a new way of making money and jobs are found for people that are jobless. In addition it was very efficient to companies for writing papers with the typewriters. in the interview technology is growing and making everybody surprised they have so much new products for what we have today. In the kids on bikes, Industry's making more stuff more than ever. The bikes make the hard working kids have fun with bikes.

Was it Worth the Time, Effort, and Money?

The benefits of the new technologies were worth the cost. At that time writing was the only way to have contact with other people other than talking. They had typewriters back then but when a new and improved faster typewriter came it helped people with business, and faster communication. It helped business by working quicker and more efficient instead of a typewriter that went slow. With a faster typewriter it made things go quicker so that people had less work to do. If there was an emergency people would send letters. Imagine if you had twice as much of speed it would go a lot quicker.

On the other hand new innovation brought enjoyments for people. In a Detroit Publishing Company, a photo with kids pose with their new bicycles and tricycles. With the innovation that happened people got new enjoyments and got to explore the outside more.

As a society people had to walk everywhere. There was no way to get around other

than horses. At one point people decided they wanted cars. In the Harry Reece

article, he was blown away about how you can get around by electricity.

This helped the society by getting to places quicker whenever you want. In addition, it

helped people get to work, or go see other people. Likewise it helped people do daily

chores and or activities.

Was it worth the cost of death

The Industrial Revolution was worth it because one generation of people were worth many generations of new tecnology.In the interview Harry Reece is amazed at the new technology in the city like the trolley car. The interview shows that the industrial revolution had many great new inventions that were worth the cost of child labor and pollution. Harry Reece thought that the new trolley car invention was breathtaking and it was. Even though they might have been made with child labor it was worth it. THe trolley car affects people because it is a faster way of traveling. This will cause people to be able to go to places quicker than walking. Another example of the industrial revolution was worth it was that many of people got the technology in their own home. Like the kids in the photo. These kids have bikes. To have a bike is a new means of transportation for everyone. So this affects people as well because it is also a new way to travel so people can get places faster. THe last example of the industrial revolution being worth it was the typewriter add which was good for businesses who sold typewriters because they would get more money for the type writer. The typewriter add was to advertize the technology so that people will buy it from the company. These were reasons why the Industrial Revolution was worth the cost.

Industrialization- Not Worth the Cost

The benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs. According to the article “Polluting the Environment,” power plants, steel mills, and factories produced so much pollution. The pollution became so heavy that cities needed streetlights in order to see. This shows that industrialization was polluting the environment, causing many problems. It was unhealthy to live with polluted air, so therefore many people got sick. Because industrialization was harming the environment, it was not worth the cost. In a poster illustrated by Lewis Wickes Hine (1912-1914), children are doing labor in factories instead of playing and going to school. In child labor, the children don’t get any freedom and are abused. The poster shows how the children are at first, and the effect. The effect is that they look miserable, and they are very dirty. The photographer was trying to show the impact of child labor. This shows that people were taking advantage of children. In this case, industrialization was not worth the cost. An excerpt written by Eastman Crystal (1916) shows how industrialization was not worth the cost. Multiple men have lost their lives in industrialization during work accidents. According to accident report it states, “By industrial accidents, Allegheny County loses more than 500 workmen every year.” This shows how many accidents are caused in the factories and work areas and how many people are affected by this. Industrialization was not worth all these men's lives lost. For these reasons, industrialization was not worth the cost.

Was it Worth the Cost?

I do not believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs. New technology was not worth the cost because of child labor, pollution, and accidents, caused through industrialization. A photograph by Lewis Wickes Hines (1913-1914), informs society on the impact of child labor. Employer’s lure children with high wages in exchange for work. As the children work they grow bored, dirty, and tired and their wages are lowered, resulting in human junk. Likewise, when factories grew as the industrial revolution continued, pollution swarmed the skies, killing plants and animals, and people could only see during the day with help of a street lamp. The pollution produced from factories also caused diseases such as typhoid fever. The constant increase of pollution also harmed pure water springs, waterfalls, and swamps. Also, an article by Crystal Eastman (1916), explains that 526 men were killed through work accidents and over 509 men were put in hospital because of severe injuries. These men were working in factories to support their families and when they died, what were their families supposed to do? The industrial revolution was not worth losing lives. These men didn’t deserve to die through work. In conclusion, industrialization was not worth pushing children through child labor, pollution, and accidents. I do not believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs.

Was Industrialization Worth The Terrible Costs?

