The Influence of Green Groups on the Policy of the United States

This research examines the relationship between environmental groups and the policies of the United States. The United States political system has been historically anthropocen-tric, or human centered. Environmental groups have been attempting to change this to a biocentric or ecocentric viewpoint, which includes the rights of animals and the environment. These views are nature centered instead of human centered. This study will answer the question of whether these groups have been effective at altering United States policies.

This will be done through the study of views offered by both sides. Also, a survey will be used to determine whether congressmen views are consistent with environmentalist views. It will also present whether policy change has taken place, and if these changes have remained intact through the study of past congressional decisions. This research will help environmental groups to identify the effectiveness of their strategies. This is necessary for these groups to effectively alter the policies of the United States, which is one of the largest polluters in the world.

If their strategies are ineffective then it will be necessary for them to reassess their methods. Without the use productive methods these groups will not be able to protect the environment. Animals, plants and the entire ecosystem must have the same protection as humans have. An ecocentric viewpoint establishes the right of the environment to have legal standing. This gives people the ability to defend the right of an animal to exist with the same rights as humans. Without this protection, people will be just as negatively affected as the environment.

The earth must be thought of as a living organism, if one part is hurt then the whole planet will feel the effects. Unfortunately, usiness and governments take the stance that the earth is more like a machine. That is, at times if a part is hurt it can be repaired, without it effecting the whole system. Literature Review The literature on environmental groups and their influence and activities is vast. Several themes concerning the groups’ influence in changing United States policy exist.

The American Psychological Association has done studies on ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes (Thomas, 1994). Ecocentric values have arisen recently as environmental problems have come to the public’s attention. Anthropocentric values have existed much longer. They have become institutionalized into our political and economic system. The movement toward environmental awareness arose in the political activism in the 60’s. Although these values have recently been declining according to Finger (1993).

These biocentric and anthropocentric views are also examined by Wildes (1995). Wildes also explains the beginning of the movement in the 60’s, and the number of similar theories developed during the same era. In his study he applies neo-marxism to the relationship towards Man and Nature. By doing this he shows how the government and industry uses the environment for its own se, often neglecting the resulting effects. Dodson (1995) examines if either of these opposing viewpoints offer plausible answers to current problems.

Dodson also explains how the groups interact. Through this interaction they form political policy. Hampicke (1994) address the vulnerability of the species and ecosystems to permanent destruction. Also shown is how conserva-tion costs are not excessive as some in our government believe. Lichterman (1995) shows that green groups not only have problems relating towards our government, but also multicultural obstacles. These roups must bring together several interests in order to form a unified strategy to present to the United States government.

Environmental lobbyists have so far been unsuccessful in their efforts to amend existing environmental laws. Chemical manufactur-ing and other industry’s lobbies have been able to block their efforts. They have used promising of campaign funding to influence Congress to support industries (Dowie, 1995). Senator Ted Stevens opposed the building of a pipeline across Alaska’s coastal plain in 1977. He pointed out the tragic environmental costs of oil development in his home state. Now he is a part of a group of senators who are leading efforts to roll back environmental laws (Foley, 1995).

Congress has been modifying the country’s environmental policy to suit business interests during its first eight months in power. Senator Bob Dole sponsored a risk assessment bill. This bill required that new federal human health and safety standards be weighed against their economic costs. This bill was defeated by the Natural Resources Defense Council lobby. Congress has also attached over fifty riders to various appropriations bills to all anti- environment projects while minimizing public knowledge of the bills (Adams, 995, 3).

One of these riders was to a federal budget cutting bill. This rider allowed private companies to salvage damaged trees in national lands. Other similar riders include making it legal to consider the sale of public assets toward the reduction of the budget deficit. Another bill passed banned the addition of more species to the Endangered Species list and allows increased logging at Tongass National Forest (Adams, 1995, 2). Environmental policy is positively affected by pressure from customers, shareholders, government regulations, neighborhood groups and community groups.

Although environmental policy is negatively affected by lobby pressure from other groups. This is from empirical data from firms that have an official policy for dealing with environmental questions (Henriques, 1996). Tension between social equity and environmental politics has existed in the United States over the past thirty years. This tension has existed on a social classes basis, a gender basis, a racial basis, and an economic basis. Several of these tensions however are more perceived than real. There is a possible common grounds for these two goals (Paehlke, 1993).

George Washington, President of the United States

On April 30, 1789, George Washington, standing on the balcony of Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York, took his oath of office as the first President of the United States. “As the first of every thing, in our situation will serve to establish a Precedent,” he wrote James Madison, “it is devoutly wished on my part, that these precedents may be fixed on true principles. ” Born in 1732 into a Virginia planter family, he learned the morals, manners, and body of knowledge requisite for an 18th century Virginia gentleman. He pursued two intertwined interests: military arts and western expansion.

At 16 he helped survey Shenandoah lands for Thomas, Lord Fairfax. Commissioned a lieutenant colonel in 1754, he fought the first skirmishes of what grew into the French and Indian War. The next year, as an aide to Gen. Edward Braddock, he escaped injury although four bullets ripped his coat and two horses were shot from under him. From 1759 to the outbreak of the American Revolution, Washington managed his lands around Mount Vernon and served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Married to a widow, Martha Dandridge Custis, he devoted himself to a busy and happy life.

But like his fellow planters, Washington felt himself exploited by British merchants and hampered by British regulations. As the quarrel with the mother country grew acute, he moderately but firmly voiced his resistance to the restrictions. When the Second Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in May 1775, Washington, one of the Virginia delegates, was elected Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. On July 3, 1775, at Cambridge, Massachusetts, he took command of his ill-trained troops and embarked upon a war that was to last six grueling years. He realized early that the best strategy was to harass the British.

He reported to Congress, “we should on all Occasions avoid a general Action, or put anything to the Risque, unless compelled by a necessity, into which we ought never to be drawn. ” Ensuing battles saw him fall back slowly, then strike unexpectedly. Finally in 1781 with the aid of French allies–he forced the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. Washington longed to retire to his fields at Mount Vernon. But he soon realized that the Nation under its Articles of Confederation was not functioning well, so he became a prime mover in the steps leading to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia in 1787.

When the new Constitution was ratified, the Electoral College unanimously elected Washington President He did not infringe upon the policy making powers that he felt the Constitution gave Congress. But the determination of foreign policy became preponderantly a Presidential concern. When the French Revolution led to a major war between France and England, Washington refused to accept entirely the recommendations of either his Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who was pro-French, or his Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who was pro-British.

Rather, he insisted upon a neutral course until the United States could grow stronger. To his disappointment, two parties were developing by the end of his first term. Wearied of politics, feeling old, he retired at the end of his second. In his Farewell Address, he urged his countrymen to forswear excessive party spirit and geographical distinctions. In foreign affairs, he warned against long-term alliances. Washington enjoyed less than three years of retirement at Mount Vernon, for he died of a throat infection December 14, 1799. For months the Nation mourned him.

Theodore Roosdevelt: 26th President of the United States (1901-1909)

Theodore Roosevelt was an energetic and dynamic leader who gave the nation a square deal. During his presidency to a position of internatio nal leadership. Roosevelt belonged to an aristocratic New York family. He attended Harvard Univerity. Theodore Roosevelt fought in the Spanish-American war with the Rough Riders at the battle of San Juan Hill. He had served as police commissiores of New York, assistant secretary of the navy, governor of New York, and vice president of the United States.

When president McKinley was assassinated on September 14, 1901, Theodore Roosevelt became, at the time, the youngest (43 ears) president in hist ory. The president saw himself as a man of the middle who would meditate the struggle between capital and labor. He said that business must be protected against itself and he tended to favor regulatory commissions that provided nonpartisan supervisi on by experts of business practices. As president he succeeded in getting additional authority over the railroads for the interstate commerce commission.

He was also instrumental in the passage of the meat inspection act and the pure food and drug act. Ro attitude toward the poor and owards the labor movement was that of an enlightened conservative. He supported many labor demands such as shorter hours for women and children, employers’ liability laws and limitations on the use of injunctions against workers in labor disputes. In reform, Roosevelt wanted gradual change. He moved in the direction of the reformers and ended up as the candidate of the progressive party in the Bull Moose presidential campaingn in 1912.

He had broken with the Repub lican party. In 1907 immigration reached its all-time high 1,285,000 in one year. Theodore Roosevelt said, “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have ro om but for on language here and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality; we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people. ” Ro l ed the United States into continous armed interventions in the caribbean.

In 1906 an insurrection in Cuba caused the United States to intervene in its affairs. The American government withdrew its power when ordr was restored. In the Philippines c ivil government was put into operation, and a communications cable was laid across the Pacific. Roosevelt intervened in the war betwwen Russia and Japan. He invited the Russian and Japanese governments to send peace commissioners to America where a peace treaty was sighned in 1905. The following year the president was awarded the nobel peace prize. People had wanted a canal connectiong the Atlantic and Pacific for hundreds of years.

