Critical Analysis on The Lord of the Flies essays

Critical Analysis on The Lord of the Flies essays Style is a writers characteristic way of writing his or her choice of words, sentence structure, and use of imagery and figurative language. For example, one writer might coin new words, write in long rhythmic sentences and create striking images and metaphors. Another writer may use sentences that are very straight forward and very precise in diction. Still others may create episodes that are so poignant that a reader has difficulty putting them from his mind. One such scene is created by William Golding in Lord of the Flies, shows how the boys have changes from being civilized to being savages. This particular scene is near the end of the novel, where Golding is describing the condition that Ralph is in. All of Ralphs friends has been killed or has went on Jacks side, and now Ralph is fleeing for his life. After Sam and Eric told Ralph that the boys planned to hunt him down and kill him in the morning, Ralph gets in a covert and sleeps there. The next morning, Ralph is awakened by a distance noise of someone coming and was yelling. It was a violation over the seashore and now the next savage answered and the next. Ralph made a big mistake, the night before this hunt started, Ralph had told Sam and Eric where he was going to hide when the boys came looking for him. Ralph thought he could trust Sam and Eric; however, Sam and Eric had been turned into savages and they told Jack where he was hiding. However, the location in which Ralph was hiding was to thick for them to get through. Here Ralph is thing to himself, But what could they do? It would take them a week to break a path through the thicket, and anyone who wormed his way in would be helpless. The only way Jack manages to get him out is to light a brush on fire. When Ralph notices the brushes on fire he darts out of the brush and takes off across the island. Frantic of what to do, Ralph ...

Daniel Websters Seventh of March Speech

Daniel Websters Seventh of March Speech As the United States struggled with the deeply divisive issue of slavery a decade before the Civil War, public attention in early 1850 was directed to Capitol Hill. And  Daniel Webster, widely regarded as the nations greatest orator, delivered one of the most controversial Senate speeches in history. Websters speech was widely anticipated and was a major news event. Crowds flocked to the Capitol and packed the galleries, and his words traveled quickly by telegraph to all regions of the country. Websters words, in what became famous as the Seventh of March Speech, provoked instant and extreme reactions. People who had admired him for years suddenly denounced him as a traitor. And those who had been suspicious of him for years praised him. The speech led to the Compromise of 1850 and helped to hold off open warfare over slavery. But it came at a cost to Websters popularity. Background of Websters Speech In 1850, the United States seemed to be splitting apart. Things seemed to be going well in some regards: the country had concluded the Mexican War, a hero of that war, Zachary Taylor, was in the White House, and newly acquired territories meant the country reached from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The nations nagging problem, of course, was slavery. There was a strong sentiment in the North against allowing slavery to spread to new territories and new states. In the South, that concept was deeply offensive. The dispute played out in the U.S. Senate. Three legends would be the major players:  Henry Clay of Kentucky would represent the West;  John C. Calhoun of South Carolina represented the South;  and Webster of Massachusetts would speak for the North. In early March, John C. Calhoun, too frail to speak for himself, had a colleague read a speech in which he denounced the North. Webster would respond. Websters Words In the days before Websters speech, rumors circulated that he would oppose any sort of compromise with the South. A New England newspaper, the Vermont Watchman and State Journal, published a dispatch credited to the Washington correspondent of a Philadelphia newspaper. After asserting that Webster would never compromise, the news item lavishly praised the speech Webster had not yet delivered: But Mr. Webster will make a powerful Union speech, one which will be a model of eloquence, and the memory of which will be cherished long after the orators bones shall have mingled with the kindred of his native soil. It will rival Washingtons farewell address, and be an admonition to both sections of the country to fulfill, through union, the great mission of the American people. On the afternoon of March 7, 1850, crowds struggled to get into the Capitol to hear what Webster would say.  In a packed Senate chamber, Webster rose to his feet and gave one of the most dramatic speeches of his long political career. I speak today for the preservation of the Union, Webster said near the beginning of his three-hour oration. The Seventh of March Speech  is now considered a classic example of American political oratory. But at the time it deeply offended many in the North. Webster endorsed one of the most hated provisions of the compromise bills in Congress, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. And for that, he would face withering criticism. Public Reaction On the day after Websters speech a leading newspaper in the North, the New York Tribune, published a brutal editorial. The speech, it said, was unworthy of its author. The Tribune asserted what many in the North felt. It was simply immoral to compromise with slave states to the extent of requiring citizens to become involved in capturing fugitive slaves: The position that Northern States and their Citizens are morally bound to recapture fugitive Slaves may be good for a lawyer, but is  not good for a Man. The provision is on the face of the Constitution. True, but that does not make it the duty of Mr. Webster nor any other human being, when a panting fugitive presents himself at  his door begging for shelter and the means of escape, to arrest and bind him and hand him over to the pursuers who are hot upon his trail. Near the end of the editorial, the Tribune stated: We cannot be converted into Slave-catchers, nor  can Slave-catchers operate freely among us. An abolitionist newspaper in Ohio, the Anti-Slavery Bugle, blasted Webster. Quoting the noted abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, it referred to him as the Colossal Coward. Some northerners, especially business people who preferred tranquility between the regions of the nation, did welcome Websters appeal for compromise. The speech was printed in many newspapers and was even sold in pamphlet form. Weeks after the speech, the Vermont Watchman and State Journal, the newspaper which had predicted that Webster would deliver a classic speech, published what amounted to a scorecard of editorial reactions. It began: As to Mr. Websters speech: it has been better praised by his enemies and better condemned by his friends than any speech ever before made by any statesman of his standing. The Watchman and State Journal noted that some northern papers praised the speech, yet many denounced it. And in the South, the reactions were considerably more favorable. In the end, the Compromise of 1850, including the Fugitive Slave Act, became law. And the Union wouldnt split until a decade later when the slave states seceded.