I strongly do not believe that industrialization was worth the costs. There were many terrible costs of industrialization. In particular, the article “Polluting the Environment” informs readers of how ecosystems and cities lost many innocent lives from just industrialization. In the second paragraph of “Polluting the Environment,” the article tells us that iron sulfates were produced by chemicals from coal mining, which were the cause of death of plants and animals in the surrounding areas. In cities with poor sanitation, typhoid fever and other diseases spread throughout the city due to sewage entering the water supply. So far, we’ve learned that industrialization killed animals and spread dangerous diseases. The report “The Pittsburgh Survey,” by Crystal Eastman, includes facts and numbers on the impact of industrialization and how it took too many lives of men from work-accidents. It states that 526 men were killed in work-accidents from July 1, 1906-June 30, 1907. The text proves that industrialization was the cause of one too many deaths. To add on to that, Making Human Junk was a poster made by Lewis Hines (1912-1914) about the process of turning children into “junk.” Making Human Junk informs others on how industrialization has stripped the chance of freedom and education from children and ruined their future. It ruins their future because during the time they spent in the factory working is time taken away from being in school. When they grow older they won’t have a basic understanding of anything except factory work, which would be useless to them because you don’t make much money from working in a factory. So to conclude, industrialization wasn’t worth the cost because the amount of lives lost, the diseases spread, and the children who were forced into child labor.

Was The Harm Worth The Price?

The new technologies of the Industrial Revolution were not worth the cost of all the things that were harmed. During the Revolution there were many factories that children worked at. This was called child labor. In the picture “Making Human Junk” (1913-1914), this picture shows kids going to work at factories and never coming out with an education to do anything when they are older. Children had to work at factories all day and multiple times they got sick because of the working conditions. In addition to the health of other people during the Industrial Revolution there were many car accidents because of the new technologies (cars). From the “Accident Report” by Crystal, Eastman (1906-1907), many men died in car accidents. This happened because the pollution from the factories gave of smoke and the people in the cars couldn’t see the roads. This caused many car accidents and 526 men died. An equally important cause from the Industrial Revolution is pollution. From the picture “Factory Smokestacks” (1890-1901) there is a significant amount of smoke coming off from the new factories. This is bad for the environment because it causes pollution. Pollution is a big factor of harming the environment and ruining the earth. Pollution could harm many things and environments. I think that the new technologies of the Industrial Revolution were not worth the costs.    

Industrialization, Was It Worth It?

After lots of research and analysis I have decided that I will say that I supported the idea of industrialization. In an interview with Harry Reece he talks about how industrialization played a big role in his life. He was saying how he was so enthusiastic when he saw his first trolley. He is for industrialization because it is the new way for the future. It talks about how the trolleys made it easier to get around rather than walking, and it’s much faster. With it being faster you could get to places you want to go at a higher speed than you would walking. My perspective is that the trolley is one of the more impactful inventions because it gave other ideas for new ways of getting around. Likewise, there was an ad created by Wyckoff, Seasmans, & Benedict.  It shows how big of an impact typewriters have on the society. It says how the typewriter is on a bigger demand than ever before. This proves how the country is changing in a positive way as a result of industrialization. It says how there are many different kinds of typewriters. The invention of the typewriters has positively affected business because of the fact that it makes business easier. It makes the business easier because the work that the people would write on a piece of paper they would put into the typewriter, writing takes longer than typing. Also you would get  more work done using a typewriter. Presumably in a photograph by the Detroit Publishing Company there are 3 kids posing with their new bikes, and tricycles. That proves that the kids had enough money to purchase an item that is a little more on the expensive side. This item has a huge impact on the kids because it seems like the kids have a lot of money, and they can have lots of fun. My imput on this is that the kids look like they have pretty good lives right at the time that the photograph was taken at.

Was it Worth it?

