My client, Parsons is a peaceable member of society, and he does not want violence, and did not want a riot. In Albert Parsons Testimony, it says, “ We are peaceable citizens, husbands, fathers… we are citizens of the state and law-abiding citizens… the working classes simply seek to improve their condition.” Parsons is not violent, because he is peaceable. To be peaceable means, that in any situation, they look for peace. That’s why instead of starting a war, he was giving a speech. A speech that is meant to let people know of the struggles with them working in a bad environment. He chose to go the peaceful route. In speeches you don't see people dying or being brutally murdered. That is, what usually happens on a war site. In a speech, there are people, who become motivated, to get their rights. So, in no way did he do anything violent. He just, spoke like all of us do everyday. Also, Parsons is a working-class man. And, in his speech, he says the conditions of the class should be improved. Now, if the people are on his side, why would he bomb the people in the …show more content…
When taking your time, you tend to be more careful. Throwing a bomb into a crowd doesn't seem to be more careful. That would be going from 0-100. That’s just again killing all of the people who supported his cause. I think not. 700 people wouldn’t follow someone so stupid, to get rid of all of his supporters. So, his words probably didn’t cause this. However, him giving a speech is careful. A speech is a peaceful way to hear someone out, without the fear of being killed. He was not radical. Throwing a bomb is not going a degree up. A man like this would have no reason to incite violence. Also, his words in no way, sounded like they could, so he is