A French company, which went bankrupt, had started the pro ject. The company sold the panamanian rights to build the canal to the United States government. Colombia, whose territory included Panama, didn’t agree to the terms offered by the Uninted States. Ro did not think much of he of Latin Americans to begin with. He called he colombians “foolish and homicidal corruptionits. ” The Roosevelt administration supported a revolt by the Panamanians against Colombia. The new country of Panama signed a canal treaty favorable to the United States in 1903. The Pana ma canal was completed August 15, 1914.

The Articles Of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation was the first constitution of the United States of America. The Articles of Confederation were first drafted by the Continental Congress in Philadelphia Pennsylvania in 1777. This first draft was prepared by a man named John Dickinson in 1776. The Articles were then ratified in 1781. The cause for the changes to be made was due to state jealousies and widespread distrust of the central authority. This jealousy then led to the emasculation of the document.

As adopted, the articles provided only for a “firm league of friendship” in which each of the 13 states expressly held “its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. ” The People of each state were given equal privileges and rights, freedom of movement was guaranteed, and procedures for the trials of accused criminals were outlined. The articles established a national legislature called the Congress, consisting of two to seven delegates from each state; each state had one vote, according to its size or population. No executive or judicial branches were provided for.

Congress was charged with responsibility for conducting foreign relations, declaring war or peace, maintaining an army and navy, settling boundary disputes, establishing and maintaining a postal service, and various lesser functions. Some of these responsibilities were shared with the states, and in one way or another Congress was dependent upon the cooperation of the states for carrying out any of them. Four visible weaknesses of the articles, apart from those of organization, made it impossible for Congress to execute its constitutional duties.

These were analyzed in numbers 15-22 of The FEDERALIST, the political essays in which Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay argued the case for the U. S. CONSTITUTION of 1787. The first weakness was that Congress could legislate only for states, not for individuals; because of this it could not enforce legislation. Second, Congress had no power to tax. Instead, it was to assess its expenses and divide those among the states on the basis of the value of land. States were then to tax their own citizens to raise the money for these expenses and turn the proceeds over to Congress.

They could not be forced to do so, and in practice they rarely met their obligations. Third, Congress lacked the power to control commerce–without its power to conduct foreign relations was not necessary, since most treaties except those of peace were concerned mainly with trade. The fourth weakness ensured the demise of the Confederation by making it too difficult to correct the first three. Amendments could have corrected any of the weaknesses, but amendments required approval by all 13 state legislatures. None of the several amendments that were proposed met that requirement.

On the days from September 11, 1786 to September 14, 1786, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia had a meeting of there delegates at the Annapolis Convention. Too few states were represented to carry out the original purpose of the meeting–to discuss the regulation of interstate commerce–but there was a larger topic at question, specifically, the weakness of the Articles of Confederation. Alexander Hamilton successfully proposed that the states be invited to send delegates to Philadelphia to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.

As a result, the Constitutional Convention was held in May 1787. The Constitutional Convention, which wrote the Constitution of the United States, was held in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. It was called by the Continental Congress and several states in response to the expected bankruptcy of Congress and a sense of panic arising from an armed revolt–Shays’s Rebellion–in New England. The convention’s assigned job, following proposals made at the Annapolis Convention the previous September, was to create amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

The delegates, however, immediately started writing a new constitution. Fifty-five delegates representing 12 states attended at least part of the sessions. Thirty-four of them were lawyers; most of the others were planters or merchants. Although George Washington, who presided, was 55, and John Dickinson was 54, Benjamin Franklin 81, and Roger Shermen 66, most of the delegates were young men in their 20s and 30s. Noticeable absent were the revolutionary leaders of the effort for independence in 1775-76, such as John Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson.

The delegates’ knowledge concerning government, both ideal and practical, made the convention perhaps the most intelligent such gathering ever assembled. On September 17 the Constitution was signed by 39 of the 42 delegates present. A period of national argument followed, during which the case for support of the constitution was strongly presented in the FEDERALIST essays of Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The last of the 13 states to ratify the Constitution was Rhode Island on May 29, 1790.

Labor And Unions In America

The Industrial Revolution was dawning in the United States. At Lowell, Massachusetts, the construction of a big cotton mill began in 1821. It was the first of several that would be built there in the next 10 years. The machinery to spin and weave cotton into cloth would be driven by water power. All that the factory owners needed was a dependable supply of labor to tend the machines.

As most jobs in cotton factories required neither great strength nor special skills, the owners thought women could do the work as well as or better than men. In addition, they were more compliant. The New England region was home to many young, single farm girls who might be recruited. But would stern New England farmers allow their daughters to work in factories? The great majority of them would not. They believed that sooner or later factory workers would be exploited and would sink into hopeless poverty. Economic “laws” would force them to work harder and harder for less and less pay.

How, then, were the factory owners able to recruit farm girls as laborers? They did it by building decent houses in which the girls could live. These houses were supervised by older women who made sure that the girls lived by strict moral standards. The girls were encouraged to go to church, to read, to write and to attend lectures. They saved part of their earnings to help their families at home or to use when they got married.

The young factory workers did not earn high wages; the average pay was about $3.50 a week. But in those times, a half-dozen eggs cost five cents and a whole chicken cost 15 cents. The hours worked in the factories were long. Generally, the girls worked 11 to 13 hours a day, six days a week. But most people in the 1830s worked from dawn until dusk, and farm girls were used to getting up early and working until bedtime at nine o’clock.

The factory owners at Lowell believed that machines would bring progress as well as profit.

Workers and capitalists would both benefit from the wealth created by mass production. For a while, the factory system at Lowell worked very well. The population of the town grew from 200 in 1820 to 30,000 in 1845. But conditions in Lowell’s factories had already started to change. Faced with growing competition, factory owners began to decrease wages in order to lower the cost-and the price-of finished products.

They increased the number of machines that each girl had to operate. In addition, they began to overcrowd the houses in which the girls lived. Sometimes eight girls had to share one room.

In 1836, 1,500 factory girls went on strike to protest wage cuts. (The girls called their action a “turn out.”) But it was useless. Desperately poor immigrants were beginning to arrive in the United States from Europe. To earn a living, they were willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions. Before long, immigrant women replaced the “Yankee” (American) farm girls.

To many people, it was apparent that justice for wage earners would not come easily. Labor in America faced a long, uphill struggle to win fair treatment. In that struggle, more and more workers would turn to labor unions to help their cause. They would endure violence, cruelty and bitter defeats. But eventually they would achieve a standard of living unknown to workers at any other time in history.

In colonial America, most manufacturing was done by hand in the home. Some was done in workshops attached to the home. As towns grew into cities, the demand for manufactured goods increased. Some workshop owners began hiring helpers to increase production. Relations between the employer and helper were generally harmonious. They worked side by side, had the same interests and held similar political views.

The factory system that began around 1800 brought great changes. The employer no longer worked beside his employees. He became an executive and a merchant who rarely saw his workers. He was concerned less with their welfare than with the cost of their labor. Many workers were angry about the changes brought by the factory system. In the past, they had taken great pride in their handicraft skills; now machines did practically all the work, and they were reduced to the status of common laborers. In bad times they could lose their jobs. Then they might be replaced by workers who would accept lower wages. To skilled craft workers, the Industrial Revolution meant degradation rather than progress.

As the factory system grew, many workers began to form labor unions to protect their interests. The first union to hold regular meetings and collect dues was organized by Philadelphia shoemakers in 1792. Soon after, carpenters and leather workers in Boston and printers in New York also organized unions. Labor’s tactics in those early times were simple. Members of a union would agree on the wages they thought were fair. They pledged to stop working for employers who would not pay that amount. They also sought to compel employers to hire only union members.

Employers found the courts to be an effective weapon to protect their interests. In 1806, eight Philadelphia shoemakers were brought to trial after leading an unsuccessful strike. The court ruled that any organizing of workers to raise wages was an illegal act. Unions were “conspiracies” against employers and the community. In later cases, courts ruled that almost any action taken by unions to increase wages might be criminal. These decisions destroyed the effectiveness of the nation’s early labor unions.

Not until 1842 was the way opened again for workers to organize. That year several union shoemakers in Boston were brought to trial. They were charged with refusing to work with non-union shoemakers. A municipal court judge found the men guilty of conspiracy. But an appeal to a higher court resulted in a victory for labor unions generally. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that it was not unlawful for workers to engage peacefully in union activity. It was their right to organize, he said. Shaw’s decision was widely accepted. For many years following this decision, unions did not have to fear conspiracy charges.