I don’t believe that the benefits of new technologies were worth the cost. Communities and wildlife were being affected variously because of these new technologies. Wildlife was effected so atrsosciclouly, that plants animals were killed because the coal miners transferred a certain chemical into streams. When animals and plants would absorb water from the streams there live’s would be put on the line. This incident destroyed ecosystems and killed many plants and animals. In the photograph taken by Detroit Publishing Company (1890-1901) you can see the air consuming smoke which is transferring into the ecosystem and is taking plants and animals lives. Even though these factories are making technology and inventions it’s not fair that these factories are sabotaging the ecosystems and the environment. Plants and  animals should not be treated this way, because without them we would not be here today so, the people then, should have evaluated the situation differently and should have give the plants and animals the respect and appreciation that they deserve. In addition to that, in the poster Making Human Junk the photographer Hine, Lewis Wickes (1913-1914) decided to include that the children had ” No future and low wages” the poster also included that the children lives where “Junk”. This is affecting kids lives and proving that child labor is awful.This is convincing people that when children start to work their whole lives just turn into “Junk” and that they will have no future. Even though technology is so helpful and useful it was not worth the coast of kids lives turning into garbage and kids feeling like they don’t mean anything. Lastly,in the Accident Report it explains that 526 men were killed from the end of June in 1906-and the beginning of July 1907 in Pennsylvania.So many lives were lost during this time period just from people doing their jobs. People lost their lives and family members because of the new technology's. This proves that the benefits of technology's where not worth the coast because hundreds of people died during the industrial revolution and these people were only there to help. It was not fair to the people who worked there butt’s of day in and day out got killed by doing their job. The industrial revolution caused problems in the environment and the society and really messed up people’s lives and that’s why I think the benefits of new technologies were not worth the coast.

Was the Price Right?

The benefits of the Industrial Revolution was not worth the costs. One reason that made the Industrial Revolution not worth the costs was because of pollution. Since many new types of technology was invented during the Industrial Revolution, likewise, there had to be more factories, which meant more people working, and not just adults. Kids as well were hired to work in sweatshops and factories, and because the kids had to work to keep their families alive, they never got any education, which later in life lead to bad and low paying jobs, which is why on this poster, it says that kids are turning into “human junk.” they were in conditions that could kill their fragile bodies, while at the same time, they got an even lower pay! Which now leads us to pollution. Another horrible cost of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution created so many new types of technology, but new technology meant more factories. And more factories meant more pollution. The pollution was taking over the air, making it harder to see, spreading many different kinds of diseases, and causing many deaths. The new technology wasn’t worth taking many people’s lives away from them, when they were working all day, some of the night and having to starve. And aside from humans, pollution also affected the environment. Pollution eliminated oxygen from the air, which wasn’t just the cause of humans dying, but animals too. Many animals died because of this pollution. When animals drank from the streams,they could drink something that may have contaminated the water, and die. For example, one animal species may go extinct, leading to the whole food chain collapsing, and possibly less food for humans to eat. The benefits of the Industrial Revolution was not worth the costs that the people had to pay for it.

Was It Worth the Cost

Industrialization had to many negative affects on society and environment so it was not worth the cost. Showing in the photo “Making Human Junk” the young kids are shown as good material and normal. But when the kids come out of these smoky dirty factories they are shown as “Human Junk”. The kids turned from normal and good material to dirty sacks of smoke. Showing in the photo “Factory Smokestacks” smoke pours out of the new factories into the clean fresh air slowly polluting it bit by bit. With all this smoke and pollution, people needed streetlights to see in the day through all the smoke .According to the article “Industrial accidents in Pittsburgh” over 500 men were killed by in-work-accidents in Allegheny County over three months. These accidents didn’t show that working was dangerous but that industrialization was dangerous. This evidence shows that industrialization wasn’t worth the cost.

Was it worth the Cost?

I do not believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs because of three main reasons that I will show you right now. Child labor had a big impact on the industrial revolution. In a poster by Lewis Wickes hines, it shows how children needed to work instead of getting an education at school. It is a sickening feeling thinking about all of those kids not getting an education just to work and get little pay. In addition to this, an accident report made by Crystal Eastman in 1916 shows how just one factory that killed 526 men. These men got killed for just going to work. Men are putting their lives on the line for doing just a simple thing like weaving threads and other stuff like that. Also, pollution was worse than ever in the U.S. In the photograph made by the Detroit Publishing Company, it shows how bad pollution really was made from factories. People couldn’t see in the middle of the day so they needed streetlights just because of the pollution from the factories. Overall, I do not think that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs.

Was it worth the cost?

