https://www.echeat.com/ Library of Congress The library of congress was built on April 24, 1800. It began when president John Adams approved a congressional act that moved the national capital from Philadelphia to Washington. $ 5,000 was spent on books ( 38 million books) intended for use by the U.S . congress. They also had 70 million manuscripts. 15,000 items were received and 12,000 items each day were in the catalog. The library of Congress is 4,000 square feet. It holds 158,000,000 items. It is located at 101 independence Ave SE, Washington, DC 20540. You can visit it from 8:30am-4:30pm every Monday- Saturday. The largest book in the Library of Congress is a 5-by-7 foot book featuring color images of Bhutan. Any one six teen and older may use/ check out a book but only on the premises. And must have a photo I.D on them. What is the purpose of the library of congress? The purpose of the library of Congress was for classification it serves as a legal repository for copyright protection and copyright registration and as the base of the united states copyright office .The original purpose of the Library of Congress was to help members of Congress conduct research on legislative matters. How was the Library of Congress built? As many people know, after capturing Washington, D.C. in August 24 1814 during the war of 1812, the British burned the U.S. Capitol and destroyed the Library of Congress. But they rebuilt it on January 30, 1815. In the late 19th century the architectural style of the Jefferson Building was said to be “Italian Renaissance”. Today, it is recognized as a primer example of the Beaux Arts style, which is theatrical, heavily heavily ornamented and kinetic. It is a style perfectly suited to a young, wealthy, and imperialistic nation in its Gilded Age. The materials- marble( 15 varieties), granite ( 400 thousand cubic feet) bronze, gold, mahogany- were expensive but would last a thousand years. In plan the jefferson Building is a hollow rectangle with a rotunda, bookstacks and four courtyards occupying the core. What is the library of congress used for?The primary function of the Library of Congress is to serve the Congress. In addition, the Library provides service to government agencies, other libraries, scholars, and the general public. How is the library of congress used?The Library of Congress Classification (LCC) is 2019-05-27T10:57:44.67-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Library-of-Congress-45489.aspx Resolving Ethical Dilemmas Student Name Institutional Affiliation Resolving Ethical Dilemmas Dilemmas are the instances and situations where one has to choose between two or more options that are conflicting and have moral and ethical implications. There are many dilemmas in society. For instance, people have different definitions of what is right and wrong. These differences lead to conflicting views on various issues in society. One such issue is abortion. Abortion is a controversial subject in most societies. A section of people believes that abortion is wrong as everyone, including the unborn, have a right to life. Other people also take the stand that a mother has the right to choose whether to have a child or not. Such people claim that by dictating whether one should have an abortion or not, the law interferes with individual privacy. The paper discusses abortion as a contentious issue in the United States. The Fundamentals of the Policy Described in the Article The article describes an abortion issue involving a 17-year-old teenager (North, n.d.). The teenager was an immigrant and had applied to have the abortion since she could not sustain the pregnancy. Before then, there had been changes to the abortion laws relating to immigrant minors. Such laws required the minors to seek permission. The minor had sought permission and was waiting for the determination of the case. However, the government was determined to prevent her from having the abortion. A District judge ordered the government to allow the minor to have her abortion (North, n.d.). In return, the government appealed and got an order allowing them to delay the abortion even longer. Judge Kavanaugh who has since become a president appointee gave the delay order (Gerstein, n.d.). There were numerous concerns about his appointment to the Supreme Court. Many were worried about the fate of abortion cases. In his ruling, he had indicated that the Director of the refugees had the right to block an immigrant minor from obtaining an abortion. The dilemma, therefore, involves the right of minors to obtain an abortion. Certain groups and individuals maintain that before a pregnancy reaches a certain age, a mother has all the rights to terminate it should she wish to do so. Such a choice would thus be a personal choice. However, there are people with a contrary opinion. These claim that the government has the right to delay or even block some people from obtaining an 2018-11-12T11:00:12.45-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/-Resolving-Ethical-Dilemmas-45458.aspx Background information: 1. All these replies i’m posting are editorals made by other students regarding the same event (the Boston mascare) 2. What needs to be done is, reply to these posts by students(which i’ll post) as if you’re still an editor, and bring out points you agree & disagree with. 3. Comments such as “You have a good point,” “I like what you said,” or “I agree (or disagree) with you” are not adequate replies. “Letters to the Editor” must show some analytical thought and encourage more dialogue. Ask questions, give a different point of view, bring up another aspect of the topic your classmates did not cover, and so on. 4. Total of 5 replies, 200 words EACH. 5. 1 reference for EACH reply, so 5 references depending on wheter the point the other student made is being agreed with or disagreed with. 6. 8 days ago Robert Tate (FIRST REPLY) RE: Topic 4: The Boston Massacre – A Massacre or a Terrible Tragedy? 7. COLLAPSE On March 5th, Monday evening, on the streets of Boston, there was a terrible tragedy. This tragedy happens at the hands of the British soldiers illegally quartered at the State house. The soldiers quartered at the State house were given permission to be on those premises by Governor Bernard. Again, this is not a legal practice and is contrary to the Magna-Carta, contrary to the Bill of Rights where it says keeping a standing army within the kingdom during peace time is against the law (The Anonymous account of the Boston Massacre March 5 1770 article). It is obvious after hearing the accounts by multiple people involved that the soldiers were intent upon making problems with the people of Boston for no apparent reason. According to sources from the street, several of the soldiers were in the streets of Boston causing problems with locals and injuring some of them when they decided to pick a fight at the local rope-walk. After the soldiers were bested several times by the locals and good number of soldiers had massed, they went about the streets abusing other locals indiscriminately (The Anonymous account of the Boston Massacre March 5 1770 article). It is then said, after the soldiers, had been abusing locals, they ended up in the street armed and confronting those locals. An altercation then ensued where the soldiers opened fire on the locals and eleven people were either killed or injured. 2017-04-15T05:23:23.793-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Boston-Massacre-–-A-Massacre-or-a-Terrible-Tragedy-45308.aspx American Civil War: Was it Ideological or Non-ideological — An Annotated Bibliography Name Institution American Civil War: Was it Ideological or Non-ideological — An Annotated Bibliography There is a heated debate on what the cause of the American Civil War was. The debate has been characterized by arguments that consider it to have been orchestrated by divisions on the issue of slavery, while others have argued it was because of drastic structural changes in economic developments. One of the areas of this heated debate is the question of whether the American Civil War was ideological or non-ideological. Several perspectives have been given regarding the issue, but these have only done better in extending the scope by which the matter should be conceptualized rather than reconciling. This paper presents an annotated bibliography of references addressing the issue. Chaffin, Tom. Giant's Causeway: Frederick Douglass's Irish Odyssey and the Making of an American Visionary. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2014 Chaffin approaches the issue based on the Frederick Douglas account of events during the antebellum. Among the outstanding issues in American history was the debate on the legality of the slave trade. It is contended that the competing ideologies on the legitimacy of slavely, slavery among members led to the division between the northern and southern America, contributing to the American civil war. The monograph offers an interesting critique on the issue of slavery and southerners’ way of life in during the antebellum. The author considers, Douglass particularly maintains his strong stance of a staunch Christian, condemning the southern society as a long-lost kind that blows hot and cold by failing to practice what it preaches, especially because it is unable to recognize the humanity needs of the slaves. Indeed, the attitude of Douglass towards the southerners during the antebellum is easily discernable in his clever use of language. One of the areas in which his perspective can be seen is when he attacks racism and slavery, and related atrocities perpetrated by the Whites against the blacks in the South. Douglass equivocally asserts that the slave-holding Christians were living a double life that was evidenced by sinful and sanctimonious acts, which he considered a clear contradiction to Christian doctrine and teachings, upon which the society practices needed to be anchored . To a certain significant extent, the Douglas account can be seen to be employing irony in depicting the high levels of hypocrisy amongst 2016-12-13T11:18:15.44-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/American-Civil-War-Was-it-Ideological-or-Non-ideological-—-An-Annotated-Bibliography-35257.aspx The French Revolution itself took three stages, the Moderate Stage, the Radical Stage, and the Reactionary Stage. Throughout the French Revolution the different revolutionary governments and their purposes shifted from one to another as time progresses. During this progress one can see how change was made by the French citizens and its sprit and eventually democracy was achieved. The French Revolution begun with the formation of National Assembly (later known as the Constituents Assembly) on June 20, 1789. The primary goals of its time was to was end the social injustices such as issues of taxation without presentation and natural rights that must be guaranteed. On August 26, 1789 the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen was passed. In it provided the freedom of speech, thought, and religion; due process was of law was guaranteed; taxes could be imposed only by the consent of the governed; the right to rule was said to be not only the king’s but the whole nation’s. During this time the French political goals were trying to alter make France into a Constitution Monarchy and have an elected Legislative body. In June of 1791, the royal family fled toward the counterrevolutionary army. However, they were discovered and sent back to his palace. Soon afterwards the people of France lost faith in the monarchy and the Tuileries were stormed, the king was taken prisoner. The angry mobs slaughtered over a thousand of priests, bourgeois, and aristocrats who opposed their program. This event marked the rise of Jacobins and the dictatorial Committee of Public Safety which was also the era of Reign of Terror. The leader of the Jacobins, Maximilien Robespierre pushed for execution of Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette in the year of 1793. In this era of French history, the political goals shifted from Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic. And the main goal of this time was to ensure the political power centralized with the Jacobin. In this event the Enrages (radical working class) leaders of Paris seized and arrested Girondist members of the National Convention and left the Jacobins in main control. Other goals included insurance that under the Terror there will only be supporters of the Revolutionary movements and stripped the First Estate of its power. As time progressed, the Jacobins lost their power and Maximilien Robespierre lost his power. After his death, the National Convention decided to establish a directory 2014-03-09T13:16:39.16-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/revolutionary-governments-and-their-goals-alter-during-the-course-of-the-French-revolution-35007.aspx The Salt March, also mainly known as the Salt Satyagraha, began with the Dandi March on 12 March 1930, and was an important part of the Indian independence movement. It was a direct action campaign of tax resistance and nonviolent protest against the British salt monopoly in colonial India, and triggered the wider Civil Disobedience Movement. This was the most significant organised challenge to British authority since the Non-co-operation movement of 1920–22, and directly followed the Purna Swaraj declaration of independence by the Indian National Congress on 26 January 1930. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (commonly called Mahatma Gandhi) led the Dandi march from his base, Sabarmati Ashram near Ahmedabad, to the sea coast near the village of Dandi. As he continued on this 24-day, 240-mile (390 km) march to produce salt without paying the tax, growing numbers of Indians joined him along the way. When Gandhi broke the salt laws at 6:30 am on 6 April 1930, it sparked large scale acts of civil disobedience against the British Raj salt laws by millions of Indians.[1] The campaign had a significant effect on changing world and British attitude towards Indian independence[2][3] and caused large numbers of Indians to join the fight for the first time. After making salt at Dandi, Gandhi continued southward along the coast, producing salt and addressing meetings on the way. His party planned to stage a satyagraha at the Dharasana Salt Works, 25 miles south of Dandi. However, Gandhi was arrested on the midnight of 4–5 May 1930, just days before the planned action at Dharasana. The Dandi March and the ensuing Dharasana Satyagraha drew worldwide attention to the Indian independence movement through extensive newspaper and newsreel coverage. The satyagraha against the salt tax continued for almost a year, ending with Gandhi's release from jail and negotiations with Viceroy Lord Irwin at the Second Round Table Conference.[4] Over 80,000 Indians were jailed as a result of the Salt Satyagraha.[5] However, it failed to result in major concessions from the British.[6] The Salt Satyagraha campaign was based upon Gandhi's principles of nonviolent protest called satyagraha, which he loosely translated as "truth-force."[7] Literally, it is formed from the Sanskrit words satya, "truth", and agraha, "force." In early 1930 the Indian National Congress chose satyagraha as their main tactic for winning Indian independence from British rule and appointed Gandhi to organise the campaign. Gandhi chose the 1882 British Salt Act as the first target 2013-09-14T09:17:04.577-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Salt-March-34965.aspx Hill Warri family is a mystery. They are a humanoid plant life, they only recently to the Datai Rhea, only to survive in this world for 25 years. Tightly together, with the same dream. No one knows why they suddenly appeared in Tai Ruiya, especially Hill Warri, they have been looking for the purpose of discovery live in this world. In all races, they are the dragon, the risk of awareness, they often and Zhaitan the undead puppet combat. Next, their legend. "There was a time I curse this world away everything I owned, but living in the here after, I began to understand that these memories, the pain even belong to us may be, they witnessed our growth." - Ronan, human, front wiper. Hill Wali's story began in a human and a Sagittarius. Mankind Shi Luonan war with a light edge, he and his team separated, and found a cave filled with strange seed, this cave is a powerful biological guardian. He took a seed and take home to the family, know that the whole village was pale mantle kill not been discovered, powerful strength from the gods of Dorset. He was very sad, that seed in their graves, and vow never sword. Ronan joined the older men clan where Terry, they have been a constant struggle. Together they formed a small tribe, and shelter to those who wish to find the Pure Land in the violent world. Tree covered with strange seed of the tree to become tall and proud, and below the branches, mankind and human Ma Pingjing life. Troops in the marble monument engraved with their skills, and they stood in the pale of the tree, as time goes by, he became the oldest and most intelligent men. The growth of the tree, eventually covering the area around this time, she began to bear fruit a. In the center of the fruit born first Hill Warri. Under the asylum of the time they are still pale tree, she sang for them and tell their own understanding of the world. Pale tree of a dream is also the Hill Wali's dream: the dream of a human life and human Ma Zhihui. When the early birth of the child to give birth to first offspring, they have the world have some understanding and are eager to know more. Hill Warri blink of an eye that looks 2012-07-24T21:26:53.08-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Evil-shrouded-Tairui-Ya,-but-the-dream-will-lead-us-through-the-darkness-34604.aspx This paper examines Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic study of American society. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville is a classic of world literature. De Tocqueville observed life in America closely and reported what he saw accurately, and with a great deal of intelligence and wit. De Tocqueville’s introduction to the book gives readers a “roadmap” of what is to follow, and what he hopes to achieve by writing the work. He begins by drawing an extended parallel between the societies of America and France, and stating his belief that there has been a world-wide revolution going on, almost without notice: that everywhere aristocracies are evolving toward the democratic model, because equality, not inequality, is the natural equilibrium of society: “…the gradual progress of equality is something fated.” (P. 12). But, he says, in France the establishment of a democracy has not been orderly, but more a matter of throwing away the old order haphazardly with no idea of what to put in its place. (P. 15). “…we have abandoned whatever good things the old order of society could provide but have not profited from what our present state can offer; we have destroyed an aristocratic society, and settling down complacently among the ruins of the old building, we seem to want to stay there like that forever.” (P. 15). But if France is in turmoil, being comprised of a society that has decimated the aristocracy but not learned how to govern itself as a democracy, there is one country that has achieved the goal: America. De Tocqueville says that the Europeans who colonized America in the beginning of the 17th Century: “…in some way separated the principle of democracy from all those other principles against which they contended … in … old European societies, and transplanted that principle only on the shores of the New World. It could there grow in freedom and, progressing in conformity with mores, develop peacefully within the law.” (P. 18). From this point, De Tocqueville begins a detailed description of the physical geography of America, which leads him to a contemplation of the Native American tribes. He finds they have a democratic society largely because of their poverty; because the Native Americans were poor everyone worked hard, they were equal, and the concept of a powerful aristocracy was unknown to them. 2011-10-26T13:38:15.36-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Democracy-in-America-34122.aspx To introduce the Holocaust, I want to provide a brief overview of the event. The Holocaust was a large scale, state-sponsored, systematic murder of innocent Jews across Europe carried out by the German military and authorities. Germans believed that their race was superior to the Jewish race. Jews were deemed, “life unworthy of life”. (1) The Holocaust was a result of this strong German belief, which led to the attempted annihilation of the Jews. The German government called the plan to annihilate the Jewish people “The Final Solution”. Nearly six million out of the nine million European Jews were murdered in total. This means that two-thirds of the European Jewish population was wiped out in less than 10 years. Although Jews were the main target of the Nazi regime, others were viewed as inferior as well. These peoples included, Gypsies, Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, some Slavic peoples, and homosexuals. Today, we know that although the Germans did not succeed in their plan to annihilate the Jews, the Holocaust remains a devastating chapter in history. This essay will attempt to inform you of the terrible reality of the Holocaust and Canada’s role in it. (We, as a nation, should be held responsible for ignoring and downplaying the importance of the events happening in Europe.) In the year 1933, six years before World War II began, the Nazi party came to power in Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler. At this point, the German nation was in an economic slump, due to the consequences of World War I, specifically the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty included “massive demilitarization and financial reparations” for Germany. During this time, Hitler became the dictator of Germany and began building a German “military machine”, contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. He wanted to expand Germany to create a German controlled European empire. Part of this plan was to create a “pure race”. This was where the Holocaust began. Hitler decided upon “The Final Solution”, the plot to rid Germany of unwanted peoples. You might be wondering what the German population thought of this idea. As it turns out, most Germans supported it, and those did not were subjected 2008-12-16T23:07:02-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Holocaust-33918.aspx The Spanish Crown embarked on a thorough revamping of its Latin American empire during the eighteenth century. One of its major new measures was the creation of the Viceroyalty de La Plata in 1776. The Viceroyalty was named after the vast Río de la Plata (River Plate) that empties into the Atlantic Ocean. This region includes the countries of Argentina, Southern Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The mining region of Upper Peru (now Bolivia) was incorporated into the new Viceroyalty, and silver from these mines was shipped through the port of Buenos Aires. As a result, the city of Buenos Aires grew spectacularly, yet the interior provinces began a slow decline that would accelerate after the wars of independence. (See the map in this case for more information on the geography of the region). The wars of independence were the product of an imperial crisis caused by the Napoleonic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808 and the capture of King Ferdinand VII. Everywhere in Latin America, juntas, administrative councils, were formed to rule in the name of the captive king. These small-scale initiatives led to full-blown independence movements, especially after the restoration of Ferdinand VII and his insistence on the absolute authority of the Spanish throne. The creoles of Buenos Aires, eager to trade freely with other nations, sought to achieve their independence by first attempting to capture the mining region, and then launching a major campaign to dislodge Spanish forces from the rest of the Viceroyalty. The first aim led to disaster, as the Buenos Aires creoles were defeated time and again by royalists in Upper Peru, causing much destruction to the mines. This devastation in turn caused a precipitous decline in the welfare of the western regions of Argentina, which had formerly supplied the mines with agricultural and ranching products. Fighting for their survival, provinces came to see the Buenos Aires free traders as their enemies. As production declined in the provinces, competition for resources became fierce, leading to widespread turf battles. The second aim of expelling Spanish forces was partially successful thanks to the role of José de San Martín, a professional soldier who led his troops of gauchos, the nomadic horsemen of the region, and slaves across the Andes into Chile and eventually Perú. While it was Simón Bolivar who eventually completed the campaign against Spanish forces, San Martín gave initial direction and purpose to the independence movement, liberating 2008-04-19T04:52:33-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Power-and-Politics-in-the-19th-century-River-Plate-33562.aspx The Spanish Crown embarked on a thorough revamping of its Latin American empire during the eighteenth century. One of its major new measures was the creation of the Viceroyalty de La Plata in 1776. The Viceroyalty was named after the vast Río de la Plata (River Plate) that empties into the Atlantic Ocean. This region includes the countries of Argentina, Southern Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The mining region of Upper Peru (now Bolivia) was incorporated into the new Viceroyalty, and silver from these mines was shipped through the port of Buenos Aires. As a result, the city of Buenos Aires grew spectacularly, yet the interior provinces began a slow decline that would accelerate after the wars of independence. (See the map in this case for more information on the geography of the region). The wars of independence were the product of an imperial crisis caused by the Napoleonic invasion of the Iberian Peninsula in 1808 and the capture of King Ferdinand VII. Everywhere in Latin America, juntas, administrative councils, were formed to rule in the name of the captive king. These small-scale initiatives led to full-blown independence movements, especially after the restoration of Ferdinand VII and his insistence on the absolute authority of the Spanish throne. The creoles of Buenos Aires, eager to trade freely with other nations, sought to achieve their independence by first attempting to capture the mining region, and then launching a major campaign to dislodge Spanish forces from the rest of the Viceroyalty. The first aim led to disaster, as the Buenos Aires creoles were defeated time and again by royalists in Upper Peru, causing much