In the next two decades, unions campaigned for a 10-hour working day and against child labor. A number of state legislatures responded favorably. In 1851, for example, New Jersey passed a law calling for a 10-hour working day in all factories. It also forbade the employment of children under 10 years old.

Meanwhile trade unions were joining together in cities to form federations. A number of skilled trades organized national unions to try to improve their wages and working conditions. The effort to increase wages brought about hundreds of strikes during the 1850s. None was as extensive, however, as a strike of New England shoemakers in 1860. The strike started in Lynn, Massachusetts, when factory workers were refused a three-dollar increase in their weekly pay. It soon spread to Maine and New Hampshire. Altogether, about 20,000 workers took part in the strike. It ended in a victory for the shoemakers. Similar victories were soon won by other trade unions. These successes led to big increases in union membership. Yet most American workers were generally better off than workers in Europe and had more hope of improving their lives. For this reason, the majority did not join labor unions.

Feminist Spirituality And Goddess Religion In The United States

Thousands of years ago, the Goddess was viewed as an autonomous entity worthy of respect from men and women alike. Because of societal changes caused by Eastern influence, a patriarchical system conquered all aspects of life including religion. Today, the loss of a strong female presence in Judeo-Christian beliefs has prompted believers to look to other sources that celebrate the role of women. Goddess religion and feminist spirituality have increasingly been embraced by men and women as an alternative to the patriarchy found in traditional biblical religion.

Within a few thousand years the first recognizable human society developed worship of the Great Goddess or Great Mother. For these people, deity was female. The importance of fertility in crops, domesticated animals,wild animals and in the tribe itself were of paramount importance to their survival. Thus, the Female life-giving principle was considered divine and an enigma. This culture lasted for tens of thousands of years, generally living in peace. Males and females were treated equally.

Their society was matrilineal–children took their mothers’ names, but not a matriarchy (Christ 58-59). Life and time was experienced as a repetitive cycle, not linearly as is accepted today. However, Easterners soon brought modern civilization to this culture, including war, belief in male Gods, exploitation of nature, and knowledge of the male role in procreation. Goddess worship was gradually combined with worship of male Gods to produce a variety of Pagan religions, thus losing some of its singular focus on the female as a deity.

Goddess Worship during the Christian Era was molded by more dominant outside forces. As Judaism, Christianity & eventually Islam evolved, the Pagan religions were suppressed and the female principle was gradually driven out of religion. Consequently women were reduced to a level inferior to men. The God, King, Priest & Father replaced the Goddess, Queen, Priestess & Mother. A woman’s testimony was not considered significant in courts, women were not allowed to speak in churches, and positions of authority in the church were (almost without exception) limited to men.

A feminine presence was added to Christianity when the Virgin Mary was named Theotokos (Mother of God). However, her role was heavily restricted and included none of the fertility components present in Pagan religions. A low point in the fortunes of women was reached during the Renaissance, when hundreds of thousands of suspected female witches were exterminated by burning and hanging. These combined factors propelled women who did not find traditional structures, views, and rituals fulfilling to return to a feminine based spirituality more suited to their specific needs.

At the turn of the century, scholars began writing about a Mother Goddess. By the 1950s, Gerald Gardner claimed initiation into a coven of English witches in England. He began publicizing this \”Old Religion\” of Wicca. Gardnerian Witchcraft recognized a Goddess of Earth-moon-sea as well as the Horned-hunt-sun God (Corbett, 290). Women could be High Priestesses, but much sexism still prevailed. Wicca schismed after Gardner’s death, but these traditions continued to be founded by and named after men.

Meanwhile, women in the US and elsewhere were beginning the feminist movement. Defining patriarchy as the oppressive force they were battling, they began reexamining all aspects of their lives, including religion. In the 1970s, women began using the concept of \”Goddess\” as part of the feminist movement. DianicWicca began: a women-only version that eliminated the God and all male aspects, as well as many traditional Wiccan elements such as hierarchies, secrecy, and formality.

During the 1980s, while the name Wicca remained, many groups began using the term \”neo-Pagan\” which retains the God as well as the Goddess, but incorporates the increased status given to the Goddess and women. The Goddess is oftenidentified with the Earth and elements in nature explicitly. It has been referred to as \”eco-feminism\” to reflect this increased emphasis. This stems from the Wiccan ideology that people have a unique responsibility toward the environment because of our ability to make conscious choices (Corbett 292).

Goddess worship broadened to include African, Asian, and Native American ideals beyond the classic Wiccan deities. It became\”politically correct\” by beginning to include gays and lesbians (formerly neglected with the emphasis on male-female fertility) as well as the ecological movement and an openness to people of color and other minorities. Now considered the fastest growing religion in America by some scholars, neo-Pagans were represented at the World Council of Religions in 1993. Despite the spread of feminist and goddess belief, many witches still face discrimination because of their faith.

People outside the neo-Pagan community still often confuse Wicca with Satanism, feeling that witchcraft is not a valid religion and should not be afforded the same protections as more ‘mainstream’, consensus religions. However, Wicca and other goddess religions are not Satanistic. Satanism focuses on the Christian idea of the devil, whereas these spiritualities predate Christianity and have no link to those beliefs (Corbett 292). Another common misconception is that witches cast spells in order to hurtothers for their own or someone elses benefit.

This myth has developed through years of media and literary misrepresentation. While Wicca does not have many concrete beliefs, a universal code for behavior does exist. Best exemplified in the Wiccan Rede (An ye harm none, do what ye will) and the Threefold Law (Whatever we do returns to us three times over, be it good or ll), personal freedom and choice are essential to Wiccan morality and ethics (Corbett 292). Modern Goddess worship today can best be described as a renaissance of Paganism.

Its worship of Goddesses and Gods occurred in the middle of this century with the reemergence of Wicca. With the rise of feminism, new traditions within Wicca were created in which the Goddess grew in importance, and the role of the God shrank into obscurity. The Goddess in both Goddess Worship and Neo-Paganism is often visualized in three aspects: Maiden, Mother and Crone (Corbett 290). Her aspects are mirrored in the phases of the moon: waxing, full and waning. The Maiden represents youth, emerging sexuality, and the independence from men found in virginity.

The Mother symbolizes feminine power, fertility, and nurturing. The Crone is the wisdom and compassion which evolves from experience, and the one who guides women through the death experience. Although not all followers of the goddess are Wiccan, virtually all Wiccans are worshipers of the goddess (Corbett 291). Beliefs of Goddess religion and Feminist Spiritualities are not absolute or definite. No official doctrine exists uniting the many branches and forms falling under these categories of faith. Almost all include a female creator, usually with some male counterpart.

Feminist spirituality acknowledges that female power is independent from all outside forces. It is an important and intense entity that can be called upon through rituals, dance, prayer, chants, or meditation. Its message clearly states female ambition will not be subjugated in a mans world. Images are of paramount importance to these religions. The portrayal of women in a positive way reinforces autonomy, beauty of the female figure, and elegance of each womans soul. It calls participants to recognize the goddess within and celebrate their own connections to time and nature.

Goddess images resacrilize the female body, enabling women to take pride in themselves and encouraging men and children to respect their feminine power (Christ, 165). Symbols and rituals are an essential component in goddess religion and feminist spirituality. They demonstrate our interconnectedness to all that is, and also how diversity and difference should be celebrated. Symbols evoke respect for the Goddess, Her role in nature, and the female form in general. Rituals reinforce these values as an outward sign of commitment and remembrance.

This combination of rituals and symbols brings Her power into believers lives. Ritual also creates long lasting moods and motivations which shape wisdom and become second nature for practitioners (Christ, 25). A very ancient tradition which creates a sacred space for the Goddess is the creation of a home altar. Images, candles, books, and symbols can be incorporated to personalize and add meaning to the space. Rituals may be done in solitude or within a gathering of believer to invoke the power of the Goddess.

Other times, pilgrimages are taken to sacred places which have made a personal impact on the believer. Because there is no liturgy or official order of worship, these rituals can be molded to suit individual needs. The rituals may change each time to allow for innovation and spontaneity. Certain groups follow an established traditional pattern for times, dates, and practices of the rituals (Christ 29). Holidays and festivals are integral to goddess worship. They are special times of reflection on our connection to the cyclical patterns of nature and time.

Some Goddess holidays and festivals are celebrated at corresponding times and dates to Judeo-Christian feast days and holidays. This correspondence originates from the alignment of religious holidays to the natural rhythms of seasons and nature including the equinoxes, the solstices, and the holidays falling exactly in between, dividing the year into eight seasons. Others are held in relation to new and full moons, recognizing the nexus between womens cycles and the position of the moon (Christ 28-29). The ethos that these symbols and rituals create provides a sense of reality and a plan of action to live by.