The Industrial Revolution was. not worth the cost, many bad things happened during the making and things were being taken advantage. A few reasons why I am against the Industrial Revolution is, child labor, pollution, and many work accidents. These did not pay off because many people were taken advantage and plants, trees, and people died. These examples exemplify how the Industrial Revolution was not worth the cost. In a poster Making Human Junk by Lewis Wickes Heins. This poster shows that kids were used in child labor and treated poorly. Instead of making all of the new technology they could of been learning. This also shows that the owners are saying that they have no future and low wages. It might seem that all of this paid off, but think about how many kids did not have an education and were treated poorly. Another example is a Photograph of the Smokestacks by the Detroit Publishing company. This photograph shows how much pollution there was during the making of the new technology. Plants, trees, and animals die from all of the pollution and. Many things can be made from trees and plants and those things can be more efficient than the new technology that we made from pollution and child labor. The last reason why new technology did not pay off was the accident report by the Pittsburgh Survey. The accident report shows that many men died (526). These men risked there lives to make the new technology and it did not pay off. These men lost there lives for new technology and they got low pay like the children and this was a waste of youth and strength. These examples show that the Industrial Revolution had a big negative impact on many things. As you can see, the Industrial Revolution was not worth the cost and people died trying to make this change and the Industrial Revolution had more negative impacts than positive. Some example of why the Industrial Revolution was not worth the cost were, child labor, pollution, and many work accidents. The Industrial Revolution had a big negative impact and did not pay off if the long run.

Was it Worth the Cost?

I do not believe that the benefits of new technologies from industrialization were worth the costs. Industrialization affected the environment because it caused diseases, and the death of many plants and animals. For example in a poster by Lewis Wickes Hine in 1913-1914 says how kids are brought into child labor. Kids have to work long shifts instead of being regular kids. They don’t get to live a normal life like going to school. It says that they are good material at first but when they go through the process of work  they turn into “junk”.  In addition, industrialization is not worth the cost because they are making these “junk” kids work instead of living a normal life. Furthermore In a photograph taken by the Detroit Publishing company I infer that the smoke that is coming out of the factory will hurt the environment. People, animals and nature get affected by the smoke from industrialization. People can’t see during the day because the smoke spreads and makes it hard to see during the day. Lastly in an accident report in 1916 It says that 526 men were by work accidents. Because of the such bad working conditions and bad equipment people got hurt and even killed from working. In industrialization people get killed. In working you are risking your life. People get these new products from industrialization but on the other hand people die making them.

Total war and seige is this fair

Total war consists of two main details: one, burn everything so your opponent can't use it and two, take all the food and things useful to you. This was used by a Union General  William Sherman. This is super unfair and cruel because in the process of total war they  killed so many people and you should not be able to take others food and burn their stuff down. Siege is also wrong because you surround and then you don't let supplies enter the city or town. These are both wrong war tactics they are not good for the people. These are not fair war tactic no matter what.  

was total war and siege necessary?

I do not think it was ok that total war and and siege were used to make Vicksburg surrender. I think that siege and total war mad General Grant look bad because they kind of took the easy way out and cheated in the battle. I think that the union, the north, should win but I do not think this is the way they should've won the battle. Since they used total war and siege this made a ton of soldiers ill, which is why they had to surrender. Total war and siege is not justified. For this reason,  this is why I think it was a poor decision that siege and total war was used in the civil war.

Is Total War Necessary?

William Tecumseh Sherman was a man who used total war as a strategy. Total war is a strategy that involves destroying all civilian and military resources. During the Civil War, the Union thought that total war was a necessary and smart strategy. I don't agree with the North's choice of using total war as a strategy because many innocent civilians died from lack of resources or from burning building, crops, and railroads. All of these actions were not necessary because the Union could have successfully finished the Anaconda PLan without destroying innocent people's property. Also, the south would get very upset after the war was over because of the Union's strategy of using total war and siege. These two plans were not necessary. Siege is a blockade that blocks off resources and makes armies surrender because of it. These two acts weren't necessary and overall, they were very bad choices.

Siege, necessary or not?

I think, that in the Civil War, the siege wasn't necessary. Yes, I know that we could possibly not be the country we are today without it, but, was it really necessary to kill and suffer so many innocent people? I think that tearing apart the railroads was definitely necessary to win, because of transportation reinforcements for Richmond, but they really didn't need to burn everything in Atlanta, total war wasn't necessary. I think that these harsh tactics were used to win the war were not justified, people were starved to death! Imagine if that was you in Vicksburg, starving to death with no home, because the Union was blocking the Mississippi river, surrounding the town. I think that the siege and Total War were definitely not necessary.

Siege is wrong!

            I do not think that it was necessary to use siege and total war in order for the union to win this war. People were running out of food, they were starving. They also had to live in caves, since their houses were burnt down. I do not think it was okay that they allowed people to go through this, just because they wanted to succeed. They could have used other strategies such as using the anaconda plan, and just fighting to win.