destruction to the mines. This devastation in turn caused a precipitous decline in the welfare of the western regions of Argentina, which had formerly supplied the mines with agricultural and ranching products. Fighting for their survival, provinces came to see the Buenos Aires free traders as their enemies. As production declined in the provinces, competition for resources became fierce, leading to widespread turf battles. The second aim of expelling Spanish forces was partially successful thanks to the role of José de San Martín, a professional soldier who led his troops of gauchos, the nomadic horsemen of the region, and slaves across the Andes into Chile and eventually Perú. While it was Simón Bolivar who eventually completed the campaign against Spanish forces, San Martín gave initial direction and purpose to the independence movement, liberating 2008-04-19T04:34:42-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Power-and-Politics-in-the-19th-century-River-Plate-33559.aspx In this essay, while completing the task of describing popular culture in the early 1960’s, I hope to cover four main aspects; pop music, radio, television, film, fashion and changes in society. The term popular culture means a contemporary lifestyle and items that are well-known and generally accepted, it is a cultural pattern that are widespread within a population. A popular culture was being spread in Britain during the 1960’s. The 1960’s is considered by many to be the best decade in living memory. Popular culture during the 1960’s mostly consisted of music, television, magazines and fashion. In the early 1960’s popular culture was changing rapidly in Britain, fashions changed and people began to have a great interest in music as new bands and music genres were being formed, most of the music was directed towards youths. There was a lot of changes in society which affected a lot of peoples lives. The 1950’s was a conservative period. The country was recovering from the ravages of the war and many people wanted society to return to how it was before the war. In the 1950’s, popular culture was rather dull and boring and only aimed the family as a whole unit. For example, the style in music was in general, slow and crooning. The older generation disliked the changes in children. New music was appearing such as Elvis Presley and cliff Richard. A very well-known quote can summarise the transformation in popular culture during the 1960s, “in the 1950s, daughters tried to look like their mothers. In the 1960’s, the mothers tried to look like their daughters”. This famous quote illustrates the amazing change of popular culture from the 50’s to the 60’s. during the 50‘s, daughters were happy to become like their mothers and have similar morals and views on life. But from the 60’s things began to change and teenagers wanted to look different to their parents and have a different lifestyle to theirs. Young people had more freedom, they no longer had to follow in their parents footsteps and were able to be themselves. Teenagers had more pocket money to spend on music and fashion. At the beginning of the 1960’s, more consumer goods could be afforded by the middle classes due to a higher standard of living. Televisions 2007-09-30T20:36:44-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Popular-Culture-in-Britain-at-the-Beginning-of-the-1960’s-33342.aspx Principles of American Government The United States of America, the land of the free, the land of opportunity, the wealthiest country in the world, a country that half the modern world is modeled after. Our President in referred to as the "Leader of the free world". Thousands of people come to this country every year learning about our country in hopes of becoming a citizen. We have what some say the greatest form of government know to this world, a representative democracy, formed by "We the People…" The government of the Unites States of America is the most efficient, most inefficient, safest, most beneficial way to govern a country, according to its citizens. "Love it or leave it!" (Flieder 1) This was a statement made referring to the American people and the U.S. Government. People have many split ideas on the government. The people who know the government, the ones who read the papers, listen to the politicians, and know the history of our government, and know how the system works believe in the government, and the system. They know why things are the way they are. Thirteen out of the twenty-one people I interviewed believed that our government system works, yet there is still problems with a few people. The system is hampered by the few individuals who are corrupt, and don't communicate and listen to the people."…we've proven that really no other government surpasses us, our reputation is that of the greatest country ever, but we are still young." (Piccari 1) Also we are a very young country compared to the rest of the world. "Our government is run as it is suppose to be run" (Casagrand, Robert) the way the constitution sets it to be run. The constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. Very few changes have been made to our constitution since it was written by the founding fathers. Many countries have based their government system off our constitution. On the contrary the people who did not believe in our system, did not know there two U.S. Senators. A few of them did not know the three branches of the United States government. They don't know the system, or how it works. How can you complain about something you know very little about. One of the interviewees, when asked if they have experienced anything in there life that changed their opinion on the government 2007-04-25T20:17:34-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Principles-of-American-Government-33139.aspx History on the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This is what the first amendment of The Constitution of the United States promises to every American citizen. The first amendment is what gives us the opportunity to practice whatever religion we would like and not be tortured or harassed for it, the right to speak our mind freely and not be punished for it, the ability to meet with others and express all of the thoughts that we have, and the right to petition against ideas that we do not agree with and would like to change. On December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified and became a very important part of the Constitution as we know it. Before the Bill of Rights, which includes the 1st amendment, we were not promised all of the things that we are promised today such as the freedom of speech, religion and assembly. Without the 1st amendment and the Bill of Rights, we would not be living the lives we live today. The freedom of speech and press was provided to us to protect the expression of unpopular views, to allow people to have their say and not be punished for it. Although the freedom of speech is still somewhat bridled, it does give Americans the ability to say or write pretty much whatever they want. For example, while one can criticize our government, they do not have the right to slander another person. In one case, there is a Minnesota law that limits what state judicial candidates can say during election campaigns about issues that may come before them while on the bench. Although the Supreme court agreed with this, it is a very controversial rule. It seems here that the First amendment is being challenged. ( see works cited ) The freedom of religion was instituted so that any and all Americans could have their own religious beliefs without being persecuted. A large number of early colonists moved to America to get away from the religious persecution they were suffering in their own countries. Just 2007-04-25T19:24:15-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/History-on-the-First-Amendment-33122.aspx The United States and the Nicaraguan Revolution By late 1978 the Sandinista Liberation Front (FSLN) had began to rise against the opposition. A revolution was in its beginning. The Somoza dictatorship had been overthrown and the Sandinistas were coming into power. The Sandinistas were labeled communist because they received aid from Cuba and practiced guerilla warfare based on an interpretation of the Cuban revolution. The United States foreign policy against Nicaragua was unlawful and the degrading to our country. The way the United States handled this foreign situation was wrong and more people should have been prosecuted for these actions. For more than 3 decades the Somoza family ruled over Nicaragua. They ruled under a brutal dictatorship. They owned 25% of industry and 40% of workable land. “The economic dictatorship of this Somoza monopoly antagonized other capitalist, who were prevented by its stranglehold from developing the economy to satisfy their own drive for profit.” (2 www.rwl-us.org). This shows that the Somoza family only cared about the Somoza’s well being. The Somoza family was put into place by US imperialism. In 1927, Augusto Cesar Sandino was a revolutionary who denounced the president because he was allowing the United States military to occupy their land. General Sandino would began to raise an army to support this cause. In 1932, with the United States approval, President Somoza -Garcia was elected into office. Sandino by now had international attention towards his cause so he was becoming a threat to Somoza’s government. Somoza would have to negotiate with Sandino. These negotiations led to Sandino being executed under Somoza’s orders. The Somoza’s would go onto rule without any more revolutionary uprisings for 4 decades. In July if 1962 the Sandinista National Liberation Front(FSLN) was formed. They identified themselves “Marxist” and set itself the task of “national democratic revolution.” The FSLN started as a small group of peasants but grew into an organization that became victorious over the Somoza dynasty. In 1979, after the FSLN won over Somoza(Daniel Ortega was the FSLN president) thing began to change and things looked better for the common citizen. Before 1978, Nicaragua had no public health care, no public education or social security. By 1983, Nicaragua was named “the model country in health care”, had social security and public health for all. By 1981, the Regan administration was worried about Marxism in this organization so 2007-04-25T19:23:12-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-United-States-and-the-Nicaraguan-Revolution-33121.aspx The Presidency of John Quincy Adams John Quincy Adams, the sixth president of the United States, was the son of the second president, John Adams, making him the first son of a president to actually become president himself. Born in Braintree, Massachusetts in 1767, he watched the Battle of Bunker Hill from the top of Penn’s Hill above the family farm. As he grew up with the new nation, his parents literally trained him for the highest office. During his long lifetime he had two distinguishable careers, separated by an unfortunate interlude of presidency. In his first career, he went from an American diplomat to secretary of state. In his second great era, he was a member of the House of Representatives and a strong opponent to slavery. These two positions were interrupted by his four-year presidency, in which time the states rested very uneasily upon his shoulders. Never publicly popular and often reproached by his enemies, John Quincy Adams nevertheless ended his life in the “sunshine of national esteem.” As a young boy, Adams obtained most of his lustrous education from his mother and father. At the age of ten he began to accompany his father on diplomatic trips to Europe, where he learned French fluently, and eventually studied at the University of Leiden. Extraordinarily cultured and educated, he returned to the U.S. in 1785 to finish his formal education at Harvard. Five years later he settled down in Boston to practice law. At some point during his law profession, Adams began writing articles in local newspapers defending George Washington’s policy of neutrality against the diplomatic attacks of Citizen Guret, the new French minister to the United States. This luckily caught Washington’s attention, and he in turn appointed Adams as minister to The Netherlands. Later he was promoted to minister of Berlin. While negotiating about the Jay Treaty in England, he married Louisa Catherine Johnson on July 26, 1797. Adams was relieved of his post by his father immediately following Jefferson’s election in 1801. He resumed his law career for a couple of years, only to be elected as a Federalist to the U.S. Senate in 1803. The federalist leaders of Massachusetts were deeply dismayed by Adams’ independent course as senator, and as a result, recanted him by electing a successor two years early. He went back to practicing law and served as a professor at Harvard, 2007-04-19T21:35:15-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Presidency-of-John-Quincy-Adams-33061.aspx Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal programs for relief and works projects were beneficial to America’s economic collapse while helping the nation as a whole. Before these programs, however, the nation was in a most needy state. On October 24th 1929 a day known as "Black Thursday" came. The stock market crashed and so did the economy. Unemployment ran rapid through the country whereas millions of Americans were out of work and money. The nation succumbed to one of the fiercest events in history- the Great Depression. Roosevelt, the governor of New York at the time, was well aware of the need for action and swept the election of 1932. In his inaugural speech he spoke of a "New Deal" for America and thus the New Deal was born. As soon as Roosevelt took office, help was on the way as he created many programs to take the nation out of hard times. The most important ones were FERA, or Federal Emergency Relief Administration, the CWA, or Civil Works Administration, and the WPA, or Works Progress Administration. Each one of these programs had an impact on the nation that aided in helping the people and the badly scarred economy. They also lifted the spirits and morals of the people. In addition, the lasting effects of the New Deal programs are still felt today, which proves that the relief and works progress programs were of outmost benefit to America. Roosevelt was determined to directly relieve the suffering of the American people. In his inaugural speech he said, "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people". He meant that, as president, he promises a new America that will help the people and preserve their morale. Roosevelt was committed to helping the nation out of the economic crisis and directly helping the people. The New Deal was made up of numerous programs to help the nation surpass the depression. Roosevelt had long been a supporter of direct government assistance. He believed the government should provide for the welfare of the people. Because of his strong belief in governmental aid, he carried the nation through the depression. The first of his relief works projects was designed to be a quick jumpstart to help families receive money. This was called FERA. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, commonly known as FERA, was established as a 2007-04-18T02:40:54-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Franklin-Delano-Roosevelt’s-New-Deal-32971.aspx Politics of Historical Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson was born in 1767, and grew up in the border of North and South Carolina. He attended frontier schools and acquired the reputation of being fiery-tempered and willing to fight all comers. He also learned to read, and he was often called on by the community to read aloud the news from the Philadelphia papers. In 1775, with the beginning of the American Revolution, Andrew Jackson, then only 13 years old became an orderly and messenger. He took part in the Battle of Hanging Rock against the British and in a few small skirmishes with British sympathizers known as Loyalists or Tories. His brother Hugh was killed, and when the British raided Waxhaw, both he and Robert were captured. Because Jackson refused to polish the boots of a British officer, he was struck across the arm and face with a saber. The boys were put in a British prison in Camden, South Carolina, where an epidemic of smallpox broke out. Mrs. Jackson gained her boys' release, but Robert soon died. Mrs. Jackson then volunteered to nurse other American prisoners, and she too caught smallpox and died. Andrew was now 14 years old and without any immediate family. With the war over, he took up saddle making and school teaching. With a $300 inheritance from his grandfather, he went to Charleston, South Carolina, then the biggest city in the South. There he cut a dashing figure in society until his money ran out. In 1787, Andrew Jackson became a lawyer and he set his office up in McLeanville, North Carolina. He quickly became successful lawyer and engaged himself in land speculation. He soon moved his office to Nashville where he met and fell in love with Mrs. Rachel Donelson Robard. Believing that Mr. Robards had obtained a divorce, they were married in 1791. Two years later they found that this was not so and the divorce had just then become final. A second marriage ceremony was performed. However, this failed to prevent gossips and political opponents from attempting to make a scandal out of the Jacksons' happy marriage. Mrs. Jackson endured in silence the many slanders that followed. Jackson, however, preferred to use dueling pistols to avenge his wife's honor. In 1796, Andrew Jackson was elected into the House of Representatives, representing Tennessee. He soon allied with the Jeffersonian Party, criticizing Washington and his 2007-04-18T00:31:52-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Politics-of-Historical-Andrew-Jackson-32934.aspx Topics of the Federalist Papers Madison begins by stating that one of the strongest arguments in favor of the constitution is the fact that it establishes a government capable of controlling violence and damage caused by factions. Madison defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economics interests and political opinions. Although these factions are at odds with each other, they frequently work against the public interests, and infringe upon the rights of others. Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to posses more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property; men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own.. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses. Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own, and those who do not own, property. To Madison, there are only two ways to control a faction: one, to remove its causes and the second to control its effects. The first is impossible. There are only two ways to remove the causes of a faction: destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests. Destroying liberty is a “cure worse then the disease itself,” and the second is impracticable. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence. The government created by the Constitution controls the damage caused by such factions. The framers established a representative form of 2007-03-20T03:46:58-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Topics-of-the-Federalist-Papers-32847.aspx The contemporary women movement began in the late 1960s. Many women who participated in the movement had also worked in earlier movements, where they had often been relegated to menial tasks, such as photocopying and answering phones. Some began to protest these roles and to question the traditional roles for women in U.S. society. During the 1950s and early 1960s, society pressured women to marry, have children, and then remain at home to raise those children. The prevailing view was that women abilities in the workplace and in public life were limited by their physical fragility and by their roles as mothers. Women were expected to stay at home and to depend on men to provide their financial support. As a result, women were routinely excluded from high status or well-paying jobs. They had only gained the vote in 1920 and had little voice in the nation political and economic life. In 1963 The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan, was published and became a best-seller. This book spoke to many women dissatisfactions with the role that society expected of them. The book encouraged women to work for change. One of the movement first successes was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, among other things, outlawed discrimination based on gender. However, government officials rarely enforced the antigender discrimination provision. As a result of this official indifference, in 1966 a small group of women led by Friedan formed the National Organization for Women (NOW) to demand that the government prosecute cases of job discrimination against women. The women movement was not a unified force with a single ideology or goal. Some activists fought for equal job opportunities; others focused on changing relations between men and women. They questioned traditional gender roles and tried to change society view that a woman worth was based on her physical attractiveness. An important issue for many women was control over their bodies. Abortion was illegal in almost all states, rapes were rarely prosecuted, and domestic violence was widely accepted as a private matter. Some radical activists believed that American society would have to be entirely remade. They rejected what they called patriarchal values, or men values, such as competition, aggressiveness, and selfishness. They believed that women were naturally more nurturing and compassionate and advocated a society based on women values. By the mid-1970s, feminists had achieved some change. In 1971 Congress banned discrimination against girls and women in schools. 2007-02-22T03:04:02-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Womens-Role-Movement-32688.aspx Analysis of the Federalist Papers The aim of the Federalist Papers was to set up a debate for a new constitution, by which our country could govern. The purpose was to setup a more stable and organized government, while protecting the citizens’ liberties. Life was unstable, and there was little government intervention. Madison, Hamilton and Jay took it upon themselves to devise a new constitution that gave government more involvement in everyday life, but didn’t jeopardize anyone’s freedom. With this in mind, they wrote the Federalist Papers to persuade the federalists, who were against the new constitution. As we know the new constitution was put into place and our countries first policies began to take shape. As in all politics, the Federalist Papers are analyzable to us through the five lenses of rationality, collective action, the institutions, the policy set forth, and the history of our previous decisions. To Publius, the group of authors who wrote the Federalist Papers, the current system of government was not efficient. They felt the best interest of the country was a government that had more control. They felt that all the factions that this much liberty allowed was not positive, although their intention was not to threaten liberty, but to make everyone more equal instead of just those who have property and wealth. Not only was this a rational and beneficial idea to them, but they felt it was for the best interest of the growing nation. For the anti-federalists, there was a large group of numbers to work with in terms of collective action. They had to appeal rationally enough to the federalists to persuade them as well as to the rest of the American people some of whom were already happy. One way that they argued against the federalists to gain numbers was explaining that the current republic didn’t necessarily benefit all of the different classes. The institution that was in place was the American government which at the time was a set of rules mainly aimed to the interests of the landowning white mails. Although the new constitution didn’t erase this problem it provided the first steps towards equality. The outcome of the Federalist Papers, or the policy that was eventually set in place is what became the United States constitution. This was the foundation that our modern day government was created on. Much history was taken into consideration when the anti-federalists wrote the 2007-02-19T22:17:15-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-the-Federalist-Papers-32670.aspx Oskar Schindler Oskar Schindler was a man well known for his drinking and womanizing, so he was an unlikely candidate to one day earn the title of �hero.� Too many Jews during the Holocaust however, he was a hero because he saved over one thousand Jews from being killed in a gas chamber. Any poor choices Schindler made in his life were out weighed by his act of kindness to the Jew�s he help that he called his children or �Shindlerjuden.� His story has been told in books and at the movies which has made him not only a hero to the Jews but a hero to the human race. Oskar Schindler was born on April 28, 1908, in Zwittau, Austria-Hungary. Oskar�s early years were filled with trouble. In 1924 he was expelled from school for forging his grade report and when he returned to school, he had earned the name �Schindler the crook.