Individual choice and societys reactions and decision making are heavily emphasized. Carol P. Christ lists nine touchstones which can be consulted when attempting to maintain the ethics held in Goddess worship: nurture life, walk in love and beauty, trust the knowledge that comes through the body, speak the truth about conflict, pain, and suffering, take only what you need, think about the consequences ofyour actions for seven generations, approach the taking of life with great restraint, practice great generosity, and repair relations between all people peacefully (167).

These touchstones are not commandments, only a guideline for virtuous and moral living. Organization and practices often coincide. Since there is no official leader or hierarchical system, counting members is nearly impossible. Reluctance to identify with the feminist spirituality movement stems from the negative associations people make with witchcraft. However, an estimated 50,000 American believers have been recorded (Corbett 294). Practitioners often gather in small groups (between three and twenty people) called covens.

Others are solitaries who practice alone depending on location, personal choice, or other circumstances. Covens are usually all female, but some are mixed or male only. Many of the larger organizations have adopted home-study programs, museums, libraries, and stores for those interested in learning more about the beliefs of Goddess religion. Others hold conferences and celebrations to join the smaller, fragmented groups. Some groups strive to emphasize one specific aspect of their beliefs, such as Dianic Wicca does with feminism (Corbett 294-95).

Although the popularity and acceptance of feminist spirituality seems to be increasing, Wicca and other groups are still not afforded the same status and recognition as other religions. Many misconceptions still exist today about the beliefs, practices, and organizations which are categorized as Goddess religion. The followers of these traditions do not see themselves as contradicting more mainstream religious beliefs. They view their spirituality as a refocusing and reprioritizing of values forgotten by a patriarchical society over thousands of years.

Vietnam Retaliation In The U.S

It is said that a war cannot be fought without the support of the people. Much so was this related to the Vietnam conflict. I say the Vietnam Conflict in that the United States never actually declared war on North Vietnam after its communist split-up in 1960. The conflict was based on the principles of containment stated in the Truman and Eisenhower Doctrines. These documents stated that military aid would be given to any nation willing to fight communism. This idea of keeping communism in its place without it spreading to new nations was called containment, a name given by President Harry Truman.

In May of 1955, Vietnam, which was a French colony, was broken up by rebels led by Ho Chi Minh. Under the accords of the Geneva Convention, the French colony was broken into Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. North Vietnam was supported by the Communist China and Soviet Union while South Vietnam fought off communism with aid from the United States. These series of events added to the tensions felt in the Cold War, which lasted between the United States and the Soviet Union until 1989.

The year 1964 brought the United States into the conflict even more with President Johnsons Operation Rolling Thunder, which bombed railroads, troop camps and other North Vietnamese targets. This also brought two battalions of 3,500 marines and opened the door to lead 540,000 men in Vietnam by 1967. This drastic call for troops to be deployed to Vietnam called on the Selective Service Act, which drafted men into the military who fit certain requirements. This combined with anti-war sentiments felt at home led to the opposition to the war I am to speak about. The Conflict in Vietnam did not go unnoticed at home as well. Some Americans were eager to fight Communism in Vietnam.

But, unlike most wars of American time, the action in Vietnam had a very split approval amongst Americans. Many believed that the conflict was the responsibility of South Vietnam, and not that of the United States. By the conflicts escalation, however, the approval of the practice of containment in Vietnam dropped drastically as more Americans lost their lives to Viet-Cong guerillas. But some were optimistic, said here: Writer James Reston commented that the anti-war demonstrations were not helping to bring peace to Vietnam. He said they were postponing it.

He believed the demonstrations would make Ho Chi Minh think America did not support its troops. And that, he said, would make President Ho continue the war (http://www. fas. org/man/dod-101/ops/vietnam. htm). The War Draft was feared by many young Americans, as they were the ones being called into commission. A common practice amongst men aged 18 to 26 was burning draft cards to display war opposition. Some totally fled the country, moving to Canada or other countries. Many got married, plead disabilities or homosexuality or even joined the National Guard.

Many of the protesters were collage aged people, who looked at the war at a different standpoint. The Baby Boom generation seemed to have a different attitude towards war than their parents. Rather than blindly fighting for the American cause, the students asked why and challenged the system of the military draft. No other war in American history had so much opposition, and to this day, people still believe it was a pointless and vain attempt by the United States to show off their military strength to the Superpowers, being the Soviet Union and China.

The media had a large impact of the American opinion of the Vietnam Conflict. The first pictures of the war Americans seen of the war were in 1963, with the burning suicides of Buddhist monks who were attacked by the Communist government. The monks, rather than giving up their religion, immolated themselves publically to show their spiritual strength. This scene shocked Americans as to what was going on to great extremes. As the search-and-destroy mission went on, Americans were subjected to more pictures and reports from Vietnam, adding to their discontent, especially those families of those who were fighting.

American soldiers were apprehensive of any civilian. The Viet-Cong, who were the guerillas in South Vietnam working to spread communism, never wore uniforms and were impossible to detect amongst civilians. Pictures of Americans killing Vietnamese, Vietnamese killing Americans, and scenes of war filled the homes of Americans from the televised news and newspapers from 1963 to 1973. Many people at home because of this began to ask themselves why?.

In the book The Vietnam War, by Diane Yancey she states: Some individuals, labeled doves thought America should negotiate a quick settlement with the Communists to end the prolonged war while others, called hawks believed that people who opposed the war were anti-American and believed that the war should extend and be fought more vigorously (Yancey, 172). This spoke of the rift that rest etween Americans during a time of turbulence, change and bigotry. During these times of war escalation and opposition, many things occurred that shocked the middle-aged blue collar workingmen and traditionalists.

The counter-culture, as it was called, became popular amongst the younger baby boom generation. People began to feel a need to return to antediluvian ways of life and pursuit of inner happiness. They wore haggard dirty clothes, many were jobless, and this became most relevant in the city of San Francisco. People pursuing this happiness often chose drugs such as marijuana, LSD and opium to achieve their nner happiness. This growth of counter-culture, looked at from todays standpoint, can be blamed mostly on the Vietnam Conflict, which to this day a large number of people ask: Was it really necessary?

As riots against the war, the Civil Rights Movement and the counter-culture began to increase, President Johnson felt enormous stress from all sides. Senator William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas had this to say about the failing support of the people: While the country sickens for lack of moral leadership, a most remarkable younger generation has taken up the standard of American idealism. The focus of their protest is the war in Vietnam. They are demonstrating that, while their country is capable of acting falsely to itself, it cannot do without internal disruption (McCormick, 98).

This was the beginning of the end of the war for the United States. Many Americans believed that Vietnam was not a war that they could win. The conflict was originally blown off as an easy victory, for it was the United States and the Allies that won World War II and put an end to fascism. The war was to be a War of Attrition, or the fighting f a war on the basis of having an army outnumbered, but this method led to the massive loss of lives and little damage done to the Viet-Cong. Arthur Schlesinger stated Error creates its own reality (Fall, 59).

This began to become relevant in the minds of many Americans. A further blow came to America in 1968, when President Johnson declared that he would not run again in the oncoming election. This shocked not only the people themselves, but the soldiers in Vietnam were the most shocked. In a war where they didnt even know why they were fighting, the backing down of the Commander-in-Chief struck their confidence and ationalism. After the assassination of Robert Kennedy and the election of Nixon, the people had enough.

Before Nixons election, a melee in Chicago took place after it was learned that Johnsons successor, Vice President Hubert Humphry, was to most likely win the for the Republican Party after the assassination of Robert Kennedy, who was the Democratic candidate. This further proved the negative feelings Americans held towards the United States in their military strategies. After much protest and fire, the United States government acknowledged that the conflict would end with no victor.

Walter Cronkite of the CBS Evening News said this on March 6, 1971: It seems now more certain than ever, that the bloody experience in Vietnam is to end in a stalemate (Stolley, 119). And with that said and the Nixons policy of Vietnamization, or sending tired troops home after years of fighting, went underway. Soldiers were sick of the war and fragging was common. Fragging was a term used to describe when troops would assassinate their C. O. s, most commonly with hand grenades, to avoid their having to fight. Abandonment and soldiers found AWOL was growing at a rapid rate. Then, in 1973, President

Nixon dismissed the last of the Vietnam soldiers after years of conflict, violence and irresolution. After the troops were sent home, Americans were at bewilderment of their loss. 51,000 total dead came from the Vietnam, and many were still angry after the troops were sent home. People began to wonder why so much atrocity must of been committed before the United States would of backed down and spared troops lives. The Vietnam Memorial now rests in Washington D. C. , a constant reminder of the death, destruction, controversy and opposition of what is called The Meaningless War, The Vietnam Conflict.