Siege and total War.

I think that siege and total war wasn't necessary in order for the Union to win the war. The Union was attacking normal men, women and children. The southern people suffered by eating rats, mules and tree bark. They also had to sleep in caves because their houses were burnt down. The Union could have just won the war by using the Anaconda Plan and also fighting strongly. Even though the Union hurt and made innocent people suffer, I think they deserved to win the Civil War.

Was it necessary?

I think the siege and total war was not necessary. I don't understand why that would want to ruin towns and kill people. I don't think that they'll have ruined towns to get a victory and ill innocent people. Many people suffered and personally I don't think that this was necessary to siege. That's not necessary to kill so many people. I think it was not right to siege Vicksburg or use total war.

It may be necessary to use siege and total war if no other way will work and it is basically a plan z. I think this because if the union can't do anything else. I do not think that this is justified because they are destroying innocent people's homes and basically murdering them by cutting of their food so they cannot eat. The troubles that the union caused for the confederates and innocent people was just downright harsh and not justified however it may have been necessary.

The Total War tactic is a terrible idea

The Total War tactic was a terrible idea. This was a terrible idea because the civilians are already dying and eating rats. Also, what will this look like after the war? How will they build it back? This was not reasonable because this is not a way to treat people. They are not dead, but they are being tortured with no food or anything. This should be justified because this was not the right way to win or a fair fight.

Was it necessary or justified?

I personally do think using siege and total war was necessary to accomplish the Anaconda Plan, which would play a huge role in winning the war. It had a huge impact and definitely was close to breaking the will of the South. They were successful in controlling Vicksburg and stopping any resources from coming into the South. However, I do not think it was right. Families lost homes and possessions that were very dear to them. Innocent civilians were killed and STARVED TO DEATH. It was cruel and harsh, like torturing someone as they slowly die. I know I may sound confusing, but what I'm trying to say was that it was wrong, but was necessary to win the war.

Sherman Burnin' : Was It Justified?

There were many awful things in the civil war, but one of the worst in my opinion was Sherman's march to the sea. For some background information, he and the Union troops marched from Atlanta, all the way to the sea, burning everything in sight. They took food and crops from fields and burnt whatever they couldn't carry. They broke into homes and took whatever they wanted, and burnt those houses too. I do not think that these tactics were justified at all, because many many civilians died, and became homeless. Well, all of these things happened because of that march to the sea. I know that it is the civil war, and there is lots of violence, but this much is not valid. Although it did help get a Union victory, it was still a very bad strategy in my opinion. Do you think this was justified? I don't. Now, you have to remember the entire point of the Civil war. To bring America together. So to bring America together, they are just tearing it apart even more than it already was before this.

Is There a Better Way?

I think that using siege was not necessary because the Union harmed the civilians and not just the army. I think that it is not justified and that this is not how the won the war, I think that the south did not deserve what the Union did. The Union could have won without siege .I also think that the Union should of just hurt the army and not the civilians because the south did not deserve what the Union did to them. Maybe they should've just cut off the army's supplies so that the civilians would be able to eat and not be involved in the Civil war. I think that they should of not used the siege strategy.       

Justified?

I feel that civilians did not deserve to face siege and total war. Southern civilians are just people and should not of been kept in caves with very few resources. But, in order for the Union to win the war, the city had to be burnt down and civilians and soldiers had to suffer casualties. Then again, Southerners didn't do anything to influence the ways of the army and for that reason, I believe the civilians shouldn't of had to go through this.

Unjustified siege

I think siege and total war was not necessary, and it was not justified. Without siege, the union could have taken over and won the war and could have shown power. People from the south might join the union, but with siege you destroy everything, take from anyone, and that eliminates human rights. The people there have nothing, so they'll want revenge.

Was Siege and Total War Right?

General Grant decided to use siege. In my opinion using siege was a good idea for the position he was in, If you want to win a battle you have to do something big so no one could stop it. When he did that it stopped supplies, weapons, and soldiers from coming in to the south. It was a good idea because then how was the Confederates suppose to fight? It really helped them win the battle by using siege. General Sherman thought by burning everything after him then he would win the battle. He should not of burned everything because there are a lot of people who are residents of the south. Even if he wants to find a way to win the battle he shouldn't of made residents of the south starve because he wanted to win. There were a lot of people there who might of not liked the Confederates but does not have enough money to go to the South. He put a lot of people's life in danger.