� Although he did not attend University, Oskar Schindler did attend several trade schools. He worked for his father�s company for several years but it went bankrupt. Schindler then became a salesman for an electric company. In 1938, he joined the Nazi Party, not because he believed in their politics but because he thought being a member would help his sales. Soon after, Schindler was asked by the Nazi�s to be a spy and sent him to Poland. While in Poland, he met a Jewish By 1938, Schindler, who was a very In 1939 Oskar opened a small factory called �Emalia� factory. He acquired this factory through some connections he made through becoming friendly with the SS, Nazi police. His workers were Jews who were paid so little, they were considered slaves. Initially, Oskar Schindler�s interest in his factory was to make money, even if that meant becoming a member of the Nazi party. He was successful in becoming rich. The saving of the first Schindler Jews began in 1939, when he came to Krakow in the wake of the German invasion. In Krakow, he took over two previously Jewish owned companies that dealt with the manufacture and sales of enamel kitchenware products. In one of the businesses, however, Schindler was merely a trustee. Looking more for his own power, he opened up a small enamel shop right outside of Krakow near the Jewish ghetto. Here, 2007-01-26T05:15:41-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Oskar-Schindler--32444.aspx Comparing the Federalists and Anti-Federalists The anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the constitution. The views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists were completely different. The Federalist and anti-Federalist papers were battles over problems with the Constitution. The only reason the anti-Federalists agreed to help ratify the constitution was because of the Bill of Rights and without the Bill of Rights the Constitution would not have been ratified. Following the American Revolution the United States was free of British control, the first attempt at a formal government was a document called the Articles of Confederation. Many agreed that under the Articles of Confederation enough power was not given to the central government, and on the other hand too much power was given to the state government. As a result of the Articles of Confederation the Philadelphia Convention was called in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. The convention was originally called to help strengthen the Articles of Confederation, but it was decided a whole new constitution needed to be written. As a result the Constitution of the United States of America was born and with it came the opposing views of the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. The Federalists were strong believers in the Constitution, and believed that this was the only way to achieve a just society where people could have their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Federalists were generally wealthy citizens, who's profession in most cases was a lawyer. A good example of this was Alexander Hamilton, who studied law before becoming a politician. The supporters of the Federalists followed suit being "Propertied and educated people." (www.constitutioncenter.org) According to the Federalists if the Constitution had parts to it that didn't work it could be amended. This doesn't seem right because if it was written by a group of Federalists, then clearly amending it will favor their views. At the Philadelphia Convention the only type of people who could afford to make the trip were rich people, and rich people generally shared the views of Federalists. Federalists thought that the Constitution provided a strong central government by the people, but this was only partly true. The people of the United States were running the country, but it was only the upper class again. One of the major beliefs of the Federalists as pointed out at the Philadelphia convention was that a state should vote according to it's population, this later 2007-01-12T03:25:37-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Comparing-the-Federalists-and-Anti-Federalists-32391.aspx Analysis of Andrew Jackson's Administration When Andrew Jackson became president he took the power that was given to him and created his own style of Democracy. And having a common man background things were sure to change. He used his power to do what he felt the common people of the United States would want. At some points during his term he seemed hypocritical for his actions would contradict one another. Therefore, Jackson and his followers all held certain beliefs in themselves that touched off on issues such as the national bank or the way he responded to the crisis’s that happened during his term. First the issue of the demolishing of the national bank was a huge happening for Jackson. Jackson’s chief point in the destruction of the bank was that it had to much of a monopoly over foreign and domestic, along with that Document B also leads to saying that he wasn’t pleased with priority that the bank held to the richest class. However this was met by arguments from none other than the richest class. In Document C, Daniel Webster responded in a letter to Jackson by saying that by doing this he is jeopardizing the liberty of the people of the country. He also went on to add, ”it wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of the other classes.” That essentially is suggesting that the veto could turn the classes of people on one another. Next, the documents A, D, and E all tie into one another upon the issues of classes in America. Document A, is a petition in a way created by the working class pleading that the rights of all Americans be met, even the lower working class. This working class made up the majority of much of the nation and major cities. The fact that the working class was mainly made up of immigrants from foreign countries helped to heat this issue as well. Document E, clearly depicts two separate incidents of rioting between class differences. While Document D, shows a foreigner’s look at the class difficulties in America and how they are appalled at their trip through the crowded cities. Finally, towards the end of the Jackson presidency a few major issues came up, the beginning of the great Indian drive, the issue over contraction and the timeless issue of 2007-01-11T19:56:01-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-Andrew-Jackson-s-Administration-32376.aspx The Presidency of Andrew Jackson Throughout American History it seems to be quite evident that the time lapse during the period in which a presidential candidate holds office, certain crucial events have taken place to significantly impact the American society as a whole. However the duration between the presidencies of Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln seem to have little importance to our history because not many events that drastically changed the way the U.S functions took place. The fact that both Jackson and Lincoln have had such accomplishments dealing with national issues tends to sheer the attention away from the presidents who were in office around their terms and focuses on their achievements. Andrew Jackson served as the seventh president of the United States and served two terms from 1829 to 1837. This time period is known in history as the Jacksonian Era due to several major events that took place. Jackson’s election to the presidency shifted the balance of power in the country from wealthy, East Coast interests to those of the farmers and small business owners in the West. Jackson’s political policies, which included the general public rather than the wealthy, later became known as Jacksonian Democracy. His followers considered themselves the party of the people and criticized their political opponents, the National Republicans, or Whigs as aristocrats. Andrew Jackson’s qualities helped him take on the title of the “common man”, where his interests were placed in pleasing the general common folk. In the decades surrounding the presidency of Jackson democracy began to expand. Andrew had two major issues to deal with during his presidency, that which include the nullification of South Carolina, and his opposition of the Second Bank of the U.S. Andrew Jackson regarded the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification of November 1932 as a clear threat to the federal union and to the national authority. In response he submitted to Congress a Force Bill authorizing the use of federal troops in South Carolina. Jackson's determination to use military force if necessary forced South Carolina to retreat. Andrew Jackson also vetoed the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States. He believed that his reelection was a mandate from the people to break the power of the Second Bank of the United States. To accomplish this, Jackson decided to withdraw government money from the bank to pay current expenses and 2007-01-04T18:15:06-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Presidency-of-Andrew-Jackson-32221.aspx Unequal Protection The major idea found in Hartmann book is that corporations govern the world we live in and try to exploit individuals in order to generate profits for themselves. The tremendous wealth and financial power of industrial life created widespread philosophical debates on the ideal relationship of industry to the government in the nineteenth century, ranging from Marxist socialism on the left to the laissez-faire libertarianism on the right. The former would want to completely nationalize industry and the latter would want to leave it completely unregulated. Along this continuum is the issue of whether private corporations and partnerships are the same type of institution as publicly traded corporations, or whether corporations with public shareholders require substantially more government oversight. Hartmann suggests that the formation of the regulatory agencies after the Great Depression and the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron scandal were meant to address this question. (Hartmann, 2004) œThe United States and the rise of corporations have a shared parallel history. (Hartmann, 2004) Corporations proved they can produce railroads, cars, telephones, televisions, computers, airplanes and countless other products at prices that make them widely available. Large corporations using economies of scale and robots can produce some types of basic products for less money than small corporations or family businesses. They have become part of the landscape for modern pursuit of happiness of people, even if at times they have created a false sense of happiness by being made ends in themselves. However, according to Hartmann, corporations have one ultimate goal: profit. (Hartmann, 2004) They do not inherently care for their employees, their investors, or the nations in which they reside. The people that make them up, like other people, want to get the most they can with the least amount of investment. They will perform poorly if they are a monopoly, but perform well if they have to compete to provide the best service possible in a competitive market. They will pollute the environment and sell products that promote addiction if they are not restrained by the society that suffers as a result. They will treat people as objects for profit, labeling them œconsumers, rather than human beings. (Hartmann, 2004) There is a role for the government to play with respect to corporations. It should police and referee. It should promote and enforce laws that motivate a free and competitive market, giving everyone a chance to achieve economic 2006-12-11T23:06:53-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Unequal-Protection--31974.aspx Franklin Roosevelt's American Democracy A democratic government is designed to protect the will of the people. At the same time, it is designed to protect the lives and wellbeing of those who live in the said nation. In the early 1940s, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was faced with the enormous burden of preparing America to join the war, which he felt was inevitable, and to help out his Allied friends until the inevitable event occurred which would allow him to formally declare war on Germany. FDR managed to do this through policies, secret meetings, and a large amount of favoritism. The U.S. engaged in many policies which directly favored the Allied nations. In September of 1940, the exchange of American destroyers for British bases occurred. This was not only a clear violation of neutrality; it brought forth many moral issues for the people of the US. If we were so neutral and planned on staying so, why would we even need air bases for our military in far-off areas? There is no logical answer to this question. In January through March of 1941, American and British staffs were secretly holding meetings making plans should the US ever join the war. Very few people knew about these meetings, even Congress was not informed of the talks. In March 1941, FDR passed the Lend-Lease act through Congress. This act gave President Roosevelt almost unlimited freedom in sending supplies, tanks, aircraft, and ammunition to Europe without breaking our neutrality. At the end of lend-lease, we had given over $41 billion in aid to over 40 nations. Of this aid, Britain received $30 billion and the Soviets about $11 billion. Of all of this aid, less than $10 billion was repaid. This seems more of a donation than a loan. On August 9-12 in 1941, the Atlantic Conference was held between Roosevelt and Churchill. This solidified the commitment of America in a near declaration of war-aims. A few months after this, merchant ships sending goods to Britain were armed. Surely a neutral nation should not have to take such drastic action? On July 25, 1941, Japanese assets were frozen in the US. By cutting off one nation of supplies, and allowing another unlimited access, while those nations are on opposite sides of the war, is that not showing favoritism? 2006-11-17T01:21:29-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Franklin-Roosevelt-s-American-Democracy-31770.aspx Multiculturalism in Martin Luther King's Teaching In this essay, I am going to present the reality beyond the idea of multiculturalism which first developed by Martin Luther King in 60s who was against racist movements in USA and I will try to show whether racism is over or not among today’s world nations, especially in Turkey. It’s a true fact that, unfortunately, multiculturalism replaced with narrow nationalism, cultural isolationism and xenophobia in recent years throughout the world as well. Obviously, when I think about racism or inequality, first America occurs to my mind. In American history Martin Luther King fights with racist movements non-violently and he achieved to held people to think about equality, not only in USA but also in throughout the world. Bell Hooks assert: “King taught us to understand that if ‘we are to have peace on earth’ that our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation”(Hooks, p, 237). That is to say, we need to have peace on earth and we have to be beyond the idea of racism and nationalism or other groups for providing world peace. For this reason, King tried to teach importance of multiculturalism universally. Every kind of people could enjoy our society otherwise; we could not have peace on earth. Because of his uniting notions, he decided to support multiculturalism in America. Britannica encyclopedia states that: “Martin Luther King was leader of the black freedom movement who was able to turn protests into a crusade and to translate local conflicts into moral issues of nation-wide concern. Successful in awakening the black masses and galvanizing them into action, he won his greatest victories by appealing to the consciences of white Americans and thus bringing political leverage to bear on the federal government in Washington. The strategy that broke the segregation laws of the South, however, proved inadequate to solve more complex racial problems elsewhere...”(Britannica, p,337). He struggled hard with the taboos of white Americans but at last his dream came true. Thus, black and white people became equal. As in his famous speech which held in 28.August.1968, King says that “I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that my 2006-11-15T22:33:32-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Multiculturalism-in-Martin-Luther-King-s-Teaching-31746.aspx The Foreign Policy of Australia from 1945 to the 1990s ‘Australia’s foreign policy has been driven by a carefully defined sense of national interest, conducted with a realistic appreciation of the slope of our influence, focused and realistically selective in character and effective in achieving results and in building in to the process a positive image of Australia as a diplomatically active country, conducting a responsible foreign policy with imagination and energy.’ Gareth Evans (Australian Foreign Minister) The nature of Australia’s foreign policy has changed significantly since its initial beginning in the post-war period of 1945 to the 1990’s. From Liberal to Labour Government which have governed Australia, the nature of foreign policy has been directed in various areas for many purposes. Australia’s foreign policy since the post-war period of 1945 has seen as shift in connections between British Imperialism to that of growth in American influences. This shift in foreign relations has aided in growth and maturity of Australia as a country independent from its colonial shackles in seeking out alliances and trade agreements throughout Asia. With the change in nature of foreign policy over the years Australia has become a strong country with ties throughout the Pacific and Asia, linked by strong foreign relations. The post-war period of 1945 of the Chifley government was a time of intense foreign relations activity for Australia, due mainly to the efforts of the Foreign Minister Dr. HG Evatt. Whilst simultaneously pledging his loyalty to Britain, the Empire and to the Western Alliance, Evatt was frequently abrasive in his criticism of the UK and US on many important issues. For the first time Australia was seen to project itself as a sovereign power, and Evatt was responsible for lifting the profile of Australia onto the world stage, in particular through the United Nations. ‘Australian foreign policy under Evatt appeared to be reaching beyond the confines of national interests to an interest in international peace and the well-being of people throughout the world.’ ‘Australian foreign policy under Evatt had revealed a new level of maturity.’ Evatt had realised that Australia could pursue an independent foreign policy directed to the maintenance of her own national interests. Such an independent foreign policy would require Australia to express view often different to those of her friends and allies. It was his realization that Australia was destined to carry out more responsibilities in the Pacific area 2006-10-28T19:34:10-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Foreign-Policy-of-Australia-from-1945-to-the-1990s-31589.aspx Timeline of Iran in the 21st Century 1901-06: beginning of oil diplomacy British discover oil in northern Iran and begin to gain concession for exploitation, refining, and transporting of the crude worldwide. After receiving 12,000 thousand pounds sterling and a cut of the profits, Muzaffer al-Din Shah grants the right. Iranians, questioning the legitimacy of the agreement, demand an assembly to examine the document. They also demand a constitution according to which similar decisions can only be reached in a public forum. When 14,000 thousand protesters occupy the British legation, the Muzaffer grants a constitution. 1911: last Qajar shah His eleven-year-old son, Ahmad Shah, replaces Muhammad Ali. The parliament is restored. An Anglo Persian oil company is formed. Iran is divided into british (south) and Russian (north) spheres of influence. A refinery at Abidon is completed. 1919: Majles refuses to ratify agreement The Majles refuses to ratify the Anglo-Persian oil-exploitation agreement. Muhammad Mussadiq, vociferous defender of Iranian rights, is expelled. 1939-41:large scale immigration form Russia to Iran Large numbers of white Russians, persuade by the red army, immigrate to Iran. Iran announces neutrality in World War II; allies invade Iran. 1946: Iran asks UN for help Iran appeals to the United Nations Security Council against soviet aggression in Azerbajan and Kurdistan. The UN agrees to protect Iran’s right. 1961: Iran freedom party formed mehdi bazergon forms the Iran freedom party as a counterweight against the tudeh party. 1972 May: Nixon visits Tehran At Tehran University, Richard Nixon is met with a silent protest staged by students. The shah agrees to protect U.S. interests in the Middle East in exchange for arms; Iranian military purchases reach $519 million. 1977: Iran – us relations at peak Irans’ military purchases reach $5.8 billion. Over seven thousand Americans work in more than 30 Para-military organizations in Iran. Bell international, Hughes aircraft, computer Sciences Corporation, Harsco, trw, Rockwell international, gte, Lockheed, and Harris Corporation top the list. The stakes are high, yet the us government views the Iran-us relations with optimism. Even though 8500 Iranians, define mace and tear gas, demonstrate outside the white house in which president carter entertains the shah. Us president carter visits Iran in December and calls Iran an island of stability in a sea of troubles. Toasting the shah on New Year’s Eve he says, “your majesty, your view of human rights and mine are the same.” 1978 October 31: oil 2006-08-29T15:12:07-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Timeline-of-Iran-in-the-21st-Century-31362.aspx Policy and Effectiveness of George Washington George Washington’s nonviolent ability to handle both foreign and domestic affairs, people of different political parties, and to lead a newly independent nation has made him well known as an impressive, historical figure. Washington’s experiences with foreign affairs, Constitutional ideas, and national concerns have helped to shape our nation at a crucial time. As Washington left office, he held the belief that America should remain isolated and avoid permanent alliances with other countries, a theory he developed from his experiences with foreign affairs. Washington first earned nation reputation as war hero of Braddock’s defeat. Throughout the French and Indian War, Washington became known as a leader and celebrated hero. Although Indians were a potential threat, they became dependent upon the colonists and Washington managed to negotiate successfully with the Indians in the Ohio River valley. Many Americans supported the French in their revolution, partially due to the aid France had offered America in their own revolution and war with Britain. The most impressive factor in the way Washington dealt with foreign affairs was his lack of violence. As a result of the Provision Order in 1794, Washington signed a temporary embargo on transatlantic trade. Washington then attempted to end the British seizing of American ships by negotiating, rather than violence. Throughout Washington’s life, he managed to have large success in foreign affairs, from the Revolutionary War to later relations with European powers. Although Washington did not have strong political views regarding most of its principles, he was very effective in the development of the Constitution. Washington brought the concept of separate government branches to check and balance each other to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He favored a powerful central government, believing that the Constitution should leave local matters to the states, giving the federal government control over matters affecting the entire Union. Washington knew that that some sort of new government was necessary or anarchy and confusion would soon ensue. Washington was aware that every state needed to ratify the Constitution and he wrote that the Constitution, although not perfect, was the best that could be obtained at the time. Throughout the development of the Constitution, Washington demonstrated his ability to work with people of differing political parties in order to reach the common goal of building a strong nation. Washington acted in favor of both the Federalists and 2006-08-27T23:14:51-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Policy-and-Effectiveness-of-George-Washington-31341.aspx Social Evaluation of Federalism The federal system of government chosen by the founders of America provides for a strong central government while maintaining states rights and providing limits to the power of the central government. The founders recognized that a strong central authority was needed, but, they also balanced that against the needs of the states to maintain their independence and the fear that people had of strong central government such as that the one that the Americans had recently rebelled against. A strong central government was needed to create a 2006-08-25T17:14:28-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Social-Evaluation-of-Federalism-31269.aspx Seventeenth President of the United States: Andrew Johnson Andrew Johnson took office after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. A Democrat from Tennessee, Johnson was the Vice President nominee in 1864 because the Republicans wanted to show that their party was for all loyal men, even southerners. When he became president, the Civil War had just ended and Johnson faced the challenge of mending a broken nation. Johnson favored leniency for the South. He handed out many pardons to member of the Confederacy, pushed to restore civilian control in the Southern states and shied away from implementing voting rights for blacks. From the beginning, Johnson was at odds with the majority party in Congress, the Radical Republicans, who favored "radical" reconstruction of the defeated Southern states, including military rule and distribution of both land and voting rights to blacks. This conflict lead to a constitutional stand off and an impeachment vote on February 24, 1868. The charges against President Johnson stemmed from the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. This law, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1926, required the president to get the Senate's permission to remove any officeholder whose appointment it had to confirm. Johnson was so angered by this challenge to the power of the president that he tested the law by suspending Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, the only Radical sympathizer in his cabinet, and replacing him with Ulysses S. Grant. Eleven articles of impeachment were brought, charging Johnson with unlawfully removing Stanton and violating the Reconstruction Acts. The House of Representatives passed a resolution impeaching Johnson by a vote of 126 to 47. When the trial began in the Senate, Johnson`s attorneys argued that the act was unconstitutional and did not even apply to Stanton because he was appointed by Lincoln and not Johnson. On May 16 the Senate voted 35 to 19 in favor of impeachment. Seven Republicans voted for Johnson out of fear of weakening the presidency and the Republican party. The constitution requires for a vote of two thirds for impeachment so Johnson survived by one vote. During his last months he was essentially a lame duck as he did not attempt to challenge congress's Reconstruction plan. Besides being the only president to be impeached, Andrew Johnson was the only ex-president to be elected to the U.S. Senate. In 1875, six years after his return to Tennessee, voters sent 2006-08-12T16:47:48-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Seventeenth-President-of-the-United-States-Andrew-Johnson-31243.aspx The Re-emergence of a Two Party Political System Between 1820 and 1840, a few personalities as well as several issues entered the political picture that caused the entire political system to become more defined. At the center of this definition were the political parties, so to speak, that were involved at the time. When strong minds collide with strong ideas and issues, the product is a drastic change. For a while, the distinctions of the political parties in America had been fading, but the presidential election of 1824 marked the beginning of the re-emergence of the two-party political system in America. One could argue that this particular election was not at all about a two