America And The Normandy Invasion

The year was 1944, and the United States had now been an active participant in the war against Nazi Germany for almost three and a half years. During this time, numerous battles had occurred which were fought with determination and intensity on both sides. Amongst the many invasions of World War II, there is one day which stands out more in the minds of many American soldiers than the others. That day was June 6, 1944, more commonly known as D Day, part of the invasion of Normandy, known as “Operation Overlord. ” This operation was the largest amphibious assault in history.

It was a day in which thousands of young Americans, who poured onto the beaches of France, matured faster than they would have ever imagined. They were not prepared for the chaos and torment that awaited them on their beach arrivals. The attacks on the Utah and Omaha beaches were strategically made, and carried out in careful preciseness. The Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France began on June 6, 1944, and the American assault on the Utah and Omaha on this day played a critical role in the overall success of the Normandy operation.

An extensive plan was established for the American attack on Utah and Omaha Beaches, in addition to all of the other Normandy beaches. (See Appendix A) The plan was so in-depth and complex, its descriptions detailed the exact arrivals of troops, armour, and other equipment needed for the invasion, and where exactly on the beach they were to land. 1 Before the landings were to begin, the coastal German defences had to be broken down by a combination of a massive battering by United States Naval ships, and by bombing from the United States Air Force.

Between the hours of 3 a. m. and 5 a. m. on the morning of June 6, over 1,000 aircraft dropped more than 5,000 tons of bombs on the German coastal defences. As soon as the preliminary bombing was over, the American and British naval guns opened fire on the Normandy coastline. 2 A British naval officer described the incredible spectacle he witnessed that day: “Never has any coast suffered what a tortured strip of French coast suffered that morning. Along the fifty-mile front the land was shaken by successive explosions as the shells from the ships’ guns tore holes in fortifications and tons of bombs poured down on them from the skies. Through smoke and falling debris German defenders crouching in their trenches would soon faintly see the hundreds of ships and assault craft closing in on the shore. There were initial problems with the invasion. Numerous American bombers missed their targets up to as much as five miles inland due to the thick cloud cover.

Rockets which were fired from offshore destroyers landed short killing thousands of fish, but not any Germans. Artillery from American battleships crashed against the tops of the bluffs of Omaha, and sailed into the adjacent towns, but not did not successfully accomplish their goals of destroying targets on the beachhead such as enemy artillery and machine gun positions. 4 Contrary to Omaha, Utah Beach was less strengthened against an attack. Erwin Rommel was the commander of the German forces in northern France and he predicted an Allied invasion in another part of the region.

Subsequently, the Utah beach was not as well equipped as that of Omaha. The Germans had not been able to fully construct defensive barriers by the time of the invasion and also had not completely laid the number of land mines Rommel had in mind. Aiding to the Allied success at Utah were the underwater demolition teams who were able to knock off many of the coastal defences awaiting the Americans. As American soldiers moved toward Utah Beach in their conveyances, the pounding the beachhead fortifications had taken from US naval artillery and rockets was clearly evident.

Large gun stations, machine gun posts, and infantry positions were among many of the targets weakened or destroyed. The artillery not only aided the soon to be arriving troops in that many coastal threats had been eliminated, but in that the hundreds of shell holes created provided excellent cover for the troops coming ashore. 5 The American assault on Utah was very carefully planned and designed in the idea that the Allies would send wave after wave of troops onto the shores to defeat the opposition. Troops, armour, and equipment arrivals were timed to the minute.

Naval barrage landed first on the beach at 6:30 a. m. , immediately followed by thirty-two light assault tanks known as DD tanks to further subdue fortified positions and provide cover for the oncoming troops (These were held on large freight boats known as LCTs). In the wake of this attack came the American 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry in twenty Higgens boats, another type of transport designed to hold a thirty-man team. They were followed by the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry, bringing engineers and naval demolition teams in thirty-two more Higgens boats.

Wave after wave of troops and equipment, containing bulldozers, and the light and mobile Sherman Tank (see appendix B) continued to arrive. Before the assaults began, the planners, including Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, hoped everything would stick to the precise schedule. This hope was not a reality, as some craft landed too late, others too early, and some off course as far as a kilometre south of the target. There were many factors which resulted in the wronging of the time table.

Tides, wind, waves, and a thick cover of smoke were all partially responsible for the trouble, while the largest factor were the mines placed just off of the coast. These obstacles resulted in the tanks landing a kilometre south. The American forces were in for a strike of luck however, as the German defensive fortifications at their new and accidental landing site, had been badly damaged from the naval artillery and air battering. The fortifications where the landing was supposed to take place were still strong, unscathed from the preceding bombardment.

Engineers and naval demolition teams came ashore after the first wave. They consisted of five Navy “Seabees,” also known as combat demolition units, and two or three American engineers. The engineers, who were highly trained in explosives, made quick work of the outermost set of obstacles before the tide had a chance to cover them up. The engineers worked at a very fast pace clearing the way for more landing craft to arrive. Engineering teams continued to work hard as more and more forces began piling up on the now secured beach awaiting the chance to drive through the land mine filled interior defences.

The assault on Utah Beach proved to be fairly simple as compared to what was going on at Omaha. An anonymous Infantryman from the 4th division was quoted as saying, “You know, it sounds kind of dumb but it was just like a [training] exercise. Easier. We waded ashore like kids…. and up the beach. (See Appendix C) A couple of shells came over but nowhere near us. I think I even felt somehow disappointed, a little let down. “8 Altogether, 200 American soldiers died, but the Allies were victorious. Omaha Beach in itself was a formidable challenge for the Allies.

If the Germans were going to try and stop an Allied Invasion, Omaha Beach was the place to do it. Omaha Beach stretched for approximately 10 kilometres, its sand was golden brown in colour, it was firm and fine, and during low tide there was a stretch of 300 to 400 meters of firm beach sand. 9 The physical makeup of Omaha Beach made it easy for the Germans to defend. The beach was adjacent to hills perpendicular to the beach spanning the entire 10 kilometres. On this basis, the German stations had an extreme advantage holding the safety of the hills, sometimes a 200 foot height advantage at some points.

Omaha was the perfect place to hold a defensive stance against an invasion. Its hilly landscape provided the perfect place for fortifications and machine guns, the sloping ground leading up to the bluffs allowed for a useful trench system, and the overall height advantage provided for a clear view of the entire field below. 10 It was like having an army of snipers on towers looking down on the incoming troops. Eisenhower did not like the idea of having to attack Omaha, but he knew it had to be done. Rommel took full advantage of what he learned from defending frontal infantry assaults during the First World War.

He heavily mined the coastline, and the shore. He placed extensive amounts of barbed wire leading up to the hills. He placed machine guns at angles to have better shots at all points of the beach. He also added all types of weapons to cover all possible weaknesses in the German posts. He added mortars and artillery pieces on top of the hills to bring more firepower from above. Rommel’s setup allowed for enemy fire coming from three different directions. 11 (See Appendix D) There were four main factors which led the Americans to believe that an attack on such a difficult position would succeed.

Intelligence reports gave the Americans the impression that the command posts and trenches were being manned by the 716th Infantry Division, a supposed low quality force composed of Poles and Russians. This was, however, untrue, as the positions were being held by the German 352nd Division, a section of well-trained troops. Second, intelligence reports gave the Americans the impression that only 800 troops were manning the defences, when in actuality, a number three to four times that was more realistic. Third, B-17 bombers were to thoroughly prep the site by dropping thousands of tonnes of bombs.

However, due to the intense cloud cover, bombers missed their targets by as much as 5 kilometres. Finally, the invasion was to consist of 40,000 men and 3,500 motorized vehicles. This idea later failed as troops and vehicles became backed up on the beach. Allied Captain Walker on a landing craft headed toward the beach commented on the sight, “I took a look toward the shore and my heart took a dive. I couldn’t believe how peaceful it was, how untouched, and how tranquil the scene was. The terrain was green. All the buildings were intact. The church and steeple were still standing in place.

Where are the damn Air Corps! “12 The plan for Omaha was to have assault teams cover every inch of beach. Weapons used to cover the successive landing crafts were to include . 30 caliber machine guns, bazookas, 60mm mortars, and flame throwers. Just like the assault on Utah, DD tanks were to lead the invasion ashore while Naval demolition teams worked to clear the area. Following the initial craft were to be reinforcements to bring up stronger firepower ranging from greater numbers of M-1’s to 105mm howitzers, in addition to more tanks, jeeps, medical units, head quarters and communication units.

Two hours after this first wave, it was planned that vehicles would have already scaled the hills and begin to push farther inland. Unfortunately for the Allies, nothing for the assault on Omaha went according to plans. Only one group (or company) had landed at their target, Company A. Company E was as much as two kilometres off course due to winds, waves, and strong tides. This resulted in large gaps between the forces coming ashore and allowed the Germans to concentrate their firepower on the smaller group of American forces.