There is no point to do a total war like not to  innocent people that is not even fair  

Was Total War, and the Siege bad?

The North put a Siege, and started to do Total War on the Confederates. Total War destroyed all civilian and military resources. I think that it was kind of necessary because I thought back then that the Confederates were terrible. I despised what they stood for. I do think that what the Union did was a little harsh. I wouldn't have killed all of those innocent people, but they got what they deserved. It was a good strategy to win the war. Maybe just dial it down next time. Kill the soldiers not innocent people. If I was a Union  general, I would do the same thing, but only to the Confederate soldiers.

Necessary or unnecessary?

I think that both tactics were unnecessary to win the war. I don't understand why the Union would use siege and total war if they were trying to bring the country together, but instead the Union was bringing the country farther apart. It makes me wonder why we are even fighting the war in the first place. Seige is to cut off off all supplies from entering an area. Personally, I don't think that it is okay to let civilians starve, and all they can eat is rats, tree bark, and other gross things. Total war was destroying all of the civilians resources, and they were left homeless, and possibly even severely injured. That is just not right to me at all if we are fighting this war to bring the country closer together.

Is Siege and Total War Okay?

I think it is not necessary to use Siege and total war because your killing innocent civilians and you don't know if they are even abolitionists or not. I do think that the tactic works because your breaking the whole city and eventually will burn almost all of the south and the union would win the war. The south kind of deserve it but not all of the south, just a little bit of it. Total war means to destroy all military resources and Siege is to cut off all supplies fro entering an area.

Was Total War And Siege Tactics Necessary

I believe that they shouldn't have used these tactics in battle especially total war. I feel total war was really wrong because they are attack people innocent people that are just be living in the south, and they are burning their valuables and houses to the ground without remorse.  This really affected the innocent  because they are making civilians suffer for a war they are not even fighting. Same with siege I mean they are cutting off their food supplies without caring about their lives and just caring about how this helps them in the war. So no its not okay to do this because they are harming innocent lives without remorse and just caring about how it helps them in the war effort.

Siege and total was

I think the siege and total war was necessary because they needed this to win the war. Although People where starving and getting killed the Union needed this to make the South come together again. It is so important for the Union to win because then there would be no slaves and we would be united again and will stay that way. The siege helped the Union because the won that battle of Vicksburg.

John Brown - Murder or Martyr

Slavery was terrible, and John Brown used violence to fight against it. He was known as an abolitionist who led many rebellions to represent what he believed. I think John Brown is a martyr because he died knowing that he stood for what he believed in, which is actually the definition of a martyr. John Brown wrote a letter saying that he hopes his message against slavery will be shared on and that slavery will come to an end. John Brown died December 2, 1859, knowing what he did was trying to end slavery. For this reason, I think John Brown is a martyr.

John Brown Around the Town Killen Now

John Brown the abolitionist was spoken of as a Martyr in the north and a Murderer in the south is not fully summarized, was he a martyr or a murderer. In my opinion he was a murderer. Though John Brown died for his belief in ending slavery. He killed five people in the violence of “Bleeding Kansas”, and later in 1859 infiltrated the national armory and took hostage 60 people resulting in today's terms as a Terrorist. He later died on December 2 1859. The evidence against John Brown makes me believe that John Brown was a murderer.

John Brown, Martyr or Murderer?

Martyr means someone who is killed because of what they believe in. I think that this is what John Brown was, a martyr. He died standing up for himself and what he thought was right, even though he knew he may give up his life for this. He wanted to risk his life for the lives of other slaves. When John Brown was sentenced to death, he wrote, “I, John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” John Brown believed that slavery needed to be finished, and he took matters into his own hands, with violence. John Brown was a martyr because he died standing up for what he believed in and thought was right.

Martyr vs. Murderer, The True Story Behind John Brown's Attacks

John Brown is considered a martyr in the north and a murderer in the south, but I consider John Brown as a martyr. The reason that I consider John Brown to be a martyr is because he was killed because of his beliefs and religion and that is the definition of a martyr. John Brown is also a martyr because he had so much passion about abolishing slavery that he was willing to risk his sons’ lives and he was willing to die for his cause. He may have killed people, but he only killed them to support his beliefs. Also, John Brown considered himself God's chosen person to completely abolish slavery. Also, he put so much heart and hard work into making a plan to steal guns from a armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia. He even held 60 citizens hostage just to support his cause. My final piece of evidence, that supports my opinion, is that John Brown wrote a famous quote right before he was executed. He said, “I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” He is saying that the only way slavery will ever be abolished is to start a war that supports both the north’s opinion and the south’s opinion. This war would become the Civil War. This evidence proves that John Brown was just an extreme abolitionist who that it was his duty to eliminate slavery. John Brown only killed because of his beliefs.