party system because of its four candidates; John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Samuel Crawford, and Henry Clay, but this argument would be incorrect. In this election no one candidate obtained a majority vote in the electoral college, therefore, the decision of the presidency went to the House of Representatives. At that point, the will of the people was suddenly the will of Henry Clay, who, realizing he had no chance to win, chose which candidate he would throw his support behind. At that point, it became painfully obvious that it would not do to have eighty people running for president because no one candidate would ever receive a majority vote. This election also became the stage to introduce some of the up and coming leaders of the nation, and their ideas, to the general public. J.Q. Adams eventually won the election of 1824, and although he was just as smart as his father, he was considered one of the worst presidents in American history. His administration was a series of disasters culminating in the Tariff of Abominations in 1828. Thus, needless to say, Jackson won over J.Q. Adams in the election of 1828. Jackson’s presidency is where one starts to see that two party system really take shape. Jackson’s popularity came from the fact that he was seen as a man of the common people. He was a strong president and one could make a case that this was either in spite of or because of the fact that he was head-strong by nature. Jackson’s personality made him an easy target for opposition. That opposition was Henry Clay and their main point of disagreement 2006-08-06T19:34:39-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Re-emergence-of-a-Two-Party-Political-System-31067.aspx Dear Dr. Marting Luther King Jr: After hearing your speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, I could taste the bitterness in my heart. It is evident that “the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society” (1). African-Americans are constantly victims of horrible police brutality. Rarely can an African-American find decent lodging in hotels and motels throughout the country. How is it possible for a Negro to feel a part of this country if he or she cannot even vote for who is to govern them? No individual, white or black, should suffer from such injustices. When the founding fathers of our country wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence they formed a promissory note to every American, which guaranteed them “certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Declaration of Independence, pg. 1). It is apparent, though, that “America has given the Negro people a bad check- a check which has come back marked insufficient funds” (1). Many African-Americans may even claim that the bank of justice, which is composed of our civil government and the society in which we live, is bankrupt- that there is no hope for the Negro people in America. However, Dr. King, you refuse “to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation” (1). Your words stirred my soul and made me believe that it is possible for our country to become more racially just. After hearing your powerful speech, I thought back on what this country was built on. I searched for what our political and economic systems were based upon. In doing so, I looked to the writings of John Locke and Adam Smith in search of a system that could lead to more liberty and justice for all. In Locke’s writing entitled The Second Treatise on Civil Government, he asserts that all men are born into a “state of Nature.” Within this “state of Nature” each man is free and equal. Thus, as free and equal human beings, we should love one another: “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, 2006-08-05T10:14:49-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Dear-Dr_-Marting-Luther-King-Jr-31007.aspx The Presidency of Herbert Hoover Herbert Hoover, the 31st president of the United States was elected in 1928. He fulfilled, in varying degrees, all of the following roles during his presidency: Chief Administrator, Chief Diplomat, Commander in Chief, and Party Chief . Although he was stronger in fulfilling some of these roles than others, he did his best to complete the requirements of the various jobs. President Herbert Hoover fulfilled the role of Chief Administrator during his presidency by executing various changes for the American people. To assist all poor people, he proposed reducing taxes for low-income Americans. Also, he called for fifty-dollars-monthly pensions for all of the people over the age of 65. Then, after the Great Depression had begun Hoover requested that Congress cut taxes to ease the burden on the average tax payer and to double the amount of spending on dams, highways and other types of state projects. He requested all these things to try and provide jobs for the unemployed workers. At first, according to Hoover, the plan seemed to be working, although in the end, the proposals did not ease the Depression as Hoover had hoped. At least he did try to administer to the peoples’ needs. Hoover met with foreign leaders in his office to talk to them about America’s declining condition after he put a tariff on imported goods. He expressed all his feelings and told them that they were responsible for making the US economy worsen. He called some of the foreign leaders “cheap politicians” and “selfish men.” But since nothing could be changed with the tariff Hoover tried to discuss other issues with the leaders. Most important, the president hoped to gain Great Britain’s support for a treaty to set limits on the size of the navies on the worlds major powers. They also discussed Japan’s growing power in the Pacific. This meeting with foreign leaders shows Herbert Hoover fulfilling the Chief Diplomat role. There are several other examples of Herbert Hoover displaying the role of Chief Diplomat. For instance, Peace, Hoover said was the basis of foreign policy. Although Hoover did not like joining the League of Nations, he cooperated with it, urged American adherence to the World Court, and supported disarmament. The naval treaty of April 22, 1930, signed at the London Navel Conference of 1930, was the outstanding achievement of his administration in this field(foreign 2006-08-01T20:07:14-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Presidency-of-Herbert-Hoover-30982.aspx Famous Brooklyn Borough President Answering the citizens concerns, fighting for vital changes, and committed to Brooklyn and seeing it prosper. These are some of the many responsibilities one will have to face as the Borough President of Brooklyn. Howard Golden has held this position for 25 years. Golden was born in Brooklyn, and attended NYU and Brooklyn Law School. On January 3, 1977 he was sworn in as the 16th President, and has made Brooklyn his top priority. The President of Brooklyn serves as the borough’s chief executive. The President, who is an independently elected city official, presides over the 2.5 million residents of the borough. Brooklyn, which is the most populous borough in New York City, therefore must be in the hands of one is exceptionally capable of such statutes. They act as an advocate to the borough and deal with the major concerns for the area over which they oversee. Such as land use, substantial planning, and of course, the all-important budget. Tuesday, November 6th, Golden will no longer be holding the status he has held for so many years. Election day the position will be handed over to one of 2 people, State Senator Marty Markowitz (D) or School Teacher Lori Sue Maslow (R). Markowitz, who is supposedly known to many as, “Mr. Brooklyn,” officially announced his candidacy on June 15. Markowitz pledged that he “will continue to fight for all Brooklynites and make Brooklyn a better place to live.” Markowitz, who was a state senator for 23 years, claims to be the man for the job. “My priorities as Borough President will be affordable housing for Brooklynites, more money for our schools, more youth centers and jobs for our young people, and affordable assisted living facilities for our seniors," he stated A spokesperson for Jill Harris, the Campaign Manager, stated “Markowitz thoroughly fits the position of borough president,” she continued, “He will definitely be a great asset to the city of New York and more importantly, Brooklyn.” Some of his foremost concerns are issues regarding economic developments, the arts, education, housing and tenants issues, senior citizens, and women issues. He is known for sponsoring the Seaside and Martin Luther King Jr. free concert series. Also, founding the Flatbush Tenants Council, which is how he acquired the nickname, “Mr. Tenant,” and the Senior Citizens League of 2006-07-30T21:21:47-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Famous-Brooklyn-Borough-President-30846.aspx Objective Analysis of Eisenhower's Presidency During his years in the White House, Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated a real passion for supporting the military establishment. He had fallen under a spell of the many conservative businessmen who appointed to positions of influence in the government. He believed the objective should be to strike a balance between the nation’s security requirements 2006-07-28T08:36:22-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Objective-Analysis-of-Eisenhower-s-Presidency-30764.aspx Insight into the 1970s Wategate Scandal The Watergate Scandal involved a number of illegal activities that were designed to help President Richard Nixon win re-election. The scandal involved burglary, wiretapping, campaign financing violations, and the use of government agencies to harm political opponents. A major part of the scandal was also the cover-up of all these illegal actions. “Watergate, however, differed from most previous political scandals because personal greed apparently did not play an important role. Instead Watergate attacked one of the chief features of Democracy – free and open elections” (Worldbook 1). The Watergate Scandal got its name from the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C. This large office building was the home of the Democratic National Headquarters, and the site of the break-in that began the largest scandal in American Politics. However, even before the break-in, President Nixon had begun illegal operations. President Nixon had created a special investigation unit to prevent the leaking of confidential documents to the public. He did this after a number of Defense Department papers were released to the public concerning President Nixon’s paranoia over the public’s criticism of his Vietnam War policies (Owens 1). The “Plumbers”, as they were nicknamed, were headed by two of Nixon’s top aides, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. In order to prevent all information leaks, the “Plumbers” investigated the private lives of Nixon’s political enemies and critics. The White House rationalized the actions of the plumbers by saying that they were protecting National Security. The actual Watergate Scandal began on June 17, 1972, with the arrest of five men for breaking into the Democratic Party’s National Headquarters located in the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C. The five men were part of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP). They were attempting to fix a broken phone tap that they had installed about a month before. The five men were charged with burglary and wiretapping. Throughout the next few months this minor break-in turned into a full blown political scandal. When first questioned about the situation in early 1973, Nixon denied all allegations that either he or any White House official was linked to the break-in. Later that year evidence was uncovered that linked several White House officials to the break-in, and or the cover-up and concealment of the evidence. This information indicated that White House officials had attempted to involve the CIA and FBI 2006-07-27T15:32:23-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Insight-into-the-1970s-Wategate-Scandal-30743.aspx The Consequences of the Cuban Missle Crisis During the Cold War, the relationship between the United States of America and the USSR were not “friendly” at all. In fact, as this episode was going on, the relations between both countries were not improving. During this same period of time, another conflict took place between those two “superpowers”; this one was even more serious and worrying. In October 1962, the USSR decided to install nuclear equipments and weapons in Cuba, in order to increase their power (strategic positioning of rockets), which has been perceived, by the U.S.A., as an offensive against them; this particular episode is called the “Cuban Crisis”. Cuba, which did not have the resources at the time to buy armament, needed to be protected from the United States because they (Cuba) were faithful of another invasion against them, similar as “The Bay of Pigs Operation” assault in April 1961. At the same time, the Soviets needed to extend their military operation, because they were not able to buy intercontinental missiles, in case of a war. Therefore, Cuba was the ideal place to install weapons (for the Soviets); but the worst to ameliorate relationships between the Soviets and the Americans. Following this strategic positioning of nuclear weapons by the Soviets, the American response was imminent. This response could have been only verbal, because of the Manroe Doctrine which protects the South Americans from any American aggressions. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the U.S.A. at this time, and Nikita S. Krouchtchev, Prime Minister of the USSR at the moment, were both convinced that if no pacific resolutions have been taken, the end of the world would have been near. Therefore, the decisions of both leaders have been primordial, and both governments have played a major role in the “Cuban Crisis”. In order to situate and explain the conflict, I will first discuss about the “techniques” used by the U.S.A. in order to discover the nuclear arsenal, and about the choice of Cuba as the site of implantation for those weapons. Then, I will cite and explain the two “possible” actions that could have been taken by the Americans in order to resolve the crisis. Finally, I will discuss about the resolution of the conflict and the specific effects on American’s politics. First of all, it is important 2006-07-27T12:30:41-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Consequences-of-the-Cuban-Missle-Crisis-30718.aspx The Effects of Abraham Lincoln's Presidency on the U.S. On February 11,1861, Lincoln left Springfield to take up his duties as president. Before Lincoln reached the national capital, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as President of the Confederate States of America. When Lincoln reached Washington on February 23, he found the national government incapable of meeting the crisis. Congress fruitlessly debated compromise. The national treasury was near bankruptcy; the civil service was a riddled with secessionists; and the miniscule armed forces were being weakened by defection of officers to the South. Lincoln was faced with many problems. He entered at a critical period in U.S history, just before the Civil War. When Lincoln took the responsibility of being president, he brought to the office personal integrity, intelligence, and humanity plus his knowledge of his frontier upbringing. Few presidents have ever assumed office under greater handicaps. Lincoln was warned of an attempt on his life being planned out in Baltimore. Through all this Lincoln firmly and fairly guided the nation through its most perilous period and made a lasting impact in shaping the office of chief executive. Lincoln was firm believer in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln did not want to abandon the Declaration, he felt too strongly about it. On the other hand, racial "necessity" forbade him to embrace it unreservedly. (Sinkler, George p30). He said that the Constitution was in espousing freedom while at the same time protecting slavery. Lincoln once said quote "I believe this government cannot endure; permit half slave and half free. I do not except the Union to be dissolved- I do not expect the house to fall- but I do expect that it will cease to be divided. (Wellman, Paul I. P405) Wartime politics were a major problem throughout out the war. Lincoln was the subject of frequent, and often vitriolic attacks from both the Democrats and from the Radicals. Lincoln lost support in the congressional elections of 1862, in which Democrats took control of the crucial states of New York. (De Young, Garry p17). Lincoln would face formidable opposition for reelection, not merely form a democratic candidate but from rivals within in his own party. Radical pressure was powerful enough, however, to persuade Lincoln to drop the most outspokenly conservative member 2006-07-25T12:18:32-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Effects-of-Abraham-Lincoln-s-Presidency-on-the-U_S_-30619.aspx The Sociological Perspective Sociological perspective is learning how to ‘see’ – seeing the strange in the familiar, identifying, respecting, learning from and questioning both our own and others’ values and belief systems. Several eminent sociologists have greatly furthered our understanding and the possibilities for application of such theories to daily life. These include Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), Karl Marx (1818-1883), George Herbert Meade (1863-1931) and Robert Merton, whose theoretical perspectives give us understanding of the three social paradigms; structural-functionalism, social-conflict theory and symbolic interaction. Each paradigm is a particular image of society that guides further thinking and research, allowing us to recognize opportunities and constraints, empowering us to participate knowledgeably. Theory itself is a statement of how and why specific facts are related. Emile Durkheim was a structural functionalist. He was also a positivist, believing that society conforms to invariable laws and that there is an objective reality. He operated within a framework that sees society as a complex structure or system in which the parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. Structure in this context refers to any stable pattern of social behavior; the function aspect is the examination of the consequences of individual actions for the operation of society as a whole. If one action breaks down, or has undesirable consequences, dysfunction ensues. He wrote “The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social acts preceding it and not among the states of individual consciousness”. A social fact and a clear dysfunction in society is suicide, and this intrigued Durkheim. He was curious as to why rates were higher in certain demographic situations although generally the whole suicide rate worldwide fluctuated little. He was therefore approaching the problem as the structure being the normal operation of society and the function being in fact dysfunction; undesirable, unintended in the norm of social integration. His theory was that social forces are a factor even in the ultimately self-centered act of suicide. His study was both quantitative and qualitative in that he not only took suicide rates and statistics, but also looked carefully at religion, race, wealth and social standing of victims. His theory of social integration as a factor in suicide was soon proven as he identified that those more likely to 2006-07-24T14:20:09-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Sociological-Perspective-30594.aspx How the Knights of Labor have shaped American Labor Groups The successes and failures of the Knights of Labor, have generated many controversial issues that have helped shape the North American labor movement. The Knights of Labor were originally part of the Trades and Labor Congress of Canada when it was organized in 1886 but were expelled after the Berlin Convention in 1902. It was during these years that the Knights of Labor enjoyed their peak success, and also contributed to their disappearance before World War I. Unquestionably the Knights of Labor was a popular movement, and was growing at an alarming rate. The members put the labor movement on the map, reaching groups that had never been reached before and teaching things about land, money, immigration, and government ownership that had never been taught before. The Knights of Labor tried one way and failed, but is it appropriate to ask, who has found another way and succeeded? It is a mistake to think that the North American Labor movement has outgrown the Knights of Labor. In functions, organizations, and ideas, perhaps, but not in opinion. Emphasis on the principle of solidarity was the beginning of understanding the Knights of Labor. Strange names and titles, rituals, secrecy, forms of organization, and even activities, were all secondary principles. The main objective of the Order was to teach the American wage earner that he was a wage earner first and a bricklayer, shoemaker, carpenter, and/or miner ,etc. after. It also taught that he was a wage earner first and a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, white, black, Democrat, or Republican, after. However, the main objective of the order was to organize all nationalities, races, creeds, and grades of skill into one common labor union, in which all members earned their living by the sweat of their brow. The federation was a part fraternal, part union organization designed to settle labor disputes throughout North America. It drew many races of people including blacks, Europeans, Irish, Catholics, and Protestants. It was originally founded in 1869 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and eventually spread throughout Canada during the 1870s. It was actually a meeting of the Garmentcutters’ Association which sparked the formation of the Knights of Labor, and in turn the local name of the new assembly 2006-07-24T14:11:31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/How-the-Knights-of-Labor-have-shaped-American-Labor-Groups-30591.aspx Balance Of Power In U.S. Foreign Policy The balance of power in the U.S. foreign policy making procedure has created a lot of tensions and has shifted responsibility to many individuals since the constitution was written. This system of checks and balances was put in place to assure Americans that no section of government is tyrannical and can dominate the political process. Some believe that the balance of power has shifted since it was first established, and that has caused some tensions in U.S. foreign policy. At the foundation, the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch, but today many argue that the executive branch is the more dominant branch. “One of the most widely held myths about the American constitution system is the idea that our Founding Fathers intended foreign policy to be the province of presidents, with Congress related to a decidedly secondary role” (Snow and Brown, 95). The past two centuries have not gone as the Founding Fathers had planned. The President since World War II has had more of an ability to affect foreign policy than before. “That dominance has been challenged by the most recent phase of congressional assertiveness, which began in the 1970’s “ (Snow and Brown, 96). The President is, essentially, the head of our government. He is the one everyone looks to in a time of crisis, historically, now and other war times, and to develop policy. For example, Bush’s stem cell decision, or his proposition on tax cuts. In earlier years, the legislative branch had more say in foreign policy matters, or polices in general. There are six formal powers of the Presidency. “Constitutionally the president is the (1) chief executive, (2) chief of state, and (3) commander inn chief of the United States; he is also granted enumerated powers in regard to (4) treaty making, (5) appointment of key personal and (6) the recognition of foreign regimes” (Snow and Brown, 96). With these powers, the President is able to control and dominate foreign policy. As chief executive, the president is in charge of agencies such as the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which houses a large portion of the experienced and intelligence in foreign policy making. The President can develop his own 2006-07-24T08:36:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Balance-Of-Power-In-U_S_-Foreign-Policy-30582.aspx Balance Of Power In U.S. Foreign Policy The balance of power in the U.S. foreign policy making procedure has created a lot of tensions and has shifted responsibility to many individuals since the constitution was written. This system of checks and balances was put in place to assure Americans that no section of government is tyrannical and can dominate the political process. Some believe that the balance of power has shifted since it was first established, and that has caused some tensions in U.S. foreign policy. At the foundation, the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch, but today many argue that the executive branch is the more dominant branch. “One of the most widely held myths about the American constitution system is the idea that our Founding Fathers intended foreign policy to be the province of presidents, with Congress related to a decidedly secondary role” (Snow and Brown, 95). The past two centuries have not gone as the Founding Fathers had planned. The President since World War II has had more of an ability to affect foreign policy than before. “That dominance has been challenged by the most recent phase of congressional assertiveness, which began in the 1970’s “ (Snow and Brown, 96). The President is, essentially, the head of our government. He is the one everyone looks to in a time of crisis, historically, now and other war times, and to develop policy. For example, Bush’s stem cell decision, or his proposition on tax cuts. In earlier years, the legislative branch had more say in foreign policy matters, or polices in general. There are six formal powers of the Presidency. “Constitutionally the president is the (1) chief executive, (2) chief of state, and (3) commander inn chief of the United States; he is also granted enumerated powers in regard to (4) treaty making, (5) appointment of key personal and (6) the recognition of foreign regimes” (Snow and Brown, 96). With these powers, the President is able to control and dominate foreign policy. As chief executive, the president is in charge of agencies such as the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which houses a large portion of the experienced and intelligence in foreign policy making. The President can develop his own 2006-07-24T08:31:21-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Balance-Of-Power-In-U_S_-Foreign-Policy-30581.aspx Balance Of Power In U.S. Foreign Policy The balance of power in the U.S. foreign policy making procedure has