The Germans streamed a steady line of artillery, mortar, and machine gun fire down onto Company A. Needless to say, it was an slaughter. Only a few dozen people of the original 200 survived, and practically all of them were wounded. By 6:40 a. m. , just ten minutes after the first wave, only one officer from the Company was alive, and he had been shot in the heel and the stomach. On one particular Allied boat, when the ramp was dropped, every single man of the thirty-man assault team was killed before they could get out. A short way down the beach, Companies F and G were having troubles of their own.

Sgt. Harry Bare describes the experience as they disembarked, “I tried to get my men off the boat and make it somehow to the seawall. We waded to the sand and threw ourselves down and the men were frozen, we could not move. My radioman had his head blown off three yards from me. The beach was covered with bodies, men with no legs, no arms – God it was awful. “13 It was clearly evident as wave upon wave of troops came ashore that everything was in complete and udder chaos. People were being butchered left and right by machine guns, and literally blown to pieces by artillery and mortar fire.

Bare continued to say, “Sgt. Clarence Robertson had a gaping wound in the upper right corner of his forehead. He was walking crazily in the water. Then I saw him get down on his knees and start playing the rosary beads. At that moment the Germans cut him in half with the deadly crossfire. “14 “When we were 200 yards from our landing point I could see heavy machine-gun-bullets cutting up the sand and making a noise like a huge swarm of bees. “My God, we are going to be slaughtered. ” – Sgt. H. M. Kellar 15 Omaha Beach on that day was in a state of pandemonium.

There was no organization which was proven as the troops found themselves pinned with no leadership and no where to go, with additional equipment and troops coming ashore to only back things up worse. The Americans were pinned on the beach. German Commander Rommel had constructed the ultimate killing field, and for a few hours, it seemed like it was going to take a miracle to save the Americans. It was becoming ever more evident to American commanders that if they remained on the beach, it would be suicide. After several hours of fighting, the Americans had only a few yards of beach, and it was under intense enemy fire.

Under these hellish conditions, heroes were produced. Brigadier General Norman D. Cota deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire while walking up and down the beach, rallying his troops to get them moving. Colonel George A. Taylor performed a similar feat in leading an attack against a German machine-gun post while declaring, “Two kinds of people are staying on this beach, the dead and those about to die. Now lets get the hell out of here! “16 As the hours wore on, a greater foothold on Omaha was established. The American Forces knew that it was imperative that they get off the beach.

As more and more soldiers began to make their way forward, reinforcements continued to arrive bringing tanks, engineers, and more troops. Soldiers, lacking order and organizations began working together to establish routes up the hills. One by one, barbed wire was blown clear, German gun stations were destroyed, and artillery was eliminated. By the end of the day more than 2,500 Americans lay dead on the bloody yet still victorious beaches of Omaha. D Day, June 6, 1944 was the beginning of the end of the Nazi empire.

It was one of the most important days in military history as General Eisenhower’s cross channel attack, the largest in history, proved to be an overall success. The actions of the American soldiers on the Utah and Omaha beaches that day greatly aided in the triumph of the operation as a whole. They had no idea of the death and destruction which awaited their stepping foot onto the beaches. For a few hours on the morning of June 6, 1944, it appeared that Rommel had created the ultimate coastal command post. His strategic placements of machine guns, mortars, and artillery pieces took a tremendous toll on the American invaders.

For a time, it appeared that the Americans were not going to make it off the beach. If not for the courage of a few individuals leading the way, all could have been lost. Their actions played a critical role in the success of D Day, and of the ultimate demise of the Nazi Empire. Even through all of the factors which went wrong that day, and even without the aid of today’s military technology, they made the invasion possible. The status of the free world today can be directly related to the actions of every American soldier who set foot on the beached of Omaha and Utah that day. They will forever be heroes.

The United States And The Normandy Invasion

The year was 1944, and the United States had now been an active participant in the war against Nazi Germany for almost three and a half years. During this time, numerous battles had occurred which were fought with determination and intensity on both sides. Amongst the many invasions of World War II, there is one day which stands out more in the minds of many American soldiers than the others. That day was June 6, 1944, more commonly known as D Day, part of the invasion of Normandy, known as “Operation Overlord. ” This operation was the largest amphibious assault in history.

It was a day in which thousands of young Americans, who poured onto the beaches of France, matured faster than they would have ever imagined. Little did they know of the chaos and torment that awaited them on their arrival. The attacks on Utah and Omaha were strategically made, and carried out in careful preciseness. The Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France began on June 6, 1944, and the American assault on the Utah and Omaha beaches on this day played a critical role in the overall success of the Normandy operation. An extensive plan was established for the American attack on Utah and Omaha Beaches.

The plan was so in-depth and complex, its descriptions detailed the exact arrivals of troops, armour, and other equipment needed for the invasion, and where exactly on the beach they were to land. Before the landings were to begin, the coastal German defences had to be broken down by a combination of a massive battering by United States Naval ships, and by bombing from the United States Air Force. Between the hours of 3 a. m. and 5 a. m. on the morning of June 6, over 1,000 aircraft dropped more than 5,000 tons of bombs on the German coastal defences.

As soon as the preliminary bombing was over, the American and British naval guns opened fire on the Normandy coastline. A British naval officer described the incredible spectacle he witnessed that day: “Never has any coast suffered what a tortured strip of French coast suffered that morning. ” Along the fifty-mile front the land was shaken by successive explosions as the shells from the ships’ guns tore holes in fortifications and tons of bombs poured down on them from the skies. Through smoke and falling debris German defenders crouching in their trenches would soon faintly see the hundreds of ships and assault craft closing in on the shore.

There were initial problems with the invasion. Numerous American bombers missed their targets up to as much as five miles inland due to the thick cloud cover. Rockets which were fired from offshore destroyers landed short killing thousands of fish, but not any Germans. Artillery from American battleships crashed against the tops of the bluffs of Omaha, and sailed into the adjacent towns, but not did not successfully accomplish their goals of destroying targets on the beachhead such as enemy artillery and machine gun positions. Contrary to Omaha, Utah Beach was less strengthened against an attack.

Erwin Rommel was the commander of the German forces in northern France and he predicted an Allied invasion in another part of the region. Subsequently, the Utah beach was not as well equipped as that of Omaha. The Germans had not been able to fully construct defensive barriers by the time of the invasion and also had not completely laid the number of land mines Rommel had in mind. Aiding to the Allied success at Utah were the underwater demolition teams who were able to knock off many of the coastal defences awaiting the Americans.

As American soldiers moved toward Utah Beach in their conveyances, the pounding the beachhead fortifications had taken from US naval artillery and rockets was clearly evident. Large gun stations, machine gun posts, and infantry positions were among many of the targets weakened or destroyed. The American assault on Utah was very carefully planned and designed in the idea that the Allies would send wave after wave of troops onto the shores to defeat the opposition.

Troops, armour, and equipment arrivals were timed to the minute. Naval barrage landed first on the beach at 6:30 a. m. mmediately followed by thirty-two light assault tanks known as DD tanks to further subdue fortified positions and provide cover for the oncoming troops (These were held on large freight boats known as LCTs). In the wake of this attack came the American 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry in twenty Higgens boats, another type of transport designed to hold a thirty-man team. They were followed by the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry, bringing engineers and naval demolition teams in thirty-two more Higgens boats. Wave after wave of troops and equipment, containing bulldozers, and the light and mobile Sherman Tank continued to arrive.

Before the assaults began, the planners, including Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, hoped everything would stick to the precise schedule. This hope was not a reality, as some craft landed too late, others too early, and some off course as far as a kilometre south of the target. There were many factors which resulted in the wronging of the time table. Tides, wind, waves, and a thick cover of smoke were all partially responsible for the trouble, while the largest factor were the mines placed just off of the coast.

These obstacles resulted in the tanks landing a kilometre south. The American forces were in for a strike of luck however, as the German defensive fortifications at their new and accidental landing site, had been badly damaged from the naval artillery and air battering. The fortifications where the landing was supposed to take place were still strong, unscathed from the preceding bombardment. Engineers and naval demolition teams came ashore after the first wave. They consisted of five Navy “Seabees,” also known as combat demolition units, and two or three American engineers.

The engineers, who were highly trained in explosives, made quick work of the outermost set of obstacles before the tide had a chance to cover them up. The engineers worked at a very fast pace clearing the way for more landing craft to arrive. Engineering teams continued to work hard as more and more forces began piling up on the now secured beach awaiting the chance to punch through the land mine filled interior defences. The assault on Utah Beach proved to be fairly simple as compared to what was going on at Omaha.