John Brown, the Martyr that Murdered.

I think that John Brown was a martyr. He may have killed many people, but he did that to save other people. He had the courage to stand up against the entire state, and attempt to save slaves. I think that even though he killed many people in the process, and no slaves joined the uprising, he raised awareness. Even though he did not physically succeed in the way other people might have seen it, such as even though he got hanged, he succeeded by raising awareness.

Is John Brown a Murderer or Martyr?

John Brown is a murderer because in Bleeding Kansas in 1856, he led an attack on pro-slavery men in Pottawatomie Creek, Kansas, murdering five men and boys. John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry, Virginia. John Brown was an extreme abolitionist who felt he had a personal mission to eliminate slavery. I think that John Brown was a murderer because he killed men that had a different belief than him.

John Brown the Martyr but, not the Murderer

I think John Brown was a martyr because he was fighting for a better cause then what the South fought for. In my opinion I think that the South was wrong and they were not thinking of the effects of slavery. They thought slavery was a way to earn money and crops. They were using innocent people to work 24/7 and they did not have the qualities that they should have either.

John Brown and his rebellion fought against this cause. He thought working slaves was a terrible thing. He was going to the Harper Fairies Arsenals which was a big contribute to the South. He went with four of his sons and they were all willing to die for the cause. They successfully made their way in but, in the end only John Brown was the only one that made it out. He did not make it out safe he was sentenced to death for treason. He died on December 3, 1859. He predicted that there will be a war against slavery and for slavery.

Martyr or Murderer? What do You Think John Brown Is?

I think John Brown is a martyr because he wanted slaves to be free and he fought for his beliefs. That’s what a martyr is. He fought for slaves to be free. He should be honored for Harpers Ferry because he demonstrated grit, he did not give up even though he failed. He was fighting for what he wanted. He was not a follower, he showed grit. The abolitionist were inspired by John Brown that he was supported the anti-slavery cause.

John Brown, Harpers Ferry Murderer

I feel that John Brown was a murderer not a martyr. I say this because John Brown was an American that thought that slavery should be banned. He was an extremist. This meant that he would kill for what he believed. As I said he believed that slavery should be banned and that it was horrible. He believed in this so much that again he would kill people. Like one time he and his 5 sons raided the Harpers Ferry arsenal in the south. He wanted to raid it for the rifles in the arsenal so he could arm slaves and create an army to rise up against the south. During this raid he killed the guards there and some town folk he also fought against him. The only reason he didn’t complete his objective was there were no slaves to come and help him grab rifles, and soon enough the marines showed up and killed his 5 sons and captured him. These actions were not the only actions he did that showed him being a murder.When Kansas territory was choosing if it was a free or slave state using popular sovereignty, he killed people who wanted Kansas territory to be a slave state. Even though slavery was a bad thing and John Brown wanted to get rid of it, I still say he was a murderer because he could have taken less murderous actions.

The Martyr

I believe that John Brown is a martyr. I think this because after watching the video it explained that John Brown believed that God chose him to help abolish slavery. According to Explore 5, it explains that John Brown felt it was his personal mission to end slavery. It was his own belief that he had to stop slavery. Unfortunately, part of his belief included murdering 5 men, and that’s what caused him to be killed, but that’s what makes him a martyr! That is why I believe that John Brown is a martyr, because when he stuck up for his beliefs they hung him.

John Brown murderer or martyr

John Brown is a murderer because he murdered many people and he could have been like Martin Luther King Jr, and had peaceful negotiations. However, he decided it would be better to slaughter others and that is wrong. It also is cruel even if it is against slavery. There is a different way like others have tried to do in the past, and doing it peacefully could have ended slavery and there go the whole civil war. And it is not okay to kill for any reason. He killed many people and that is literally the definition of murdering. So he is a murderer.

Is John Brown a Martyr or Murderer?