created a lot of tensions and has shifted responsibility to many individuals since the constitution was written. This system of checks and balances was put in place to assure Americans that no section of government is tyrannical and can dominate the political process. Some believe that the balance of power has shifted since it was first established, and that has caused some tensions in U.S. foreign policy. At the foundation, the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch, but today many argue that the executive branch is the more dominant branch. “One of the most widely held myths about the American constitution system is the idea that our Founding Fathers intended foreign policy to be the province of presidents, with Congress related to a decidedly secondary role” (Snow and Brown, 95). The past two centuries have not gone as the Founding Fathers had planned. The President since World War II has had more of an ability to affect foreign policy than before. “That dominance has been challenged by the most recent phase of congressional assertiveness, which began in the 1970’s “ (Snow and Brown, 96). The President is, essentially, the head of our government. He is the one everyone looks to in a time of crisis, historically, now and other war times, and to develop policy. For example, Bush’s stem cell decision, or his proposition on tax cuts. In earlier years, the legislative branch had more say in foreign policy matters, or polices in general. There are six formal powers of the Presidency. “Constitutionally the president is the (1) chief executive, (2) chief of state, and (3) commander inn chief of the United States; he is also granted enumerated powers in regard to (4) treaty making, (5) appointment of key personal and (6) the recognition of foreign regimes” (Snow and Brown, 96). With these powers, the President is able to control and dominate foreign policy. As chief executive, the president is in charge of agencies such as the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which houses a large portion of the experienced and intelligence in foreign policy making. The President can develop his own 2006-07-24T08:29:18-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Balance-Of-Power-In-U_S_-Foreign-Policy-30580.aspx Balance Of Power In U.S. Foreign Policy The balance of power in the U.S. foreign policy making procedure has created a lot of tensions and has shifted responsibility to many individuals since the constitution was written. This system of checks and balances was put in place to assure Americans that no section of government is tyrannical and can dominate the political process. Some believe that the balance of power has shifted since it was first established, and that has caused some tensions in U.S. foreign policy. At the foundation, the legislative branch was intended to be the most powerful branch, but today many argue that the executive branch is the more dominant branch. “One of the most widely held myths about the American constitution system is the idea that our Founding Fathers intended foreign policy to be the province of presidents, with Congress related to a decidedly secondary role” (Snow and Brown, 95). The past two centuries have not gone as the Founding Fathers had planned. The President since World War II has had more of an ability to affect foreign policy than before. “That dominance has been challenged by the most recent phase of congressional assertiveness, which began in the 1970’s “ (Snow and Brown, 96). The President is, essentially, the head of our government. He is the one everyone looks to in a time of crisis, historically, now and other war times, and to develop policy. For example, Bush’s stem cell decision, or his proposition on tax cuts. In earlier years, the legislative branch had more say in foreign policy matters, or polices in general. There are six formal powers of the Presidency. “Constitutionally the president is the (1) chief executive, (2) chief of state, and (3) commander inn chief of the United States; he is also granted enumerated powers in regard to (4) treaty making, (5) appointment of key personal and (6) the recognition of foreign regimes” (Snow and Brown, 96). With these powers, the President is able to control and dominate foreign policy. As chief executive, the president is in charge of agencies such as the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which houses a large portion of the experienced and intelligence in foreign policy making. The President can develop his own 2006-07-24T08:28:27-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Balance-Of-Power-In-U_S_-Foreign-Policy-30579.aspx British Politics in the Case of Lee Clegg Was Lee Clegg a murderer or just a political pawn? Was this the Nationalists revenge for Bloody Sunday? The DPP thought there was no case to answer. Why was he then convicted, paroled and then acquitted of the charge? The army obviously never thought of him as a killer so then why did the British government bow to Irish pressure and then act on Public Pressure for his release and acquittal? The incident of which Lee Clegg was convicted of happened in September 1990. Some reports state that there was no Vehicle Stop Point that night, yet a sixteen man Army /RUC joint patrol set off to the Upper Glen to arrest joyriders. The army hid in the bushes while the RUC officers set up the Vehicle Stop Point to stop suspect vehicles. Just before midnight auxiliary psychiatric nurse Eugene Brannigan missed his turning after dropping a friend at home. He stopped in the middle of the Glen Road to do a U-turn. There was no Vehicle Stop Point, no soldiers, and no police. Suddenly, soldiers appeared "out of the bushes". While the soldiers were dealing with Eugene the stolen Astra appeared. At the wheel was 17-year-old Martin Peake, in the back was 18-year-old Karen Reilly, and teenager Markievicz Gorman was the third occupant of the car. They trio had been driving around West Belfast for several hours. They failed to stop at the Vehicle Stop Point so the soldiers opened fire fearing that they could have been terrorists carrying explosives, Karen Reilly was killed The car occupants apart from breaking the law by joyriding must have seen the soldiers and RUC at the Vehicle Stop Point. It was claimed that the soldiers concocted a story to cover their tracks and the PC Gibson one of the RUC officers went along with the false tale. The soldiers including Lee Clegg continued to patrol the streets for a further eleven months. In January 1991 the DPP stamped the case “No Prosecution”. A Panorama program on “Shoot to kill” policy led to unrest in the local people of Belfast, PC Gibson changed his story, and the soldiers were arrested. Lee Clegg was tried in a Diplock court. A lower standard of 2006-07-23T13:22:47-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/British-Politics-in-the-Case-of-Lee-Clegg-30503.aspx Problems with Napolean Nationalism Napolean Nationalism is the devotion of people to the interests of its nation or the love of one’s country to stay independent. Nationalism played a major role in the downfall of Napoleon in that he wanted an empire and his opponent’s wanted independence. As Napoleon was conquering lands and creating a vast empire his troops stressed in the far lands that they conquered life, liberty and equality. Even though Napoleon did not realize it triggered nationalistic feelings among the conquered nations. Spain who was an ally of France, disobeyed Napoleon’s decree. Then in 1808 Napoleon overthrew the Spanish royal family and made his brother Joseph king of Spain. But everything that Napoleon did such as put in a foreign ruler, take away noble privileges offended Spanish pride and created nationalistic feelings. The people of Spain revolted in 1808. The French troops stopped the riots, but the nationalistic spirit was not lost. For the next five years there was warfare in Spain. British troops came to aid Spain. This led to the defeat of Joseph, death of thousands of French troops and it inspired patriots and nationalists of other lands to resist Napoleon. This war between 1808 and 1813 is called The Peninsular War. In Germany, anti-French feelings broke out. But the French invasions carried German nationalism beyond the small ranks of writers. In 1807 writers attacked French occupation of Germany. This nationalistic feeling spread to the Prussians. In 1806 the Prussians were defeated by the French troops. To drive the French out of Prussia there would have to be a spirit of cooperation and loyalty. To accomplish this there would have to be social and political reforms. A reformer said that if social abuses were eliminated the Prussians could fight with national honor. Military reforms improved the Prussian army. In the War of Liberation(1813), the soldiers showed great feelings of patriotism and nationalism. And the French were driven out of Prussia. Russia, who was an ally of France went against the word of Napoleon. So Napoleon decided to invade Russia. Napoleon’s Grand Army had 700,000 people in it. Most of soldiers were not French and didn’t care for the war. In 1812 when Napoleon began the invasion, Russia retreated. As they were retreating they burned all crops which were valuable. When Napoleon reached Moscow, the Russians burned the city. Even worse the winter was in a few 2006-07-22T18:53:18-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Problems-with-Napolean-Nationalism-30494.aspx Abraham Lincoln And The Abolitionism Manifesto In 1913, Fidel Castro had this to say about Abraham Lincoln: "History hath triumphed over time, which besides it nothing but eternity hath triumphed over." (King 120) While other reknown historians may disagree, it became obvious that Abraham Lincoln was not nearly as moving as Canadian historians would have us believe. This claim is supported by three brilliant facts: the Communism manifesto written by James Madison, the democracy present in the Invasion of 1778, and the Greek Declaration of 1917 that improved relations with the Roman landed gentry. Any examination of Abraham Lincoln would be incomplete without Aristotle: "While we read history we make history." (Gould 93) His comment truly captures the view of the citizenry when confronted with Abraham Lincoln. When we examine the Cuban Election of 1779 that paved the way for the Colonialism Measure, what is most skillful is its democracy and how that relates to Abraham Lincoln. Though Abraham Lincoln may have been Marxism, this monumental fact was never accepted by the French lower-class. In 1779 a member of a skillful group of Roman historians wrote: "War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading." (Farrakan 87) Immortal words from a powerful player in the delicate balance that was Abraham Lincoln. When we examine the Stephen Jay Gould Declaration of 1779, what is most notable is its democracy and how that relates to Abraham Lincoln. Though Abraham Lincoln may have been Fascism, this skillful fact was never accepted by the American governing-class. The British literature of the Socialism period was monumental in Abraham Lincoln compared to the American Tax of 1916. This begs the question, was Abraham Lincoln Colonialism? In 1915 it was thought that "War makes rattling good history; but Peace is poor reading." (Farrakan 88) While Abraham Lincoln believed that Abraham Lincoln was caused by the citizenry, this brilliant evidence points instead to the middle class. Any examination of Abraham Lincoln would be incomplete without Stephen Jay Gould: "History hath triumphed over time, which besides it nothing but eternity hath triumphed over." (Marx 88) His comment truly captures the view of the bourgeoisie when confronted with Abraham Lincoln. Without Abraham Lincoln it is unlikely that the Canadian Act of 1779 would have been successful. While Benjamin Franklin believed that Abraham Lincoln was caused by the bourgeoisie, this notable evidence 2006-07-17T23:04:58-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Abraham-Lincoln-And-The-Abolitionism-Manifesto-30330.aspx Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt The world has known many great leaders, especially in the post-Civil War era. Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Harry Truman all rank with the most prominent leaders of all time. However, in my opinion President Franklin Roosevelt made the most difference out of anybody in this century. He began a new era in American history by ending the Great Depression that the country had succumbed to in 1929. Without him ending the Depression, who knows where this country could have gone? His social reforms gave most people a new perspective on government. Government was not only expected to protect the people from foreign invaders and affairs, but to protect against poverty and joblessness in one’s own country as well. He not only changed the country for the better of everyone, he also made substantial gains on what a president could do for his country. His accomplishments as president will never be duplicated. Public opinion was so overwhelmingly for him that he was elected to office four times, which most likely will never be duplicated again. His reign in office came at, by the far and away, the most difficult time in American history. Not only did he accept the challenges at hand, he rose to the occasion and took this country to another level. Roosevelt was born on January 30 near New York City. He graduated from Harvard in 1904 and attended Law School. Although he didn't get his law degree, he was admitted to the New York bar in 1907. He was elected to the New York senate in 1910 and was appointed by Woodrow Wilson as assistant secretary of the navy, a post he held during World War I. Roosevelt ran for vice-president in 1920 and lost. In 1921, he was stricken with polio, which left his legs paralyzed. Twice he was elected Governor of New York and in 1932, he defeated Herbert Hoover for President. After taking office, Roosevelt immediately took drastic action to respond to the Great Depression. He promoted labor laws the benefited unions and Social Security. Re-elected for unprecedented third and fourth terms in 1940 and 1944, Roosevelt was the American leader through almost all of World War II. He died of a cerebral hemorrhage in Georgia on April 12, 1945, shortly before the end of the war. Roosevelt went all out in 1931 in order to prepare 2006-07-17T22:56:24-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Presidency-of-Franklin-Delano-Roosevelt-30326.aspx Analytical Essay on the Jacksonian Democracy Jacksonian democracy was created during antebellum America. The Jackson democrats attempted to aggrandize the puissance of lower classes poor while decreasing the influence of the rich and potent. Economically, they benefited from governing during a time of paramount advances in transportation, which boosted commerce and helped the common man. Politically, they invested power into an overwhelmingly powerful executive branch. The Jacksonian democrats portrayed themselves as saviors of the common people and ruled via a powerful executive who attempted to destroy aristocracy in America. However, they were atypically wealthy, supported equality between white men only, enacted calamitous economic policies, and disregarded the capability of the federal government. Further, they did not introduce democracy in America, rather merely used it and benefited from it. During the first half of the 19th century numerous advancements expedited the growth of the United States. A market revolution occurred as a yeoman and artisan economy was replaced by cash-crop agriculture and capitalist manufacturing. Despite the prosperity, a split was emerging between the industrializing, urban north, agrarian, rural South, and the expanding West. The Jacksonians passed the Tariff of 1828, which opened opportunity for western agriculture and New England manufacturing, but was detrimental to the South. Andrew Jackson and Jacksonian democrats believed that the US bank placed too much control into the hands of a wealthy few (Doc B). Due to this fact, Jackson vetoed the bank's recharter in 1832. In attempt to benefit the lower, working classes, he placed the federal money in "pet" state banks. This attempt destabilized the national currency, decreased specie in markets, and displayed favoritism in Jacksonian policies. Like most Jacksonian economic policies it failed, and the reduction in specie spread inflation of which the Treasury Act of 1840 could not stop. Jacksonians tried to assist whites through economic policies but failed. Foreign observers viewed that in America every man is free and independent (Doc D), but there was great division in American attitude. Disturbances and insurrections broke out across the country by minorities (Doc E), because they were not helped by egalitarian efforts, which were focused on white males. Jackson's hypocrisy and brutality in his Indian removal practices (after his decisive victory at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama, March 1814) showed the non-universal principles held by the democrats. Fearful of angering Southern voters, Jacksonians veered away from extending egalitarian policies to slaves. Women received little betterment. 2006-07-13T15:37:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analytical-Essay-on-the-Jacksonian-Democracy-30225.aspx Effectiveness of Abraham Lincoln and his Cabinet With his Cabinet Abraham Lincoln is regarded by many historians as the greatest president ever to stand at America's helm. This reputation is extremely well deserved, as Lincoln was able to preserve the Union and gain victory in the civil war, despite his fighting an uphill battle against his own presidential cabinet. Had he not been struggling against this divided government, President Lincoln could have achieved victory with extreme efficiency and a minimum of wanton bloodshed (Angle 659). After Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, he was forced to battle a split cabinet because of campaign promises made to various Republican factions, which made it almost mandatory for certain individuals to be appointed to cabinet posts. He ruled his cabinet with an iron hand, and often acted without cabinet consent or advice. Although his opponents called his method of rule "dictatorial" and "unconstitutional," it was the only effective way to get anything done (Simmons 142). In the beginning, Lincoln's secretary of state, William H. Seward, clearly considered himself the President's superior, and blandly offered to assume the executive responsibility. He entered the cabinet with the thought of becoming the power behind the 2 Presidential chair and openly opposed Lincoln's control of the Union. This made Lincoln's position as Chief of State exceedingly difficult and hindered his communication and control of the military. As time passed, however, Seward recognized Lincoln's capabilities and gave him complete loyalty (Simmons 174). This could not be said of Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln's first secretary of the treasury. Blinded by an inflated ego, Chase pursued his own presidential aspirations. He was in constant conflict with Seward, and in general opposition to Lincoln, particularly over the issue of slavery. Chase has been described as "jealous of the President," and "overly ambitious." Lincoln's personal secretary, John Nicolay, wrote, "There is enough in Chase's letters abusing Lincoln behind his back for quite a scorcher." He grew so furious with the President's capable rule that he finally resigned his position (Williams 202). Another weak link in Lincoln's cabinet was his first secretary of war, Simon Cameron. He was considered an honest politician, being that he "would stay bought when he was bought." His reputation as a swindler caused dissent among the cabinet, and he permitted so much inefficiency and corruption in his department that Lincoln welcomed an excuse to relieve him of 2006-07-13T15:27:31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Effectiveness-of-Abraham-Lincoln-and-his-Cabinet-30220.aspx History of Apartheid in South Africa Apartheid; the word alone sends a shiver down the spines of the repressed African community. Apartheid represents a mordant period in the history of South Africa, when the policy of segregation and political and economic discriminating against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa. he purpose is to educate the entire community not only to act against apartheid now, but to learn from the struggle against apartheid in order to help build a world in which people of diverse backgrounds live harmoniously in equality. It represents a mordant period in the history of South Africa. An entire community has been gutted, and the innards laid out to view. Despite the fact that the economic and psychological damage has already been done, has been done The Afrikaners are a South African people of Dutch or French Huguenot descent. In 1998, 2.7 million Afrikaners inhabited South Africa, consisting of about 56% of the white population. Their language is Afrikaans, a derivative of Dutch. The Nationalist party of South Africa was founded in 1914 by James Barry Munnik Hertzog to protect and promote the interests of Afrikaners against what were considered the pro-British policies of the South African party, led by Louis Botha and Jan Smuts. On May 26, 1948, the Nationalists reigned victorious. They won the parliamentary elections and gained control of the South African government, despite the fact that they constituted no more than 12% of the population. The party, under new Premier Dr. Daniel F. Malan, began taking steps toward implementing apartheid, the political policy of racial separation. Over the next several decades, they consolidated their power. "The National Party used its control of the government to fulfill Afrikaners ethnic goals as well as white racial goals." In 1961, South Africa became a republic and completed its separation from Great Britain. Apartheid turned into "a drastic, systematic program of social injuring" based on four ideas. First, the population of South Africa comprised four racial groups--white, colored, Indian, and African--each with its own inherent culture. Second, whites, as the civilized race, were entitled to have absolute control over the state. Third, white interests should prevail over black interests; the state was not obliged to provide equal facilities for 2006-07-07T13:11:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/History-of-Apartheid-in-South-Africa-30085.aspx American Life Improved in the Progressive Era In the Progressive Era Americans worked hard to improve life. Progressive politicians worked to change life through the government. Reformers worked on a variety of different fields to help society. Suffragettes fought for women’s rights. During the 2006-07-03T23:18:46-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/American-Life-Improved-in-the-Progressive-Era-29956.aspx Andrew Jackson's Presidential Legacy Andrew 2006-07-03T13:59:42-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Andrew-Jackson-s-Presidential-Legacy-29935.aspx Critical Analysis of Andrew Jackson's Presidency Andrew Jackson and his supporters have been criticized for upholding the principles of majority rule and the supremacy of the federal government inconsistently and unfairly. The validity of this statement varies in the cases of the recharter of the Bank, the nullification controversy, and the removal of the Native Americans. In the case of the recharter of the bank, the statement is not valid. He did uphold the principles of the majority rule and not of the supremacy of the government. The bank and its branches received federal funding and they were to be used for public purpose by serving as a cushion for the ups and downs of the economy. Biddle, head of the bank, managed it effectively. But his arrogance led many, including Jackson, to believe that Biddle was abusing his power and was serving the interests of the wealthy. As a result, Jackson declared the bank to be unconstitutional even though it was previously said to be constitutional. In the election of 1832, Clay wanted to challenge Jackson on the issue by trying to persuade Congress to pass a bank recharter-bill. Jackson vetoed it, saying that it was a private monopoly and that it favored the wealthy, and in turn led to the backfire of Clay’s plan. The majority of the voters agreed on his attack on the “hydra of corruption.” And as a result of this issue, Jackson got the majority of the votes and won the election. In his second term Jackson killed the national bank by vetoing its recharter and by removing all of its money. In his veto message Jackson said “But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society … who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustices of their government (C)”. He then took the money and put it into so called “pet banks” that were located throughout various state banks. He did this because he did not uphold to the ideas of the federal supremacy. Jackson is usually for state’s rights, but not if it leads towards disunion. That is exactly what happened in the issue of nullification. Around 1828 the legislation 2006-06-27T02:43:15-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Critical-Analysis-of-Andrew-Jackson-s-Presidency-29872.aspx Examining how Abraham Lincoln Saved the Union Mourners of Abraham Lincoln’s death were not wrong in declaring him the “Savior of the Union.” His primary goal as president was to preserve the Union at any cost. Though “Honest Abe” may not have been particularly well educated on the subject of war when he entered the White House, he took time to study and learn it well. After recognizing that the Union was too feeble to fight in more than one war, he peacefully resolved any potential conflicts. By doing this the president was able to focus all his attention on the preservation of the Union. Through hard thinking and determination Lincoln was also able to formulate numerous ideas that led to a victory for the North. Lincoln was not about to let a Civil War split the Union apart. When Lincoln first entered the White House in March of 1861 he had little knowledge of how successful he was to become. Most of his success can be credited to his determination to preserve the Union. He explained, “Life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb” (333). He was willing to do whatever needed to be done in order to save the Union. For instance, during the war Lincoln allowed any officer in command to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if necessary in order to deal with rebels. This suspension became extremely controversial because this writ gave everyone the right to due process in court and was guaranteed in the constitution. When confronted about this decision, Lincoln explained that he was more willing to let one law go unexecuted than to lose the Union. Lincoln’s determination also shows itself through his thoughtful reasoning. He