An anonymous Infantryman from the 4th division was quoted as saying, “You know, it sounds kind of dumb but it was just like a [training] exercise. Easier. We waded ashore like kids…. and up the beach. A couple of shells came over but nowhere near us. I think I even felt somehow disappointed, a little let down. ” Altogether, 200 American soldiers died, but the Allies were victorious. Omaha Beach in itself was a formidable challenge for the Allies. If the Germans were going to try and stop an Allied Invasion, Omaha Beach was the place to do it.

Omaha Beach stretched for approximately 10 kilometres, its sand was golden brown in colour, it was firm and fine, and during low tide there was a stretch of 300 to 400 meters of firm beach sand. The physical makeup of Omaha Beach made it easy for the Germans to defend. The beach was adjacent to hills perpendicular to the beach spanning the entire 10 kilometres. On this basis, the German stations had an extreme advantage holding the safety of the hills, sometimes a 200 foot height advantage at some points. Omaha was the perfect place to hold a defensive stance against an invasion.

Its hilly landscape provided the perfect place for fortifications and machine guns, the sloping ground leading up to the bluffs allowed for a useful trench system, and the overall height advantage provided for a clear view of the entire killing field. It was like having an army of snipers on towers looking down on the incoming troops. Eisenhower did not like the idea of having to attack Omaha, but he knew it had to be done. Rommel took full advantage of what he learned from defending frontal infantry assaults during the First World War.

He heavily mined the coastline, and the shore. He placed extensive amounts of barbed wire leading up to the hills. He placed machine guns at angles to have better shots at all points of the beach. He also added all types of weapons to cover all possible weaknesses in the German posts. He added mortars and artillery pieces on top of the hills to bring more firepower from above. Rommel’s setup allowed for enemy fire coming from three different directions. There were four main factors which led the Americans to believe that an attack on such a difficult position would succeed.

Intelligence reports gave the Americans the impression that the command posts and trenches were being manned by the 716th Infantry Division, a supposed low quality force composed of Poles and Russians. This was, however, untrue, as the positions were being held by the German 352nd Division, a section of well-trained troops. Second, intelligence reports gave the Americans the impression that only 800 troops were manning the defences, when in actuality, a number three to four times that was more realistic. Third, B-17 bombers were to thoroughly prep the site by dropping thousands of tonnes of bombs.

However, due to the intense cloud cover, bombers missed their targets by as much as 5 kilometres. Finally, the invasion was to consist of 40,000 men and 3,500 motorized vehicles. This idea later failed as troops and vehicles became backed up on the beach. Allied Captain Walker on a landing craft headed toward the beach commented on the sight, “I took a look toward the shore and my heart took a dive. I couldn’t believe how peaceful it was, how untouched, and how tranquil the scene was. The terrain was green. All the buildings were intact. The church and steeple were still standing in place.

Where are the damn Air Corps! ” The plan for Omaha was to have assault teams cover every inch of beach. Weapons used to cover the successive landing crafts were to include . 30 caliber machine guns, bazookas, 60mm mortars, and flame throwers. Just like the assault on Utah, DD tanks were to lead the invasion ashore while Naval demolition teams worked to clear the area. Following the initial craft were to be reinforcements to bring up stronger firepower ranging from greater numbers of M-1’s to 105mm howitzers, in addition to more tanks, jeeps, medical units, head quarters and communication units.

Two hours after this first wave, it was planned that vehicles would have already scaled the hills and begin to push farther inland. Unfortunately for the Allies, nothing for the assault on Omaha went according to plans. Only one group (or company) had landed at their target, Company A. Company E was as much as two kilometres off course due to winds, waves, and strong tides. This resulted in large gaps between the forces coming ashore and allowed the Germans to concentrate their firepower on the smaller group of American forces.

The Germans streamed a steady line of artillery, mortar, and machine gun fire down onto Company A. Needless to say, it was an slaughter. Only a few dozen people of the original 200 survived, and practically all of them were wounded. By 6:40 a. m. , just ten minutes after the first wave, only one officer from the Company was alive, and he had been shot in the heel and the stomach. On one particular Allied boat, when the ramp was dropped, every single man of the thirty-man assault team was killed before they could get out. A short way down the beach, Companies F and G were having troubles of their own.

Sgt. Harry Bare describes the experience as they disembarked, “I tried to get my men off the boat and make it somehow to the seawall. We waded to the sand and threw ourselves down and the men were frozen, we could not move. My radioman had his head blown off three yards from me. The beach was covered with bodies, men with no legs, no arms – God it was awful. ” It was clearly evident as wave upon wave of troops came ashore that everything was in complete and udder chaos. People were being butchered left and right by machine guns, and literally blown to pieces by artillery and mortar fire.

Bare continued to say, “Sgt. Clarence Robertson had a gaping wound in the upper right corner of his forehead. He was walking crazily in the water. Then I saw him get down on his knees and start playing the rosary beads. At that moment the Germans cut him in half with the deadly crossfire. ” (D-Day, Ambrose 337) “When we were 200 yards from our landing point I could see heavy machine-gun-bullets cutting up the sand and making a noise like a huge swarm of bees. “My God, we are going to be slaughtered. ” – Sgt. H. M. Kellar (Lewis 120) Omaha Beach on that day was in a state of pandemonium.

There was no organization which was proven as the troops found themselves pinned with no leadership and no where to go, with additional equipment and troops coming ashore to only back things up worse. The Americans were pinned on the beach. German Commander Rommel had constructed the ultimate killing field, and for a few hours, it seemed like it was going to take a miracle to save the Americans. It was becoming ever more evident to American commanders that if they remained on the beach, it would be suicide. After several hours of fighting, the Americans had only a few yards of beach, and it was under intense enemy fire.

Under these hellish conditions, heroes were produced. Brigadier General Norman D. Cota deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire while walking up and down the beach, rallying his troops to get them moving. Colonel George A. Taylor performed a similar feat in leading an attack against a German machine-gun post while declaring, “Two kinds of people are staying on this beach, the dead and those about to die. Now lets get the hell out of here! ” (D’ Este 114) As the hours wore on, a greater foothold on Omaha was established.

The American Forces knew that it was imperative that they get off the beach. As more and more soldiers began to make their way forward, reinforcements continued to arrive bringing tanks, engineers, and more troops. Soldiers, lacking order and organizations began working together to establish routes up the hills. One by one, barbed wire was blown clear, German gun stations were destroyed, and artillery was eliminated. By the end of the day more than 2,500 Americans lay dead on the bloody yet still victorious beaches of Omaha. D Day, June 6, 1944 was the beginning of the end of the Nazi empire.

It was one of the most important days in military history as General Eisenhower’s cross channel attack, the largest in history, proved to be an overall success. The actions of the American soldiers on the Utah and Omaha beaches that day greatly aided in the triumph of the operation as a whole. They had no idea of the death and destruction which awaited their stepping foot onto the beaches. For a few hours on the morning of June 6, 1944, it appeared that Rommel had created the ultimate coastal command post. His strategic placements of machine guns, mortars, and artillery pieces took a tremendous toll on the American invaders.

For a time, it appeared that the Americans were not going to make it off the beach. If not for the courage of a few individuals leading the way, all could have been lost. Their actions played a critical role in the success of D Day, and of the ultimate demise of the Nazi Empire. Even through all of the factors which went wrong that day, and even without the aid of today’s military technology, they made the invasion possible. The status of the free world today can be directly related to the actions of every American soldier who set foot on the beached of Omaha and Utah that day. They will forever be heroes.

The Presidency of Andrew Jackson

In this paper I’ll go over his presidency, focusing on both the highs and the lows of his two terms in office, from 1829-1837. The issues that I’ll focus on are states’ rights, the tariff, the spoils system, Indian removal and banking policies; these controversies brought forth strong rivalry over his years of president. He was known for his iron will and severe personality, and strong use of the powers of his office that made his years of presidency to be known as the “Age of Jackson.

Jackson served as delegate to Tennessee in the 1796 Constitutional convention and a congressman for a year (from 1796-97). He was elected senator in 1797, but financial problems forced him to resign and return to Tennessee in less than a year. Later he served as a Tennessee superior court judge for six years starting in 1798. In 1804 he retired from the bench and moved to Nashville and devoted time to business ventures and his plantation.

In 1814 Jackson was a Major General in the Tennessee Militia, here he was ordered to march against the Creek Indians, who were pro-British in the war of 1812. Eventually he forced all Indians out of the area. His victory’s impressed some people in Washington and Jackson was put in command of the defense of New Orleans. This show of American strength made Americans feel proud after a war filled with military defeats. Jackson was given the nickname “Old Hickory”, and was treated as a national hero.

