# data[].attributes.body
"De Lome’s letter ended up on a desk

at the New York Journal, thanks to the Cuban rebels and their contacts in New York, and of course

the paper gleefully printed its contents with the headline worst insult to the united states in its

history."

# data[].attributes.body
"Yet they have never been lost on those who would lead: ‘An American,’ John F. Kennedy said decades later, ‘by nature is an optimist. He is experimental, an inventor and builder, who builds best when called upon to build greatly.’”

# data[].attributes.body
“...few American politicians have so consistently upheld high standards of personal character, and yet at the same time so consistently been on the wrong side of important issues, as William McKinley.”

# data[].attributes.body
Moral Equivalence: “ McKinley absorbed a sense of spiritual design for his life from his Methodist mother. In this, he resembled Lincoln, convinced that God had important plans for his life, and he professed his Christian faith at age sixteen.” Schweikert argues that McKinley is like Lincoln because they both believe in God.

# data[].attributes.body
“The words of immigrants like Godet, “I love America for giving so many of us the right to dream a new dream,” were as lost on the muckrakers as they were on many modern historians obsessed by class, race, and gender oppression.”

# data[].attributes.headline
Begging the Claim: Relying more on attacking the other argument before strengthening your own. All cats hate people

# data[].attributes.subject
Begging the Claim: Relying more on attacking the other argument before strengthening your own. All cats hate people

# data[].attributes.body
"Like Roosevelt's, James' father had come from wealth, providing the time and leisure to denounce Americans' worship of 'the bitch goddess success,' even though he obsessively pursued money himself" (Schweikart)

# data[].attributes.headline
Strawman of Leftist Intellectuals in Schweikart

# data[].attributes.subject
Strawman of Leftist Intellectuals in Schweikart

# data[].attributes.body
Schweikart reduces the argument of leftist intellectuals by saying they are simply " obsessed by class, race, and gender oppression" (416). However, the leftist argument concerned with more than just oppression.

# data[].attributes.body
Making a statement without presenting proper reason. All cats hate people.

# data[].attributes.body
Red Herring: “Ida McKinley spent her days secluded in her room, entirely miserable. When in public, she was prone to seizures and fainting, perhaps an undiagnosed narcolepsy; a platoon of doctors—legitimate and quacks—never managed to control her condition. Yet the Major could continue a conversation right through one of Ida’s seizures as though nothing had happened.” Schweikert goes off on a tangent that does not relate to his argument.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slippery Slope: Assuming there is only one extreme outcome to a situation. Because it’s raining hard, I’m going to crash the car.

# data[].attributes.subject
Slippery Slope: Assuming there is only one extreme outcome to a situation. Because it’s raining hard, I’m going to crash the car.

# data[].attributes.body
"To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins ... is to do wrong.... let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings" - Directly attacks poor people

# data[].attributes.body
“...providing the time and leisure to denounce Americans’ worship of “the bitch-goddess SUCCESS,” even though [William James] obsessively pursued money himself.” Attacking William James and calls him a hypocrite instead of his ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
“The new government sent a treaty of annexation to Washington, but the lame duck Harrison forwarded it to the Senate.” Schweikert attacks Harrison with an insulting epithet.

# data[].attributes.body
Schweikart generalizes the European perspective of America, claiming that "as always," Europeans underestimated American military strength. Schweikart only uses one example of naval conflict against Spain to support his claim.

# data[].attributes.body
Begging the Claim: “Operating under such assumptions, overseas expansion—whether in Hawaii, Panama, or Cuba— could prove only beneficial to whatever people were assimilated. Consequently, the era of American imperialism could just as easily be relabeled the era of optimism.” schweikert assumes this type of moral thinking is accepted by all as a fact, when in reality, it definitely is NOT.

# data[].attributes.body
“If things were so bad, why did people so desperately try to get here?” Schweikert argues that people moved to America because of the prosperity it offered, however, he fails to ignore the conditions of other countries as push factors instead of solely America’s pull factor as a reason.

# data[].attributes.body
“The excesses of the Gilded Age, both outrageous and mesmerizing, concealed, as most people knew, a widespread prosperity generated by the most amazing engine of growth ever seen.” He uses the statement "as most people knew" instead of proving his claim.

# data[].attributes.body
"The year 1893 saw the biggest economic crisis in the country's history."

# data[].attributes.headline
Ad Populum: Relying more on emotions to strengthen an argument, while failing to provide a logical element based on facts. “Please don’t give me an F because I am sad.”

# data[].attributes.subject
Ad Populum: Relying more on emotions to strengthen an argument, while failing to provide a logical element based on facts. “Please don’t give me an F because I am sad.”

# data[].attributes.body
Blacks began to settle in Harlem in 1902, and over the next two decades, Harlem got both blacker
and poorer.

# data[].attributes.body
Just because there is one outlier does not mean all others are the same.

Because Bob surfs with no pants, all humans surf with no pants and should be banned from the beach.

# data[].attributes.headline
Either/Or: There can be a variable amount of outcomes, not just black or white. “I’m going to ruin my future if I don’t get in to the college”

# data[].attributes.subject
Either/Or: There can be a variable amount of outcomes, not just black or white. “I’m going to ruin my future if I don’t get in to the college”

# data[].attributes.headline
Ad Populum- Christian Pride in Schweikart 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ad Populum- Christian Pride in Schweikart 

# data[].attributes.body
Schweikart contrasts "the mainstream of traditional biblical teaching" with "new wave of cults" (Schweikart 415). This appeals to "traditional Christian" values and rallies the holders of those values against these new cults based on emotion.