recognized the need for action against seceding states, but did not want the North to be the aggressor in this conflict. In the early morning of April 12, Edmund Ruffin of the Confederacy fired the first shot on Fort Sumter, thus dubbing the South as the aggressor. At this point Lincoln collected more troops and began waging war against the rebelling states. Though his generals often failed him during the beginning of the war, Lincoln learned from all their mistakes 2006-06-26T17:03:08-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Examining-how-Abraham-Lincoln-Saved-the-Union-29845.aspx Why Americans Loved the Politics of John F. Kennedy Many Americans fell in love with President John Kennedy throughout his presidency. He was handsome, charming, and intelligent, and the media glamorized his life. When he moved into the White House his life and family seemed ideal. Kennedy became an important symbol to America in a time of change and crisis. As event after event occurred, Kennedy began to appear to be a great American leader with many charismatic qualities; he was able to appear strong and in control even during the some of the most difficult times in America, he appeared to have the ideal American family, he had a competitive ego, and would never let anyone see him weak. Kennedy was born in 1917 to Joseph and Rose Kennedy, a rich, well known family of Boston. His father was a Harvard graduate, athlete, and millionaire. He had high aspirations of his son, but played favorites to Kennedy’s older brother Joe, whom he believed would be President someday. Kennedy, who was a fragile child that suffered from many serious illnesses, including Addison’s disease, could never compete with his older brother. Wanting to gain his father’s attention, he learned how to push back his weaknesses in order to feel masculine, a family trademark. Kennedy followed in his father’s footsteps; he attended Harvard, where he was heavily involved in activities and athletics (Giglio 2-4). Kennedy began his life with advantages of status and wealth, which Shils describe as catalysts to charismatic properties. He put a lot of pressure on himself to be masculine, competitive, and strong, which can be seen in his personality during his presidency. When Joe was killed in the War, Kennedy inherited the dream of becoming President (Hamilton 689-90). Joseph Kennedy once said, “I got Jack into politics. I was the one. I told him Joe was dead and that it was therefore his responsibility to run for Congress. He didn’t want to…But I told him he had to (Giglio 5).” In order to keep his strong image, the perception of Americans was manipulated into believing Kennedy always wanted to be President, but that wasn’t true; he didn’t want anyone to know he did it all for his father’s approval (Giglio 5). Kennedy began his career in politics, serving 2006-06-26T15:50:50-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Why-Americans-Loved-the-Politics-of-John-F_-Kennedy-29827.aspx Andrew Jackson's Democratic Presidency In my opinion, Jackson’s Presidency was not democratic. It was mostly “the reign of the King Andrew I.” Democracy is the government by the people where the people choose their leaders who favor them. In democracy equal political, social rights are practiced. Jackson’s presidency was nothing like democracy. Democracy was just the title of the government given to Jackson’s presidency. Jackson was more like King Andrew I, because Jackson’s presidency was not less than a dictatorship. Cruel things were happening during Jackson’s presidency, which he was aware of, but failed to do something about it. He just ordered people around, and they obeyed without question. People weren’t able to raise their voices and speak for their mind which is democracy. The perfect examples of “the reign of King Andrew I” are the events Indian Removal Act, and the Nullification Crises. Native Americans had no part in Jackson’s democracy. Under his administration, one thousand Indians were forcibly removed from their homes in the East and relocated West of the Mississippi. You can tell it wasn’t democracy; it was “the reign of King Andrew I” by the actions taken under Jackson’s administration. Another example is the Nullification Crises. The whole Nullification Crises arose due to the Tariff of Abominations, which raised the prices of European imports that competed with New England manufacturers’ products. Southerners objected the tariff because the tariff inflated the price of imports and levied an indirect tax on their region. After the tariff was passed, “the Controversy Over States’ Rights” arose. The most of the controversy was “Whether United States was one indivisible nation with a supreme federal government? Or did the states have final say on how much national authority would accept, as Jefferson and Madison had suggested in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution in 1798?” Southerners said that they don’t have to accept the tariff since the state can held the acts of congress unconstitutional. On the other hand, Webster of Massachusetts argued that federal government, not the states, held the final authority under the constitution. Another tariff was enacted in 1832, which forced the southerners to declare the tariff null and void in South Carolina. Jackson couldn’t take the disobedience anymore. He warned the southerners “I will hang the 2006-06-20T14:42:46-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Andrew-Jackson-s-Democratic-Presidency-29676.aspx Analysis of the October Crisis in Quebec The most extreme separatists in Quebec had never believed in democratic methods to solve the problem. The y wanted separation right away and would do anything they could to get that. In the 1950's and 1960's terror tactics such as bombing, kidnapping, and assassination to force governments to give them want they wanted were happening all over the world in pretty much all the countries. Since 1963 Quebec had suffered from scattered acts of separatist violence, mainly bombings which usually did little damage. Now, In October 1970, a small group of terrorist-separatists caused what became one of the most serious political crisis in Canadian history. On October 5 the British trade commissioner in Montreal, James Cross, was kidnapped from his home by terrorists who called them selves the Front de Liberation du Quebec, or FLQ. While the government of Canada tried to negotiate Cross's release-Saying it would give in to some of the FLQ's Demands; another "cell" of the FLQ's decided to take another hostage. On October 10 the Pierre Laporte, Mister of labor for Quebec was playing football with his children when a group of armed men seized him and drove off. While the police where determined to find Cross, Laporte, and the kidnappers, everyone wondered who or what would be next. A number of weapons and explosives had been taken from armories and construction sites in the recent months, with all of this all of Quebec was in a panic and in extreme fear not knowing what was going to happen next. On October 15 members of the Canadian forces were sent to Quebec to help out the exhausted local police. On October 16 the federal government, acting on Quebec's request, declared that an "apprehended insurrection" existed in Quebec and invoked the War Measures Act. This was Canada's emergency law, developed back in World War 1, which gave the government and the police special powers in a time of crisis, suspending most normal civil liberties. A crisis could be a war, a rebellion (insurrection), or a situation in which the government had reason to believe that a rebellion was likely (an apprehended insurrection). The kidnappings and the demands and threats the FLQ's were making seemed to add up to that situation. Using their special powers under the War Measures Act, 2006-06-16T19:02:24-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Analysis-of-the-October-Crisis-in-Quebec-29654.aspx Story of Erasmus of Rotterdam Erasmus’ attitude toward learning embodies important aspects of cultural change in the 16th century. “He was a man of deep religious feelings and conviction, an independent thinker, greatest philologist of his time and one of the greatest of all times, a staunch defender of human reason, opposed Luther’s teachings, religious reformer, and a fearless critic” (Runes p.184). Erasmus did and thought many things in his lifetime. His philosophy was mainly based on God and the Church. He was a true man of letters, he wrote and translated tirelessly; arguing, teaching, and campaigning for the purification of the Church. People believed he was a variety of things, but he conceived of himself as a preacher of righteousness and was convinced that what was needed to regenerate Europe was sound learning. He was a man who hated ignorance as much as Luther and Calvin hated sin. Desiderius Erasmus was born in October of 1469 in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His father, Gerard, was a priest and his mother was a daughter of a physician. His childhood was apparently very unhappy, and so was his youth. He mentioned it with bitterness. He had a mother named Margaret and a brother named Peter. It was said that he had hated his brother. He did not claim his father, and denied using his name. Since he was born out of wedlock, his birth was not blessed. His parent’s story is a unique one. His father’s parents pressured him into priesthood, but he was living with a view to marriage with Erasmus’ mother, Margaret. His family harassed him so much that he left Margaret pregnant, and fled to Rome. His family sent him word that she had died and he returned home only to find that he had been deceived, for Margaret was still alive. “His parents love affair was the base of Charles Read’s novel The Cloister and the Hearth” (Erasmus p.8). Many major historical events happened in his time, such as the Luther Reformation. Erasmus was involved a lot in the reformation of the Roman-Catholic Church. Most of the books written about Erasmus have a lot to say about the disagreements between Luther and Erasmus. Also, the French-Burgundism wars began shortly before Erasmus was born and lasted all the years that he lived in Holland. Where he lived was a dull and oppressive place because of the collapse of civil 2006-06-16T14:50:29-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Story-of-Erasmus-of-Rotterdam-29607.aspx Reasons Behind the Spread of Communism In the mid 19th century Karl Marx published The Communist Manifesto, which brought Communist Party views to world attention. Seventy years later communism overcame Russia in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In the next 50 years Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam also adopted communist form of government. Although each of the previously mentioned countries possesses slightly different reasons why a communist revolution was successful, all have something in common. Communist revolutions succeeded in developing 3rd world countries striving for national independence and/or social change. Before we discuss why the reasons individual countries adopted communism, we must first look at the positives that communism offers to developing nations. In Karl Marx’s book, The Communist Manifesto, he defines communism as a utopia that exists when all resources and production facilities are the property of the entire society rather than individuals. Marx said that communism would consist of a classless society. Every member of society would be a member of the proletariat, or working class. Marx envisioned the society would function on the principal of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”(Marx 60) Keep in mind; this is the ideal form of communism, not what came into practice in Eastern Europe and Asia. It’s no wonder that communism appealed to the masses of poor workers. Communism promised to level the playing field and ensure everyone was provided with what they needed. Predictably, countries that succumbed to communism typically had polar societies. A small percentage of elite possessed nearly all of the wealth while the remaining masses of society were forced to fight for scraps. Marx envisioned a communist nation would exist without social classes or a government. He believed the working class would govern itself. Why does this appeal to struggling countries? Many of the countries that adopted a communist form of government in the 20th century came from a long history of oppressive, overpowering, and corrupt governments. Marx, an anti-capitalist, said that the rich upper class prospered through the exploitation of the powerless lower class. He believed that capitalism would choke on its own wealth and collapse. Next the poor would rise up against the former oppressors and form a classless society. This anti-capitalist ideology led to hoards of propaganda against capitalism. Phrases 2006-06-15T22:29:14-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Reasons-Behind-the-Spread-of-Communism-29567.aspx Political Pressures on Abraham Lincoln Almost from the beginning of his administration, Lincoln was pressured by abolitionists and radical Republicans to issue an Emancipation Proclamation. 2006-06-14T23:45:40-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Political-Pressures-on-Abraham-Lincoln-29510.aspx The Tang Law Code of China and Japan During times of great political change, dynasties in both Japan and China were dealing with issues regarding stability within the state and maintaining power throughout their respective realms. In order to solidify and centralize their states, the leaders of these dynasties introduced ideas of governing and ruling in order to successfully form and maintain a united empire. In China this was done through the Tang Law Code and in Japan the Seventeen Article Constitution. Although both documents share similarities in the goals of the state, the Tang Law Code seems to be a more specific document focused on legalist ideas rather than the more generalized and cooperation oriented Seventeen Article Constitution. Two widely different states, China and Japan although with similar goals each had different political structures when these laws of governance were first introduced. Already centralized and bureaucratic after the fall of the Sui, the Tang empire lead by Taizong held a large portion of land with all of China under its rule. However, the political structure was quite different in Japan. As a result of the loss of Japanese domains on the Korean peninsula and the defeat of its ally, the Paekche kingdom, there existed domestic fighting between powerful clans in Japan. Before Empress Suiko and regent Shototuku took power there existed no central government and instead there was constant fighting between clans for power. Therefore the Japanese state was much more unstable than the Chinese state because of its lack of an established central government and this constant struggle and conflict between clans. Whether it was due to differences in Buddhism and Shinto between the Soga and Mononobe clan conflicts always existed. Dangers to the government and its institutions were constantly feared even during the rule of Suiko and Shotoku. With these descriptions of the respective states in China and Japan, it is obvious to why differences exist in the organization and function of the different laws of governance introduced. Shotoku and Japan attempted to unify and create a centralized state like those that he had seen in China. Through the Seventeen Articles of constitution Shotoku provided seventeen guidelines to how the state should be governed and run. It provided ways in which people should act according to Confucian traditions, but more importantly it held this idea that “the sovereign is the master of the people of the whole country. The 2006-06-13T19:21:56-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Tang-Law-Code-of-China-and-Japan-29473.aspx Domestic and Foreign Policy Issues of Jefferson and Madison During the course of the years, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison dealt with major domestic and foreign policies. These policies helped shape the way for the United States of America. Thomas Jefferson was the third President of the United States between 1743-1826. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. James Madison was the fourth President of the United States between 1808-1817 and the Father of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s accession to the presidency is notable in American history because it marked the first transfer of national authority from one political group to another, and it is especially significant that, despite Federalist obstructionism for a time, the transition was effected by peaceful and strictly constitutional means. Furthermore, Jefferson and the Republicans felt the federal judiciary constituted a branch of the opposing party. The Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 with his full approval. But he was rebuked by Chief Justice John Marshall in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) for withholding the commission of a Late-hour appointee as justice of the peace. The most notable policy of Jefferson’s presidency was the purchase of Louisiana in 1803. His concerns for the free navigation of the Mississippi River had caused him, while secretary of state, to assume a more belligerent tone toward Spain, which controlled the mouth of the river, than toward any other nation. Meanwhile, Jefferson had to deal with the conspiracy of former Vice President Aaron Burr. He took steps in the fall of 1806 that led to the seizure of most of Burr’s boats on the Mississippi. American commerce was caught in the crossfire between British Order in Council and Napoleonic decrees. Recognizing the impossibility of coping with both blockades, but determined not to take sides in this conflict and convinced that peace was in the best interest of his young country, Jefferson and his government sought to safeguard American life and shipping and to bring pressure on the rival powers by suspending commerce. The embargo, adopted in December 1807 and strengthen by later legislation, was regarded by Jefferson as the only alternative to war and submission. The act barred all exports to Britain and France. During the first years of Madison’s administration, the United States prohibited 2006-06-13T19:04:58-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Domestic-and-Foreign-Policy-Issues-of-Jefferson-and-Madison-29462.aspx Thomas Jefferson, the Epitomy of a Ploitical Character Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3d PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. As the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he is probably the most conspicuous champion of political and spiritual freedom in his country's history. He voiced the aspirations of the new nation in matchless phrase, and one may doubt if any other American has been so often quoted. As a public official--legislator, diplomat, and executive--he served the province and commonwealth of Virginia and the young American republic almost 40 years. While his services as a Revolutionary patriot have beenhonored by his countrymen with only slight dissent, his later and more controversial political activities have been variously interpreted. Believing that the government was not 2006-06-13T18:56:02-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Thomas-Jefferson,-the-Epitomy-of-a-Ploitical-Character-29456.aspx Political Theories Developed in the Industrial Revolution During the Industrial Revolution, the world was banging with new political theories about life, freedom, and government. The three largest political theories during the industrial revolution were liberalism, utilitarianism, and socialism. Liberalism influenced Europe in the 1800s and liberals believed in individual liberty and accepted ideas of the Enlightenment and reforms of the French Revolution. They believed in freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and speech, freedom to pursue your own economic interests through free trade and competition. Liberalism is the belief of a representative, constitutional government but did not support democracy. Liberals believed that only men with property should be allowed to participate in politics. The Laissez-Faire is economic theories of Adam Smith, which teaches people to follow their own self-interests. Liberals also believed in equal treatment, despite wealth or social position. After liberalism, people began to accept utilitarianism, where institutions and laws should be judged by usefulness. This theory was started by Philosopher Jeremy Bentham who also believed that majority rules and that the government should have people vote against or for laws and whatever laws failed to have the majority of people agree with should be abandoned for the good of the people. People who believed in utilitarianism also believed that the government should stay out of people’s lives as much as possible, but to promote education. They also believed in full democracy and equality for both men and women. Utilitarianism considered the possible tyranny of the people but said that the government should have limited powers. Socialism was then adopted after utilitarianism. Utopian socialism was started by Charles Fourier who believed that people should try to work and live together in harmony. Robert Owen was one of the first utopian socialists and tried to make a Utopian society in New Harmony. However, it fell apart because of financial problems and many bickerings between the people. The ideas of socialism said that the interests of the people should give way to the interests of society and that a country should have both political and economical equality. Socialists also said that a capitalist economic system would cause human suffering and that the struggle for profits would lead to misery. Socialists said that the state should take charge of the “means of production,” or the capital and equipment needed to make and exchange goods, for the good of the people instead of having the workers 2006-06-12T21:10:59-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Political-Theories-Developed-in-the-Industrial-Revolution-29383.aspx The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia The Soviet Union was a communist country with a totalitarian regime that existed from 1917 until 1991. The official name was The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.). The country stretched from the Baltic and Black Seas to the Pacific Ocean. In its final years it consisted of 15 Soviet Socialist Republics. Russia was by far the largest Republic in the Soviet Union in terms of both land area and population, and also dominated it politically and economically. The first leader of the Soviet Union was Vladimir Lenin, who led the Communists to power in the Russian Revolution of 1917. With the newly formed Red Army in confusion, the Soviet Union had to pull out of World War I. The peace treaty with Germany, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, made the union give up most of the area of the Ukraine and Belarus. The opponents of communism within and without the union did not accept the new government, and this led to all-out civil war, which lasted until 1922. After the revolution, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union quickly became the only legal political party. The governing of the country was to be done by local and regional democratically elected soviets. In practice its corresponding party group controlled each level of government. The highest legislate body was the Supreme Soviet. The highest executive body was the Politburo. The state relied heavily on controlling its citizens with the secret police. In December 1917, the Cheka was founded. Later it changed names to KGB. The secret police was responsible for finding any political dissidents and expel them from the party or bring them to trial for counter-revolutionary activities. After Lenin died in 1924, power gradually consolidated in the hands of Joseph Stalin, who led the Soviet Union until his death in 1953. Stalin was the supreme leader from 1929 until 1953. From 1921 until 1954, 3.7 million people were sentenced for counter-revolution crimes, including 0.6 million sentenced to death, 2.4 million sentenced to prison and labor camps, and 0.8 million sentenced to expatriation. The Second World War caught the Soviet military unprepared. To secure Soviet influence over Eastern Europe, Stalin arranged the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany on August 23, 1939. A secret addition to the pact gave Eastern Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Finland to the USSR, and Western Poland and Lithuania to Germany. Germany invaded Poland on September 1st, USSR 2006-06-12T18:40:06-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Communism-in-Russia-29344.aspx Fundamental Steps Britain took to Become Truly Democratic Britain aimed to become a democratic country throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. By 1928, a democracy was very close to being achieved. For a democracy in Britain, there had to be universal suffrage, where every man and women have the right to vote regardless of class. Also a secret ballot must be in place to prevent corruption. Equal sizes of constitutions need to be enforced, with regular elections and elected members of government. In a democracy, the voters must have civil rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to stand in elections. There were a number of reforms that preceded the 1928, some more progressive than others. In the early nineteenth century, Britain was very undemocratic. It was only the very rich and upper class men who were eligible to vote. Middle and lower classes had no representation and consequently no say in how the country was run. This was partly due to the fact that the members of Parliament were not paid, again in only the very rich being able to stand for elections. The House of Lords was the same, the only way of becoming a Lord was to inherit the title and position, making the House of Lords a very exclusive and conservative House. At this time, a severely small percentage of the population controlled British politics. Other problems in the early nineteenth century included the open voting. The fact that there was no secret ballot made it possible for candidates to bribe the voters. It was thought to be honourable to vote in the open. Pocket and Rotten boroughs were very common. Pocket boroughs were situations in which the MP standing was also the landlord. In this way, the MP could threaten his tenant voters with eviction if they were not to vote for him. Rotten boroughs were situations where the MP represented no one, as the boroughs were completely uninhabited. There were no voters to oppose the MP, therefore the success was inevitable. Some Rotten boroughs were even partly covered by the ocean. There were no regular elections, no limits on how