I believe John Brown is a Martyr because he was an abolitionist,  sided with the North, and killed because of his beliefs. He believed slavery was wrong and that union should be free of slaves. On the night of October 16th, 1859, John Brown and his sons led an uprising. His goal was to collect all of the rifles from the arsenal and kill anyone standing in his way. He believed he was god’s chosen one and for that reason he must kill for his cause. The next morning, the US Marines arrived. John was captured and sentenced to death. He died December 2nd, 1859. On his execution date, the North flew flags at half mast and church bells tolled. John Brown was remembered as a martyr in the North and a murderer in the South.

Was John brown a Martyr or a Murdurer

I think John Brown was a martyr because he fought for what was right. He thought that he was the chosen one from god. Even though he killed people, he was killing them because they were also doing something bad. John Brown got tried for treason, and got hanged on December 2nd, 1859. Before he died he wrote this letter: I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood”. That means that we need a war to break this up.

John Brown, Murderer or Martyr?

Was John Brown a murderer or martyr? I think John Brown was a martyr, a person who is killed because of their beliefs or religion. John Brown was also an abolitionist, he believed that slaves should be freed and not someone else's property. That is what he believed in. John Brown got killed for his beliefs, not for being a murderer.  

Murderer or Martyr?

Was John Brown a good or bad guy? It really could be argued either way, but I think that John Brown in a martyr. I think that what he was trying to do was abolish slavery. He really had a strong opinion, and was an extreme abolitionist. John Brown wasn’t just going around, killing people for no reason. He was doing it to stand up for slaves rights. It is not right just to treat slaves as, “objects,” and be physically abused because they are humans, just like us. Brown really believed in slave rights, and was a die hard abolitionist. He basically risked his own life to stop slavery. John Brown may have been killed, but he put forth an effort to stop slavery. A martyr is a person who is killed because of their beliefs. John Brown was killed for his beliefs. People may call him crazy, but I think he was a hero.

Was John brown a Martyr or Murdurer

I think John Brown was a martyr because he fought for what was right. He thought that he was the chosen one from god. Even though he killed people, he was killing them because they were slave owners. John Brown got tried for treason, and got hanged on December 2nd, 1859. Before he died he wrote this letter: I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood”. That means that we have to have a war to break this up.

John Brown: Murderer or Martyr?

I think that John Brown is a martyr because i’ve never seen him as a murderer, also because Brown is connected to terrorism for two events in his life, the Pottawatomie raid in the Kansas Territory in 1856 and his raid on Harpers Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia) in 1859. Both involved violence and killing but he did it for the slaves. So i think that John Brown is a martyr.  

Which did John Brown do?

John Brown was a person who stuck up for what he believed in. Not only did he go against his country but he died for his beliefs. I think John Brown is a martyr. In the 1800s people back then would die for their beliefs. I think it is nothing new back then. He did things like anyone else would back then. He killed people for a cause, for a reason. His cause was because he was against slavery. He thought everyone should be equal. He decided to arm slaves to go against slave owners. Now of days you would consider that murder but a lot has changed since the 1800s. John brown was proud of what he did so to him it wasn’t murder it was a protest.

John Brown

John Brown is a martyr, I think this because he killed those people for a good cause. He did it so there would be no more slavery. To me he is a hero. He never gave up and tried hard, but came up short. He was considered an extreme abolitionist. People call him crazy but I call him, strong, and even maybe nice because he did this because he hated that black people were working for no money being physically abused. It’s worth it to kill all of those people because that can end slavery. John Brown felt that god had told him to stop slavery. When he killed those people maybe I was thinking wow he’s crazy, but then I looked into him a little more, and then I agreed why he did it. John Brown died on December 2nd, he was executed. He risked his life for his cause. A martyr means someone who was killed for their beliefs, to me that was John Brown.

Is John Brown a Martyr or a Murder?

I think that John Brown is a martyr because he was killing people for his belief. He did this because John Brown was an abolitionist and he thought that people that owned slaves were wrong. John Brown was killed because he was standing up for what he wanted and what he believed in. He thought that he did the right thing, he believed that there should not be slavery. John Brown was hanged on December 2nd 1859 because of his belief.

Martyr or Murderer? John Brown

I believe that John Brown was a martyr. I think this because it says in a video that god told him to kill people to help the slaves. He is really crazy but he is sticking to his beliefs. He thinks that this is right to kill the people for his beliefs. No people joined him but his five sons. The enslaved people were trying to survive for themselves. It says in the textbook  “I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” He thinks the only way to solve slavery is violence.