# data[].attributes.body
"It was the Depression of 1893 that propelled Eugene Debs into a lifetime of action for unionism and socialism."

# data[].attributes.body
Zinn quotes Russell Conwell, stating, "Let me say here clearly .. . ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. That is why they carry on great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them." Because Conwell insinuates that honesty causes wealth, rather than merely correlating the two, this state constitutes a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Irish, still recalling the hatred against them when they arrived, began to get jobs with the new political machines that wanted their vote."

# data[].attributes.body
"To escape the prehensile clutch of these monsters, constitutes a standing challenge to organized labor for 1893."

# data[].attributes.body
states that "How could (the supreme court) be neutral between rich and poor when its members were often former wealthy lawyers, and almost always came from the upper class?" which is attacking the members of the court, and not its actual decisions and actions

# data[].attributes.body
"[Grover Cleveland's election] took the usual form of election campaigns, concealing the basic similarity of the parties by dwelling on personalities, gossip, trivialities."  Zinn only supports this decision by providing a quote by Henry Adams that essentially says this in different words.

# data[].attributes.body
Zinn talks of the corruptness of railroad companies by talking about the vile beginnings of J.P. Morgan. No t only is it irrelevant to railroad companies, but it acts only to distract as he later explains how Morgan brought stability to the economy. If railroad companies are so awful, explain it rather than give a distracting acount.

# data[].attributes.body
Working Conditions were emphasised in Zinn, but that does not mean that they caused the riots by the laborers. The riots had more reasoning behind them, including wages, hours, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
"It was something
Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle could not explain: if things were so bad, why did people so desperately
try to get here?" (Schweikart 411).
I think that this is Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, or at least some kind of variation of that fallacy, where he's saying that because x ending up happening, therefore y could not have happened prior.
-Bland

# data[].attributes.body
Zinn states, "Senator John Sherman, author of the Act, explained the need to conciliate the critics of monopoly: 'They had monopolies... of old, but never before such giants as in our day. You must heed their appeal or be ready for the socialist, the communist, the nihilist. Society is now disturbed by forces never felt before.'" Here, Sherman insinuates that the United States has two options available to it, yet more existed (ex. the course of action the United States ultimately pursued, avoiding socialism and denying the requests of workers.

# data[].attributes.body
"the theories of Darwin, Freud, and Marx convinced people that only those things
one could prove through experimentation were valid—despite the fact that Darwin, Marx, or Freud
had never proven anything scientifically." (Schweikart 414). Instead of providing evidence for the incorrectness of these theorists, he just claims they were wrong without evidence. Although Freud was wrong about many things, Darwin's theory later came to be crucial to the scientific community. Marx, meanwhile, was more of a social scientist whose theory cannot be proven definitely wrong or right.

# data[].attributes.body
You make an argument that equates certain aspects to your argument that are unfair and not logical.

Because Hitler had a mustache, mustaches are bad.

# data[].attributes.body
states that "Undoubtedly, Populists, along with most white Americans, had racism and nativism in their thinking." Even though he uses "most," he still generalizes white Americans of the time

# data[].attributes.body
You attack a person and not their argument. "You smell like beef"

# data[].attributes.headline
Ad Hominem- socialists/ communists as a dog whistle for things I don't like

# data[].attributes.subject
Ad Hominem- socialists/ communists as a dog whistle for things I don't like

# data[].attributes.body
Sc "that short-circuited the socialists and dumbfounded the communists" (Schweikart 414). Instead of attacking their arguments directly, Schweikart subtly attacks their character by calling them a socialist.

# data[].attributes.body
When one provides an emotional, relatable statement while it lacks the logic and credibility a strong argument needs.
Where is your APUSH pride?

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence that is irrelevant and not related to the argument is used. You say we should go to the aquarium, but my friend once fell in the tank

# data[].attributes.body
Zinn references "rags to riches stories". He mentions some cases where it is possible (Rockefeller), but also argues that some people who are poor may stay poor forever no matter how hard they work. "John D. Rockefeller started as a bookkeeper in Cleveland, became a merchant, accumulated money, and decided that, in the new industry of oil, who controlled the oil refineries controlled the industry."

# data[].attributes.body
You are oversimplifying. There are more than two possible outcomes.
I can either get all As or fail.

# data[].attributes.body
You must prove they are evil before using it in your argument.

Stalin was a bad dude.
BUT WHY?

# data[].attributes.body
Just because B followed A does not mean A caused B.
My mirror broke this morning so that is why I failed my test.

# data[].attributes.headline
Genetic Fallacy: Automatically judging something or someone based on their past/origins.

# data[].attributes.subject
Genetic Fallacy: Automatically judging something or someone based on their past/origins.

# data[].attributes.body
- If his dad was an alcoholic, he will be too.

# data[].attributes.body
The first thing that happens does not have to directly lead to the last. I ate pizza and then later that night I went to jail.

# data[].attributes.body
Stating a claim and restating it instead of supporting it
My dog is the cutest because of his cute face.

# data[].attributes.body
Inadequate points are made, not accounting for the outliers or those that do not abide to the point that is being made.

Arguing that all politicians are corrupt, therefore ignoring the population that is not.