much an MP could spend on his campaign, and little or no representation for the ever-growing industrial towns. Britain was far from democracy in the early nineteenth century. This began to change by means of reform under the Liberal government. The first of these was the 2006-06-11T19:46:33-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Fundamental-Steps-Britain-took-to-Become-Truly-Democratic-29227.aspx Chinas way to communism since European Imperialism The Western Powers Arrive As also in other places in Asia, in China the Portuguese were the pioneers, establishing a „base" at Macao, from which they monopolised foreign trade at the Chinese port of Guangzhou. Soon the Spanish also arrived, followed by the British and the French. Trade between China and the West was carried on in the guise of tribute: foreigners were obliged to follow the old rules imposed on envoys from China's tributary states. There was no conception at the imperial court that the Europeans would expect or deserve to be treated as cultural or political equals. The only exception was Russia, the most powerful inland neighbour. The Manchus (the ruling Qing Dynasty at that time) were sensitive to the need for security along the northern land frontier and therefore were prepared to be realistic in dealing with Russia. The Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689) with the Russians, drafted to bring to an end a series of border incidents and to establish a border between Siberia and Manchuria (Northeast China) along the Heilong Jiang (Amur River), was China's first bilateral agreement with a European power. In 1727 the Treaty of Kiakhta delimited the remainder of the eastern portion of the Sino-Russian border. Western diplomatic efforts to expand trade on equal terms were rebuffed, the official Chinese assumption being that the empire was not in need of foreign--and thus inferior--products. Despite this attitude, trade flourished, even though after 1760 all foreign trade was confined to Guangzhou, where the foreign traders had to limit their dealings to a dozen officially licensed Chinese merchant firms. Trade was not the sole basis of contact with the West. Since the thirteenth century, Roman Catholic missionaries had been attempting to establish their church in China. Although by 1800 only a few hundred thousand Chinese had been converted, the missionaries--mostly Jesuits--contributed greatly to Chinese knowledge in such fields as cannon casting, calendar making, geography, mathematics, cartography, music, art, and architecture. The Jesuits were especially adept at fitting Christianity into a Chinese framework and were condemned by a papal decision in 1704 for having tolerated the continuance of Confucian ancestor rites among Christian converts. The papal decision quickly weakened the Christian movement, which it proscribed as heterodox and disloyal. The Opium War, 1839-42 During the eighteenth century, the market in Europe and America for tea, a new drink in the West, expanded greatly. Therefore, 2006-06-02T16:13:37-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Chinas-way-to-communism-since-European-Imperialism-29039.aspx Essay Hammurabi Hammurabi In his position as king of Babylonia, Hammurabi managed to organize the world’s first code of law and establish Babylon as the dominant and successful Amorite City of its time. Records written on clay tablets show that Hammurabi was a very capable administrator and a successful warrior. His rule spanned from 1792 B.C. to 1750 B.C. When he became king in 1792, he was still young, but had already become entrusted with many official duties in his administration. In the early years of his reign, Hammurabi mostly participated in traditional activities, such as repairing buildings, digging canals, and fighting wars. Yet later in his rule, Hammurabi organized a unique code of laws, the first of its kind, therefore making himself one of the world’s most influential leaders. Hammurabi was primarily influential to the world because of his code of laws. This code consisted of 282 provisions, systematically arranged under a variety of subjects. He sorted hiss laws into groups such as family, labor personal property, real estate, trade, and business. This was the first time in history that any laws had been categorized into various sections. This format of organization was emulated by civilizations of the future. For example, Semitic cultures succeeding Hammurabi’s rule used some of the same laws that were included in Hammurabi’s code. Hammurabi’s method of thought is evident in present day societies, which are influenced by his code. Modern governments currently create specific laws, which are placed into their appropriate family of similar laws. Hammurabi had his laws recorded upon an eight foot black stone monument. Hammurabi based on his code on principles like, the strong should not injure the weak, and that punishment should fit the crime. As for punishment, legal actions were initiated under the code by written pleadings; testimony was taken under oath. The code was severe in its penalties, prescribing an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This code of laws was able to be maintained by invoking the authority of the gods and the state. Although the punishments were different than those of today, the authority of the state (government) is similar. Currently, punishments are issued through the state’s law enforcement system, comparable to the way punishment was determined and enforced in ancient Babylon. In the code, crimes punishable by death required a trail in front of a bench of judges. Included in these crimes were: 2006-05-09T18:09:32-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Hammurabi--28820.aspx Whigs and Tories The main political groupings 2006-01-21T06:48:00-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Whigs-and-Tories-28445.aspx Marx’s notion of man as a ‘Species being’ and his idea of Alienation. The notion of man as a ‘species-being’ for Marx meant the recognition of man’s human essence as a member of a species. A species which takes part in a process of conscious production whereby we produce as human beings for one another; Marx perceived this to be the process of mans ‘active species life’ (Bottomore; 1963 ). Marx specifically used the term ‘species being’ as a method to distinguish human life from animal life; where production is more a consequence of ‘blind instinct’ rather than conscious productive labour. The recognition of man as a ‘species’ becomes eminent to the theory of Alienation, which is central to Marx’s work and vital in reiterating the human essence of man. ‘Alienation’ for Marx was a consequence of the conditions within systems of mutual production, which caused man to lose his identity as a species being and fall into an alienated state through the production of capital. Subsequently, he became detached from his conscious life activity causing him to be detached from himself, from others and the product of his labour. Essentially man comes to lose all his traits that identify his recognition of himself as human, causing himself to become de-humanized (ibid.). The main concern of this essay will be to adequately explain Marx’s notion of man as a ‘species being’ within the context of this notion of alienation, whilst providing an understanding of their place within the social construction of society, as Marx had intended. Initially I will touch upon the philosophical background of Hegel and Feuerbach that influenced the writings of Marx, showing the somewhat shift in Marx’s approach from a philosophical background to a more economical and political interpretation of the conditions under which alienated labour occurred. The conditions which define mutual systems of production causing man to be alienated will be addressed, with specific reference to the relations within modes of production profound within a capitalist economy. An exploration of the political economy which Marx draws critique upon will finally be approached; proposing the elimination of private property as a means to overcome alienation, whilst also presenting ideas to progress the state into an economy where individuals acquire the product of there labour, an economy according to Marx under communism. Marx’s utilisation of the notion ‘species being’ was initially addressed by Feuerbach whom developed the concept in his work on 2005-12-31T03:25:10-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Marx’s-Notion-of-Man-as-a-‘Species-Being’-and-Alienation-28333.aspx Prohibition in the 1920s: Thirteen Years That Damaged America I have always taken an interest in the Roaring Twenties and that is why I decided to write my English term paper on an event that occured in the 1920s. What follows is my term paper which concentrates on prohibition and why it was not effective, namely because of lack of enforcement, growth of crime, and the increase in the drinking rate. I hope this may be of some help to you. “Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve” (Thorton, 15). On Midnight of January 16, 1920, one of the personal habits and customs of most Americans suddenly came to a halt. The Eighteenth Amendment was put into effect and all importing, exporting, transporting, selling, and manufacturing of intoxicating liquor was put to an end. Shortly following the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment, the National Prohibition Act, or the Volstead Act, as it was called because of its author, Andrew J. Volstead, was put into effect. This determined intoxicating liquor as anything having an alcoholic content of anything more than 0.5 percent, omitting alcohol used for medicinal and sacramental purposes. This act also set up guidelines for enforcement (Bowen, 154). Prohibition was meant to reduce the consumption of alcohol, seen by some as the devil’s advocate, and thereby reduce crime, poverty, death rates, and improve the economy and the quality of life. “National prohibition of alcohol -- the ‘noble experiment’ -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America” (Thorton, 1). This, however, was undoubtedly to no avail. The Prohibition amendment of the 1920s was ineffective because it was unenforceable, it caused the explosive growth of crime, and it increased the amount of alcohol consumption. “It is impossible to tell whether prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing. It has never been enforced in this country” (LaGuardia). After the Volstead Act was put into place to determine specific laws and methods of enforcement, the Federal Prohibition Bureau was formulated in order to see that the Volstead Act was enforced. Nevertheless, these laws were flagrantly violated by bootleggers and commoners alike. Bootleggers smuggled liquor from oversees and Canada, stole it from government warehouses, and produced their own. Many people hid their liquor in 2005-12-25T05:54:11-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Prohibition-in-the-1920s-Thirteen-Years-That-Damaged-America-28248.aspx Religion, geography, government, economics, and culture; these are the five individual themes that combine to create every major civilization since the dawn of man. Each carry distinctive meaning, and when any one of these five variables are changed, a new and unique civilization is created. In many ancient and modern civilizations, one of the five themes that define its meaning has a more profound impact then the others. In the contents of this paper, I’ll do my best to emphasize government’s vital role in the confines of any great civilization, past or present, and counter the fleeting impact of religion and culture. Choosing government as the most important concept in a civilization is relatively easy, but backing up your opinion with facts proves a bit more complicated. Look at all the major modern civilizations; what do they all have in common? A strong government that varies from Democracy to Communism. One reason why government is vital to any great society is the establishment of and the enforcement of law. “As people worked together, they needed rules to govern their behavior and to plan, direct, and regulate their work.” (Blue Book) In all civilizations, law is the primary structure of how to live your life, and the enforcement of penalties for violating those mandates keeps the population “in line.” Without an elected body of individuals to establish up-to-date laws and to enforce those entailed laws, chaos would surely ensue. A second reason to why government proves to be of utmost importance involves the mandating of an economic value to goods and work. Without an established value to goods and labor, it would be impossible to trade, buy, sell, or establish gross income from work. One government most develop an overall economic worth of goods for them to be of any good; is smaller facets of power each established different values for the same product, it would be impossible to fairly trade, buy, or sell. When one supreme government negotiates a set value for all goods and services, it becomes much easier to manage trade and value. The final reason to why government’s importance reins supreme is broad, overall organization. Governments establish currency, value, laws, language, a system of writing, jobs, ownership, etc, and if there wasn’t one body to facilitate the organization of these countless systems, civilizations wouldn’t last nearly as long. All life really is an organized system of 2005-11-12T01:23:40-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Governments-importance-in-the-5-themes-of-civilization-28099.aspx Forced into Glory: Lincoln a Segregationist? Forced into Glory ritten by Lerone Bennett Jr. accuses the “Great Emancipator”, Abraham Lincoln of being an enslaver. The author accuses him of “ethnic cleansing.” According to Bennett “ If Lincoln had had his way, there would be no blacks in America.” Bennett the author will try to prove Lincoln’s real purpose, as president was not to free the slaves, but to prolong slavery until he could put a plan in place to deport all blacks to a foreign shore. The author writes: “Lincoln did everything he could to deport blacks and to make America a great white place.” To the credit of the author, Mr. Bennett, does not claim his book as history. By selecting his words carefully and placing his own interpretation on their meaning, the author is able to weave an ugly view of Abraham Lincoln’s history and attempts to envision a theory that slaves freed themselves. The author begins his book with the notion that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave and that Lincoln deliberately exempted slaves in those areas under union control to keep slavery alive as long as possible. The author is correct in concluding that the Emancipation Proclamation freed few if any slaves. The declaration of Independence did not free any slaves, it took a war to succeed with that. The declaration established the principle that war would be fought and freedom would be won, similarly the proclamation did not end slavery, it itself established a principle under which the civil war would be fought and won. The author writes as if Abraham Lincoln held the power to abolish slavery any time he chose. Bennett concludes that the President did what necessary to avoid slaves from being free including turning to war because he did not have the power to abolish slavery. Lincoln’s proclamation did not free slaves in certain areas because the president did not have any authority to free them. The Emancipation Proclamation justification was a military order designed to hurt the enemy according to the author. Lincoln’s Proclamation called for black men to serve in the union army, displaying an effort of lowering the bar on the road to equality, the author would have us believe that Lincoln did this against his will because he was forced to by abolitionists who came to control Lincoln, by this he was dubbed 2005-08-28T09:09:43-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Forced-into-Glory-Lincoln-a-Segregationist-27805.aspx Important presidential elections 1812 The election of 1812 consisted of a battle between James Madison, and De Witt Clinton. Madison had represented both Democratic and Republican beliefs, while Clinton was a Federalist. James Madison was born in Port Conway, Va., on March 16, 1751. A Princeton graduate, he joined the struggle for independence on his return to Virginia in 1771. He had been an active politician in the 1770's and 1780's. He was greatly know for championing the Jefferson reform program, and in the Continental Congress. Madison, in collaboration, had participated greatly in the, Federalist, a paper who's main purpose was to ratify the constitution. Madison first became president in 1809, when he bested Charles C. Pickney. He had led the U.S. in a very unpopular war, in which the U.S. hadn't been prepared for...the War of 1812. De Witt Clinton was a Federalist, who's main purpose of the election was to get the U.S. out of a war in which he felt was very unnecessary. DeWitt held every major elective office in New York between 1797 and 1828--assemblyman, senator, mayor of New York City, lieutenant governor, and governor. He was a philanthropist and patron of the arts and science and, as canal commissioner, championed construction of the Erie and Champlain canals The method in which these candidates received nomination was by the Electoral College, or by King Caucus. The idea of political conventions had not been present at this time. There were no third-party candidates in this election. The major issue of this election was the War of 1812. The War of 1812, or "Mr. Madison's War", had been very unpopular among different sections of America. Mainly the ship owners in New England. The war was supposed to protect. This war was supposed to help their shipping, but instead, it had kept them from trading and making money. The winner of the election of 1812 was James Madison. Madison collected 128 electoral votes, while Clinton received 89, and the number of "No Votes Cast" was 1. The Vice-presidential candidate, who won the election was Elbridge Gerry, who received 131 electoral votes, while Jared Ingersoll received 86. There was no record of the number of popular votes for this election. My opinion of why Madison had won the election is because he had led the country into the War of 1812, and therefore, he should be allowed to fight it. He was also much more 2005-08-18T09:30:42-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/List-of-Most-Important-Presidential-Elections-in-History-27726.aspx Plessy Vs. Ferguson In 1896 the Supreme Court had held in Plessy vs. Ferguson that racial segregation was permissible as long as equal facilities were provided for both races. Although that decision involved only passenger accommodations on a railroad, the principle of "separate but equal" was applied thereafter to all aspects of public life in states with large black populations. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decided on May 17, 1954, was one of the most important cases in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Linda Brown had been denied admission to an elementary school in Topeka because she was black. Brought together under the Brown designation were companion cases from South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, all of which involved the same basic question: Does the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prohibit racial segregation in the public schools? It was not until the late 1940's that the Court began to insist on equality of treatment, but it did not squarely face the constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine until it decided the Brown case. In a brief, unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court declared that: "separate education facilities are inherently unequal" and that racial segregation violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. In a moving passage, the chief justice argued that separating children in the schools solely on racial grounds "generates a felling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to be undone." Although the decision did not bring about total integration of blacks in the schools, it resulted in efforts by many school systems to remove the imbalance by busing students. The Court's decision had far reaching effects, influencing civil rights legislation and the civil rights movements of the 1960’s. A case for the connection of America’s colonial and revolutionary religious and political experiences to the basic principles of the Constitution can be readily made. One point in favor of this conclusion is the fact that most Americans at that time had little beside their experiences on which to base their political ideas. This is due to the lack of advanced schooling among common Americans at that time. Other points also concur with the main idea and make the theory of the connection plausible. Much evidence to support this claim can be found in the 2005-08-02T06:36:56-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Plessy-Vs_-Ferguson-27529.aspx Early Presidents And Their Effects On America The Treaty of Paris of 1783 was signed almost eight years after The Declaration of Independence. From there, America was recognized as an independent nation by all countries worldwide. As a new country, America is yet to take its form and develop a more organized government structure. The four most influential presidents that had helped shaping the structure of early America were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson. Each had made some major impacts on what the U.S. is today. George Washington, probably the most recognizable among the four, was the first president of the U.S. He took office on April 30, 1789 by popular support. During his years in office, his most important appointments were Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury. And later, they eventually became the leaders of the first two opposing political parties, Jefferson favored the common people, while Hamilton backed the rich and well-educated. Much like what developed into the present-day Democrats and Republicans. Besides appointing important government officials, George Washington was also known for his Farewell Address, and in which he made it clear that the U.S. should stay neutral regarding foreign affairs, especially those involving European countries and the French Revolution at that time. After George Washington retired, his vice president, John Adams succeeded him. He was known to favor strong government and a loyal Federalist. While he’s in office, strong sectionalism was apparent. John Adams’ first major decision made was to avoid war with France at all costs. To carry out his plans, he sent out three envoys to France to negotiate which later resulted in the XYZ affair. And, later, the relationship between the two countries became more tense over time, but John Adams stayed persistent and insisted on making peace despite many people’s demand of war. Although he succeeded in making peace with France, his image remained unfavorable and critical to many. To protect him from critics, the Alien and Sedition Act was initiated by the Federalists and passed by the Congress. This again, led to the conflict between the two political parties, it is most likely during this time the difference in ideas and hostility began between the Federalists ( Democrats ) and Republicans, which still remains an issue today. Thomas Jefferson became president 1801. By that time, he was best known for his informal appearances compared 2005-07-31T06:22:04-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Early-Presidents-And-Their-Effects-On-America-27461.aspx Differences In The Ways The English And The Spanish Governed Their Colonies That government is best which governs least,” said Henry Thoreau. All governments governed the way they thought was best, but there was no consensus as to which one worked the finest. Obviously, Thoreau thought the best was the one with little governing. A few hundred years ago, many European nations set up colonies in the New World, each governing in their own way. The English colony of Jamestown and the Spanish colonies are examples. Even though their thoughts on government were very different, they had a few similarities. Maybe if they had not governed in the ways they did, our nation would not have turned out the way it did. First, the English governed their colony of Jamestown in their own special way. One way they did it was by using the Magna Carta (Magnificent Charter). The Magna Carta was signed in the year 1215 by King John, who was forced to sign it. Otherwise, they nobles (who drew it up) and the rest of the people of England would have rebelled against him. The Magna Carta was signed to basically take a lot of the power out of the king’s hands, and put it into the hands of the people. I think it was written to ameliorate the English people's lives at that time of history. The Magna Carta would let the colony govern itself more independently, but not totally. In addition, the Magna Carta had a lot of rules and regulations in it, but the one I believe was the most important, was the "redress of grievances." If the people of the colonies (or the people of England) were not happy with the rule of the king (or the king was not doing things to their wishes), the people had the right to not pay the taxes, or rebel against him. That prevented King James from doing anything the people did not like. In addition, Jamestown governed with a governor. The governor was almost completely in charge over the colony, and kept it together as one without rebellion. He also repeated to the king all the happenings around Jamestown. Although the governor did not have complete control over the colony, his job was quite important! The social classes in Jamestown were set up such that there were only two classes. You were either a freeman 2005-07-28T05:04:50-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Differences-In-The-Ways-The-English-And-The-Spanish-Governed-27416.aspx American Political Tradition - Lincoln According to historian Richard Hofstadter, Abraham Lincoln was “the exemplar of the self-made man,” having come from a humble background to rapidly ascend through the political ranks, gaining success and power but not forgetting humanity and moral responsibility. Hofstadter also contends that Lincoln was a very simple man and wished to keep it that way – “[i]t was precisely in his attainments as a common man that Lincoln felt himself to be remarkable, and in this light that he interpreted to the world the significance of his career.” The conflict of Lincoln’s political career, states Hofstadter, is the incompatibility between his religious beliefs and his goal of becoming successful – “[t]he motivating force in the mythology of success is ambition, which is closely akin to the cardinal Christian sin of pride … [H]ow can an earnest man, a public figure living in a time of crisis, gratify