这篇美国历史论文代写范文是essayphd团队接到的来自美国俄克拉荷马州东北州立大学教育学专业的同学的作业。Northeastern State University是美国一所公立综合性大学，学校开设课程众多，涵盖面广，学校的优势是能够为每个学生提供实习的机会，让学生能够拥有就业的优势。平时课程和实习任务繁忙，作业繁重的时候，同学们会让我们团队帮忙代写论文。而我们面对他们的作业细节要求也非常有经验。
In 1929, the Great Depression took place. Lots of enterprises shut down and the sheer number of workers lost their jobs. The economic and social conditions did not get better when Herbert Hoover took office. In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt replaced Hoover, initiated the New Deal, and took an array of reforms to deal with the unprecedented crisis. All sectors of society had different opinions on the New Deal. For example, Martha Gellhorn described the widespread hope in the president; Huey Long initiated a new movement to replace the New Deal; Herbert Hoover thought the New Deal changed America’s capitalism and made lots of proposals to oppose the New Deal; Minnie Hardin criticized that the New Deal’s policy about relief undermined the benefits of the taxpayers and discouraged them. The positions of the four texts were different. The report of Gellhorn was from the perspective of an observer and outsider. Long’s movement stood by the poor people and equity. Hoover emphasized liberalism, freedom and the benefits of capitalism and businesses. Hardin focused her letter on the unfairness of relief.
From the report of Martha Gellhorn, it would be easy to imagine the faith in the president. As Gellhorn narrated, a girl from a poor family demanded “a big, coloured picture [of the President] as a wedding present”. The wealth and materials was not that important for an extremely poor family and what left for them was the faith in the president. Gellhorn mainly based her report on observations rather than statistic data. Instead of relying on the logos of her report, Gellhorn persuaded the government with emotional appeals. When she reported the conditions of local people, she did not use some numbers, such as the number of the unemployed people, the number of people suffering dietary diseases or the number people who did not have clothes. She described their conditions and her own impressions. When she cited the words of the doctors, we can know that the relief was far from enough and health problems were serious there. Gellhorn also used some negative words, such as “awful nonsense” and “terribly frightening” to emphasize that it was urgent for lawmakers and the government to take more measures to help the poor. Gellhorn described the faith in the president as well as the awful conditions of the poor people. She also conveyed her worry about that if no new measures came out, the situation would be out of control. The significance of the report was that it urged the federal government to pay more attention to the poor people and issue corresponding policies.
According to the election speech of Roosevelt, he promised to provide a ”more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of the national wealth”, but he failed to perform his promise when he carried out the New Deal. Huey Long initiated a Share Our Wealth movement, aiming to redistribute the wealth of the society. The strength of the movement was that it emphasized equity and paid more attention to the benefits of vulnerable groups. Long used many rhetorical techniques to persuade the audience. For example, he used parallelism to express his appeal: “we are calling upon people whose souls…”, “we are calling upon people who have at heart…”, “we are calling upon people them…” Considering the fact that the text was originally a speech, parallelism could add rhythms to the sentences and make the speech more appealing. However, the movement was biased. It just took the benefits of the poor people into consideration and overlooked the opinions of the wealthy people. In addition, the initiator, Huey Long was not very reliable. Harnett Thomas Kane (1941) wrote in his book that Long was a dictator and he liked power very much and his successors loved money too much. Therefore, although Long’s movement was intended to improve the conditions of the poor blacks and whites, it was difficult for the movement to achieve good results. Anyway, it is impossible to assumption now.
As a conservative, Herbert Hoover was an opponent of the New Deal. He criticized that the New Deal would “weaken the vitality of American freedom” and “shackle free men” because it imposed many regulations on the business and agriculture. Hoover denied the policies and measures of the New Deal and thought they did not work well under the depression. Just like his claim that “Only free spirits can master them to their proper use”, Hoover insisted that the economy should develop freely. Hoover’s proposals were in favor of the businesses. Under Roosevelt’s policies, increasing the wages of the workers, reducing working hours, and charging excessive profit tax from the big companies would damage the profits of the businesses and hinder the development of the economy because without enough money, the businesses could not expand their operation and production. Hoover did not consider the benefits of the poor people. On the one hand, excess production capacity of the industry produced excessive products. On the other hand, poor people with low wages could not afford the products. It was essential to improve people’s purchasing power to stimulate the economy.
Minnie Hardin focused her complaint on the relief. She could not bear the sight of the laziness and greed of some of the reliefers. Between the lines, we can see that Hardin was resentful of the lazy reliefers and criticized the taxpayers would be discouraged by the “penalizing of thrift and industry to reward shiftlessness”. We can imagine the feelings of the taxpayers when their children asked them “why they couldn’t have nice lunches like the children on relief”. It was unfair for the industrious workers to raise the lazy reliefers. However, it was unrealistic to stop the relief, considering the children and other people in need. It is the government’s responsibity to The letter set off an alarm bell for the government that the implementation of the policy should be controlled tightly to avoid the free-riders.
Despite of the critics, the New Deal really helped relieve the Great Depression. The policies of the New Deal generated millions of jobs and improved employment rate; the public works projects covered almost every county of the nation; its regulations on finance protected banks from bankruptcy. It also demonstrated that government intervention was effective and essential during the Great Depression. Just as the U.S. History website states, the New Deal “went far enough to silence the lunatic fringe, but not far enough to jeopardize capitalism or democracy” (An Evaluation of the New Deal, n.d.) Even today, reforms and changes are still difficult to implement. For example, although President Obama made lots of promises about changes in America, it is difficult to realize. Critics and disagreement from the politicians and public make the changes slow and tough. After 6 years, some of the goals have been achieved. For example, he performed his promise to finish the Iraq War; he reformed the tax system and medical insurance system. However, some goals are still need efforts, such as economic and immigration issues.
An Evaluation of the New Deal. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/us/49g.asp
Johnsom, M. P. (2012). Reading the American Past: Volume II: From 1865: Selected Historical Documents (5th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Kane, H. T. (1941). Huey Long's Louisiana Hayride: The American Rehearsal for Dictatorship 1928-1940. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=WRB81_IByjsC&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false
罗斯福新政虽然对美国产生了深远的正面影响，但是批评的声音也不少。国家介 入经济运行，触动了某些自由主义者的神经。但是总的来说，新政的正面影响多 过负面影响。本文运用娴熟的文笔客观评价了新政的得失。