his aspirations and yet remain morally whole?” Hofstadter’s biggest criticism about Lincoln is that “he was a follower and not a leader of public opinion.” The clearest example was the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which “contained no indictment of slavery, … expressly omitted the loyal slave states from its terms … [and] did not in fact free any slaves.” Hofstadter also criticizes Lincoln’s “embarrassing contradictions” on the issue of slavery, as in a speech in Chicago Lincoln preached that “all men are created equal” while in Charleston he stated that “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” Hofstadter conveys that Lincoln did not push his true feelings against slavery, and resorted to conservatism because the average sentiments of the time were not completely anti-slavery. This goes along with Hofstadter’s assertion that “[a]s a politician Lincoln was no maverick,” as on issues like the bank, internal improvements, the Mexican War, and the tariff, Lincoln would not dissent, “even at his own political expense.” Of course, Hofstadter also approves of some of Lincoln’s doings. Primarily, Hofstadter applauds Lincoln and his constant efforts to preserve the Union – “Lincoln’s was the masterful diplomacy to hold such a coalition together, carry it into power, and with it win a war.” While criticizing Lincoln’s contradictions on the issue of slavery, Hofstadter approves of Lincoln as a calculating politician, or 2005-07-24T03:35:28-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/American-Political-Tradition-Lincoln-27351.aspx The Watergate Scandal and Its Judgment Never has a situation such as Watergate arisen in the United States before. It was an attempt of monarchy, but because of the American government's structured system, had failed miserably. Former president Richard Nixon had tried to secure himself a second term in office, and had gone to extreme, illegal measures in doing so. But no matter how ingenious the Watergate scandal had seemed, it proved that the constitution had the ultimate power above all. Watergate will be known in history not only for the illicit actions of Nixon and his people, but also as a key factor to demonstrate the real supremacy of the Constitution. Nixon had tried to play dictator, but had been checked by Congress, who made sure the law of the country was sustained. They checked the president through many ways, such as putting into effect the twenty two bills of impeachment, ordering hearings for Watergate, using investigatory powers, and subpoenaing for the recorded oval office tapes. Congress followed the rules of the Constitution and made sure that all participants and actions in the Watergate scandal were properly dealt with. In Watergate, many checks and balances were present. The United States had formed a system of government where one arm of authority could not prevail over another. For example, the Legislative branch checked the executive branch when they set up committees to inspect the actions of Nixon and his people. Another check was placed on the president when the Supreme Court demanded the tapes that recorded every single conversation that took place in the oval office. But Nixon had refused to give up the tapes for he felt he had the right to rebuff because he was the president. The Supreme Court had the greatest position in giving the people of the United States justice. Several individuals had already been subpoenaed and in the end, it was decided that Nixon's tapes would ascertain his fault or blamelessness. The Supreme Court continued to press against Nixon, demanding the tapes and he panicked for he knew they would prove his guilt. He gave instead edited transcripts of the conversations, but the Supreme Court had refused any replacements and demanded the tapes themselves. Nixon was held in contempt and was again commanded to hand over the tapes. Congress also sustained a great role in Watergate. Specific committees were established, especially the Select Committee on Presidential 2005-07-18T06:26:20-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Watergate-Scandal-and-Its-Judgment-27324.aspx Alien and Sedition Acts In 1798 the United States was involved in an undeclared war with France. Fear of the French immigrants in the United States, caused the government to pass two acts. The acts were called the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts helped to succor the government's sense of security for the United States. Although the government accepted the acts, people like James Monroe were apposed to what the acts stood for. To protest the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written to show that the acts were unconstitutional. Congress approved the Alien Act on July 6, 1798. The act read as follows, "Section 1, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety: Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any 2005-07-03T20:56:12-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Alien-and-Sedition-Acts--27226.aspx Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Franklin D. Roosevelt brought the new deal in to Americans life in the early thirties. Its purpose was to deal with the depression. Following the depression there were many programs and acts to help the nation recover from the depression. The "forgotten Americans" were the ones who needed the new deal to benefit them. These people were the blacks, women, immigrants, and the many people who suffered from poverty. Unemployment was one of the biggest issues to strike the "forgotten Americans." The new deal provided helping programs such as the Social securities act, WPA, and the federal emergency relief act to lower the unemployment and help those who couldn't work. Checks could be received to those who were poor because of the Soc. Securities act. The WPA, which was led by Harry Hopkins, was built to help the artists and musicians obtain a steady job that would help lift the nations spirit. The federal Emergency relief act provided relief money for a limited time to those workers who had been laid off. For the black workers, the NAACP was created; it was one of the most important groups trying to show Americans the rights of blacks. Blacks were still unchanged in the labors. Even under the new deal, blacks were treated unfair. Women were also treated very poorly when it came to the labor situation. They were given the so-called women's jobs, such as teachers, clerks, typists, nurses, and textile workers. Unions for blacks and women were rare until John Lewis formed the CIO, a union anyone could join, no matter what race they were. The CIO one of the top unions in the nation. The new deal had again prettied much failed with the creation of the AF of L. The AF of L was a division of many craft unions. Government jobs and political rights were a goal for the new deal to let more Americans have access to the pleasures that any white man could have. The Shocking "grand father" laws were passed and forced Americans to take tests for the eligibility to vote. For the black man the tests would be made especially hard and a black person would almost 2005-06-20T01:33:34-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Criticism-of-Franklin-D_-Roosevelt’s-New-Deal-27028.aspx Politics of Plato and Aristotle To compare the political theories of two great philosophers of politics is to first examine each theory in depth. Plato is regarded by many experts as the first writer of political philosophy, and Aristotle is recognized as the first political scientist. These two men were great thinkers. They each had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. It is necessary to look at several areas of each theory to seek the difference in each. The main focus of Plato is a perfect society. He creates a blueprint for a utopian society, in his book The Republic, out of his disdain for the tension of political life (Hacker, 24). This blueprint was a sketch of a society in which the problems he thought were present in his society would be eased (Hacker 24). Plato sought to cure the afflictions of both human society and human personality (Hacker 24). Essentially what Plato wants to achieve is a perfect society. Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society. He just wants to improve on the existing one. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, The Politics, that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained (Hacker 71). Aristotle relied on the deductive approach, while Aristotle is an example of an inductive approach (Hacker 71). Utopia is a solution in abstract, a solution that has no concrete problem (Hacker 76). There is no solid evidence that all societies are in need of such drastic reformation as Plato suggests (Hacker 76). Aristotle discovers that the best possible has already been obtained (Hacker 76). All that can be done is to try to improve on the existing one. Plato's utopia consists of three distinct, non-hereditary class systems (Hacker 32). The Guardians consist of non ruling Guardians and ruling Guardians. The non-rulers are a higher level of civil servants and the ruling is the society's policy makers (Hacker 32). Auxilaries are soldiers and minor civil servants (Hacker 32). Finally the Workers, are composed of farmers and artisans, most commonly unskilled laborers (Hacker 32). The Guardians are to be wise and good rulers. It is important that the rulers who emerge must be a class of craftsmen who are public-spirited in temperament and skilled in the arts of government areas (Hacker 33). The guardians are to be placed in 2005-05-27T05:01:07-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Politics-of-Plato-and-Aristotle-26759.aspx Agent Orange and Vietnam We must do everything in our power to make the world recognize that our veterans are still paying a high price for fighting the war in Vietnam. Agent Orange is slowly taking the lives of these brave veterans. The government has recognized some diseases but the rules to compensation can be complex. It was in the 1960's that we were in the process of trying to destroy vegetation and brush in Vietnam, in doing so we proceeded to contaminate one of the largest parts of the environment, Humankind. War Veterans were exposed to Agent Orange and now live their lives with a disease not necessarily curable. The question remains did these Veterans know about the hazardous effects, and how are they being compensated now? Agent Orange was the code name for a herbicide developed for the military, primarily for use in tropical climates. It destroyed covering vegetation to protect the American and allied troops from ambush. The product "Agent Orange" was named so for the orange band that was used to mark the drums it was stored in. Agent Orange "was a reddish-brown liquid containing two herbicides: 2,4,5-T was contaminated in the manufacturing process with a type of dioxin - 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, also known as TCDD."(VA Fact Sheet) The combined product was mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel and dispersed by vehicle, hand spraying, and aircraft. The term Operation Ranch Hand was the military code name for the spraying of herbicides from United States aircraft in Southeast Asia. "Between 1962 and 1971, Ranch Hand sprayed about 19 million gallons of herbicide, 11 million of which was Agent Orange."(Buckingham 2) Ranch Hand made attacks more difficult by clearing several hundred yards of vegetation in order to make ambushes more difficult and air attacks easier. There was, "more than 10% of the land area of South Vietnam was sprayed at least once, and some were sprayed repeatedly."(Boffey, 1) After several weeks the herbicides would dissolve into the soil which would contaminate the water and the vegetation. "Orange contained relatively high levels of an exceedingly poisonous contaminant known as Dioxin."(Arison, 1) Dioxin is what remained after the herbicides would dissolve; this is not a harmful substance found in nature, but rather a man made poison. The introduction to using resources: Choices and Trade-off states that "The choices people have made in just the last hundred years are largely responsible for what 2005-05-19T03:31:31-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Agent-Orange-and-Vietnam-26681.aspx (this one needs some work...{spelling grammar etc.}) In the 1960’s there was an uprising of sorts. The “black” communities were beginning to realize their constitutional rights…or the lack there of. There were a few bold souls that decided to take a stand, no matter what the consequences. Many know of Rosa Parks, the woman who decided to take a stand (no pun intended) on a local bus, refusing to give up her seat near the front and move to the back. Others participated at “sit in’s” inside diners labeled “whites only”. For every attempt of expressing their desire and need for equality, all efforts were shot down. There was no unity, no one to rally the hearts and minds of blacks and whites alike. But then a pastor from Montgomery Alabama leaded the largest civil rights boycott against busses to date. Through his soothing voice and outstanding charisma, Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the strongest and most influential civil rights activists. But he was not alone in his drive for equality. There were others fighting for the same cause. One of those zealots was a man named Malcolm Little (later ditched his “slave name” and picked up X to signify his lost tribal name). Both men were similar in many ways, but yet at the same time were very, very different. in his speeches Malcolm refers to himself and his followers as Black Nationalist Freedom Fighter. He viewed the “white supremacists” as enemies. In his speeches he talks about how the white politicians hired black and white promoters to go into the black neighborhoods to press the flesh for them promising false promises. His belief of Black Nationalism is that they stay away from their enemy. Create their own community and have their own politicians who have the communities’ interests at heart. If you can take notice in his speeches he is not trying to get the blacks to beg for equality or ask to end segregation. He is saying that blacks should unite together and fight against their common enemy. The philosophy of Black Nationalism can be enforced no matter what your religion, he makes points that they don’t hang you because you are Lutheran, Christian, or Muslim, they hang you because you are black. He states in 2005-03-10T05:28:47-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Comparing-Martin-Luther-King-Jr_-And-Malcolm-X-26360.aspx Not ago, In the nineteenth century, the words that our forefathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men were created equal,” held little value. Human equality was far from a reality. If you were not born of white male decent, than that phrase did not apply to you. During this period many great leaders and reformers emerged, fighting both for the rights of African Americans and for the rights of women. One of these great leaders was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Stanton dedicated her entire life to the women’s movement, despite the opposition she received, from both her family and friends. In the course of this paper, I will be taking a critical look at three of Stanton’s most acclaimed speeches “Declaration of Sentiments”, “Solitude of Self”, and “ Home Life”, and develop a claim that the rhetoric in these speeches was an effective tool in advancing the movement as a whole. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was born November 12, 1815, in Johnstown, New York. She was born unto a conservative, Presbyterian family of considerable social standing. Her father, Judge Daniel Cady, was considered to be both a wealthy landowner and a prominent citizen with great political status (Banner 3). Stanton was one of seven children, 6 of which were girls, to be born to Daniel and Margaret. Growing up in the period that she did, Elizabeth was very fortunate to receive the outstanding education that she did since it was not as important to educate daughters as it was sons. She overcame that boundary when she began attending Johnstown Academy. She was the only girl in most of her classes, which was unheard of in those days. Even when females did attend schools, they were learning about “womanly” things, like how to run a household, not advanced math and science courses, like she was in. She then went on to further her education at a very prominent educational institution, Emma Willard’s Troy Seminary. After that she studied law with her father, who was a New York Supreme Court Judge. It is through this training that her awareness was raised about the discrimination that women were subjected to. In 1840, Elizabeth married an abolitionist organizer named Henry Stanton, much to her family’s dismay. After their marriage, Elizabeth and her husband traveled to London for a worldwide antislavery convention. It was here that she met Lucretia Mott, another well-know women’s rights 2005-02-02T02:58:57-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/American-Feminist-Movement--26194.aspx The Gateway To Women's Country: A Nightmare Of Feminism In The Gate to Women's Country, Sherri Tepper gives the reader a look into the post-apocalyptic future in which society is broken up into three main groups: Women, servitors, and warrior men. The women and servitors lived inside walled cities while the warriors would live in garrisons located outside the walls. At first glance, a city like Marthatown may seem like a utopia to some. At times, it seems that the people within the city consider it a utopia. On the outside, the society in which they live is female dominated. One would think that women would have all the rights and freedom they wanted. In essence, the city of Marthatown would be a feminist's dream. Unfortunately, at second glance, the city is not, by any means, a feminist's dream. Quite the contrary, it would be a feminist's absolute, full blown nightmare. Within the society, women are still mistreated by men, unable to think for themselves, and do not have any freedom for the most part. In regards to the treatment of women, Marthatown is not, by any means perfect. In fact, women for the most part get treated like second class citizens when it comes to the warriors from the garrison. One of the first examples of this mistreatment is Chernon's behavior toward his mother. He would say the nastiest, most disgusting remarks to his mother. Chernon would also get into fights with his mother intentionally during his visits. One would argue that he was forced to do this by his superior officer / senior warrior, but the fact is that he treated his mother like crap. This was not an isolated case involving the behavior of a warrior or potential warrior disrespecting women. Stavia stated and her mother agreed that warriors were always disrespectful toward women and their own mothers. The atrocities to women do not end there. When Chernon and Stavia were out alone, Chernon was so eager to impregnate her that he just cut out her implant and "jumped her bones" without thinking of the consequences of such a procedure in regards to Stavia's well being. The best example of the mistreatment of women involves Firstborn and his wife Humility, a 14-year-old girl. During their act of sex, he actually slapped her around because she was screaming from pain. 2004-12-22T19:34:57-05:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Gateway-To-Women-s-Country-A-Nightmare-Of-Feminism-25957.aspx Martin Luther King Jr. King was born Michael Luther King in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15, 1929. He was one of the three children of Martin Luther King Sr., pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, and Alberta (Williams) King, a former schoolteacher. He was renamed "Martin" when he was about 6 years old. After going to local grammar and high schools, at the age of 15, he entered Morehouse College located in Atlanta, under a special program for gifted students in 1944. He wasn't planning to enter the ministry, but then he met Dr. Benjamin Mays, a scholar whose manner and behavior convinced him that a religious career could be academically satisfying as well. After receiving his bachelor's degree in 1948, King attended Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, winning the Plafker Award as the outstanding student of the graduating class, and the J. Lewis Crozer Fellowship as well. He completed the coursework for his doctorate in 1953, and was granted the degree two years later upon achievement of his study. While in Boston, King met Coretta Scott, from Marion, Alabama, who was studying at the New England Conservatory of Music. They were married in 1953 and had four children. King then became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery in 1954. He had been pastor slightly more than a year when the city's small group of civil-rights advocates decided to contest racial segregation on that city's public bus system. On Dec. 1, 1955, a black woman named Rosa Parks had refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger and as a result had been arrested for disobeying the city's segregation law. Black activists formed the Montgomery Improvement Association to boycott the transit system and chose King as their leader. He had the advantage of being a young, well-trained man who was too new in town to have made enemies; he was normally respected, and his family links and professional standing would allow him to find another pastorate should the boycott not do well. In his first speech to the group as its president, King stated: “We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved 2004-10-12T16:11:07-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-25570.aspx From the beginning of John Kennedy's Administration into this fifth year of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, substantially the same small group of men have presided over the destiny of the United States. In that time they have carried the country from a limited involvement in Vietnam into a war that is brutal, probably unwinnable, and, to an increasing body of opinion, calamitous and immoral. How could it happen? Many in government or close to it will read the following article with the shock of recognition. Those less familiar with the processes of power can read it with assurance that the author had a firsthand opportunity to watch the slide down the slippery slope during five years (1961-1966) of service in the White House and Department of State. Mr. Thomson is an East Asia specialist and an assistant professor of history at Harvard. AS a case study in the making of foreign policy, the Vietnam War will fascinate historians and social scientists for many decades to come. One question that will certainly be asked: How did men of superior ability, sound training, and high ideals -- American policy-makers of the 1960s -- create such costly and divisive policy? As one who watched the decision-making process in Washington from 1961 to 1966 under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, I can suggest a preliminary answer. I can do so by briefly listing some of the factors that seemed to me to shape our Vietnam policy during my years as an East Asia specialist at the State Department and the White House. I shall deal largely with Washington as I saw or sensed it, and not with Saigon, where I have spent but a scant three days, in the entourage of the Vice President, or with other decision centers, the capitals of interested parties. Nor will I deal with other important parts of the record: Vietnam's history prior to 1961, for instance, or the overall course of America's relations with Vietnam. Yet a first and central ingredient in these years of Vietnam decisions does involve history. The ingredient was the legacy of the 1950s -- by which I mean the so-called "loss of China," the Korean War, and the Far East policy of Secretary of State Dulles. This legacy had an institutional by-product for the Kennedy Administration: in 1961 the U.S. government's East Asian establishment was undoubtedly the most rigid and doctrinaire of Washington's regional divisions in foreign affairs. This 2004-07-07T04:25:08-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/How-Could-Vietnam-Happen-By-James-C_-Thomson,-Jr_-25543.aspx What can we say about Ronald Reagan? What should we say? We can be fairly sure that the mainstream (liberal) press will be respectful, but will cleave to the conventional (liberal) wisdom that consistently has portrayed Reagan as an amiable dolt whose presidency was little more than a case of "sleepwalking through history." To liberal sophisticates, Reagan was a real-life Forrest Gump. His successes were the result of dumb luck, and his popularity was due to the shallowness of the American people. According to the conventional (liberal) wisdom, the Reagan presidency unleashed domestically the "decade of greed" during which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Not only did his tax cuts favor the well-to-do, they also led to deficits without end, saddling the country with massive debt. Meanwhile, in the international arena, his saber rattling derailed relations with the Soviet Union, leading to unnecessary increases in defense spending. Only the "liberal," open-minded Mikhail Gorbachev was able to undo the damage wrought by President Reagan and end the Cold War. Fortunately for the historical record, there is a serious reevaluation of the Reagan presidency underway. Not too long ago, a survey of presidential historians from across the political spectrum ranked Mr. Reagan eighth among American presidents, firmly within the category of "near great" executives, a group that included Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower. As more Cold War history is de-classified, it is likely that he will move up in the rankings. For he may prove to be the most important president of the Cold War era—the one who changed the terms of the debate, both domestically and internationally. In 1980, the United States was in trouble. Malaise was in the air. President Carter could not govern, despite having a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. The U.S. economy was stagnant and beset by a variety of other problems, including soaring inflation and high unemployment, something conventional Keynesian macro-economic policy and the Phillips Curve said was not supposed to happen. Because inflation was well into double digits, interest rates were sky-high as well. Having dishonorably abandoned South Vietnam only five years earlier, U.S. influence abroad was at its nadir while Soviet adventurism was on the rise. The "correlation of forces" certainly seemed to favor the Soviet Union. The key to Mr. Reagan’s success in ending American malaise and thereby changing the course of the 2004-07-07T04:09:33-04:00 http://75.150.148.189/free-essay/The-Reagan-of-History-25539.aspx