In 1822 the Tennessee Legislature nominated him for president and the following year he was elected the U. S. senate. He also nearly won the presidential campaign of 1824. However as a result of the “corrupt bargain” with Henry Clay, he ended up losing. In 1828 Andrew Jackson became the seventh President to the United States. Instead of the normal cabinet made up by the president, he relied more on an informal group of newspaper writers and northern politicians who had worked for his election.

I believe that this made him more in contact with the people of the United States, and with the public opinion and feelings toward national issues. President Jackson developed the system of “rotation in office. ” This was used to protect the American people from a development of a old political group by removing long-term office holders. His enemies accused him of corruption of civil service for political reasons. However, I think that it was used to insure loyalty of the people in his administration. States rights played an important part in Jackson’s policy’s as president.

In the case of the Cherokee Indians vs. The State of Georgia, two Supreme Court decisions in 1831 and 1832 upholding the rights of the Cherokee nation over the State of Georgia who had wanted to destroy Cherokee jurisdiction on it’s land because gold had been found on it, and the state seeing the Indians as enants on state land decided to kick them out. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that Georgia had no jurisdiction to interfere with the rights of the Cherokee and removal of them would violate treaties between them and the U. S. Government.

However, Jackson, not liking these decisions. Jackson was and always will be an Indian fighter. I think he just liked pushing around the Indians because he knew that whatever resistance they had was no match for the U. S. army. The question of the tariff was a major controversy in the United States around the years of Jackson’s Presidency and his strong upport for a unified nation over states rights would hold the country together in this national crisis. The Second Bank of the United States was not made into an issue of his election in 1828.

However he decided the bank, which is not a government bank, but chartered by it in 1826, had failed to provide a stable currency, and had favored the Northern states, and few loans were granted to the southern and western areas because they were a larger risk and the bank didn’t see it in it’s interest to make such a gamble with it’s money. And in his mind the bank was in violation on the Constitution. Even though the bank’s charter wasn’t due to expire until 1836, Jackson’s political enemies pushed a bill through congress granting the banks re-charter, Jackson vetoed the bill. The “Bank” issue was a major item in his re-election in 1832.

In his second term Jackson decided to remove federal deposits from the bank into “pet banks” which virtually took away Nicholas Biddle’s power as president of the Second National Bank, which left him and anti-Jackson people very upset with what they called the abuse of his powers. The increase in loans from the state chartered caused a land boom and gave the federal government a surplus, which was split up amongst the states, the increase in loans brought on the use of paper currency that was issued by the state banks, Jackson prohibited the use of paper money to by federal land or pay federal debts.

This demand for coins called specie led to many bank failures in the Panic of 1837. I don’t think he knew what he got himself into when he did this, and could of handled the situation a little better, but not all the blame should fall on his shoulders, ecause it wasn’t his fault the private state-chartered banks issued the paper money when they didn’t have the specie to back it up. Jackson’s foreign policy showed a strong interest in making the French to pay long-overdue spoliation claims and reopening the British West Indian Trade.

Even thought he personally agreed with the rebellion of Texas against Mexico. He didn’t recognize the Lone Star republic until the day before he left office in 1837, and left the problem of Texas takeover to Martin Van Buren. Jackson was a powerful voice in the Democratic party even after retired. He died on June 8, 1845 on his plantation, the Hermitage, in Nashville Tennessee.

Andrew Jackson was the first “peoples president. This comes from his youth in a frontier territory and his “people qualities” which helped him to be more touch with the people of the United States, and therefore the people of the United States took a more active role in the Government. He even went so far as to call himself the elected representative of all American people. I think that Jackson’s strengthening of the powers of the presidency are the iggest influence to this day.

He used the power of the veto 12 times (more times than all of his successors combined). I only wish that their was a candidate like that running for election in ’04. When you gave this project, I though Jackson was a mean tempered Indian fighter who trashed the White House and found his way to office because he took over Florida and defended New Orleans Successfully. But I grew to learn that he was really a great president and did a lot for the presidency of the United States of America.

Reagan, Ronald Wilson

Reagan, Ronald Wilson (1911- ),the 40th president of the United States (1981-1989), enforced the policies that reversed a general direction of movement toward greater government involvement in economic and social regulation. Reagan as the younger of two sons, was born in Tampico, Illinois and spent most of his childhood in Dixon, Illinois. After studying at Eureka College,a small Disciples of Christ college near Peoria, Illinois, he majored in economics, and became the president of the student body, a member of the football team, and captain of the swimming team.

He had special drawings toward acting, but after the graduation in 1932 the only job available related to show business was as a local radio sportscaster. In 1936 he became a sportscaster for station WHO in Des Moines, Iowa. A year latter, Reagan went to Hollywood and began an acting career that spanned more than 25 years. He played in more than 50 films, including “Knute Rockne”-All American (1940), “King’s Row” (1942), and “Bedtime for Bonzo” (1951). Early political career Reagan’s first political activities were associated with his responsibilities as a union leader.

As union president, Reagan tried to remove suspected Communists from the movie industry. When the U. S. House Committee. Began an investigation in 1947 on the influence of Communists in the film industry, Reagan took a strong anti-Communist stand testifying before the committee. Reagan emerged on the national political scene in 1964 when he made fervent television speech supports for the Republican presidential candidate, United States Senator Barry Goldwater from Arizona. Although the election was lost, Reagan’s speech brought in money and admiration from Republicans around the country.

After the speech a group of Republicans in California persuaded Reagan to run for governor of California in 1966. Reagan appealed to traditional Republican voters. He defeated Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, Sr. , Democrat, by almost a million votes. The election of 1980 Reagan spent years making political friends at party fund-raising dinners around the country. In the election of 1980 for the president, the candidates were Carter and Reagan. The contrast between the television personalities of two candidates was very important to people.

Carters nervous manner had never been popular to people, while Reagans charm and happy face was a call for return to patriotism, which appealed to the public. Many voters believed that Reagan was forceful leader who could get their lives in shape and who could restore prosperity at home. In 1980 Reagan won the election , receiving 51 percent to Carters 41 percent. The President As president, Reagan defined his management style as “to identify the problem, find the right individuals to do the job, and then let them go to it. ” Reagan’s main function in his presidency was described as “the great communicator.

Reagan also received strong support from religious groups, who were unhappy about what they saw as decreasing respect for religion in public life and about increasing respect to sex and drugs, that had emerged in the late 1960s. These groups had little in common, and stood on Reagans side to make changes. Reagan also controlled a solid majority over middle class and working class Americans, many of them were the once who had supported the Democratic Party. He won their support with his positive declaration that the federal government imposed taxation high and had grown too large to control over people.

Reagan spoke out in public against what overgrown government bureaucracy, expensive social programs, and federal regulatory agencies that interrupted in the private lives and business dealings of U. S. citizens. His strength in the 1980 election helped the Republicans win a majority in the Senate for the first time in 26 years. With more control of the House, Democrats had the ability to stop and block many of Reagans plans but his strengths of approaching to people directly and his abilities as a speaker did a lot to influence public. On March 30, 1981, John W. Hinckley shot Reagan in the chest during an assassination attempt.

John has santed to court and later they found Hinckley was not guilty because of insanity. Hinckely was sented to a mental hospital. After the assassinations attempt the support for Reagan increased public support for Reagan. In 1984 the Republicans nominated Reagan and Bush for a second term. Reagan promised to keep taxes down, and won 59 percent of the popular vote and carried 49 states. In the 1986 elections the Democrats regained control of the Senate. During his last two years in office, unable to run for reelection himself, Reagan found it harder to get his legislative proposals finished.

Foreign affairs In the Middle East, Reagan came out several times with U. S. forces to help out with army and military needs. In the early 1980s, armed conflict broke out in Lebanon between the Christian government and a number of Muslim groups. In effort to strengthen the Christian government, Reagan sent marines to Lebanon to help out. In October 1983 a bomb killed nearly 250 marines and other U. S. service members at their Beirut headquarters. In 1986 a bomb in a West German dance club killed an U. S. soldier and injured others.

Reagan claimed that Libya was responsible for the bombing activities, retaliated with air strikes against several Libyan cities on April 15, 1986 and related to the supporting of Christian government in Libya. The President Reagan was one of the greatest presidents. Majorities of people were amassed of how great union leader he was. I was impressed with his courage and motivation that he gave to American people. More Americans were working than ever before and new businesses were being started up in the country. The President Reagan always had sense for humor and smile on his face.

He was a great leader for our country. His great courage was shown during the assassination when he was very close to dying. Still then, in the hard moments of life, he had sense of humor. When he arrived at the hospital he made his famous comment to doctors; “I hope somebody is a Republican in this crowd. ” He was a great dictator and communicator. Reagan explained in his own words; ” I was not a great communicator, but I communicated great things. ” He also said; “everyone can rise as high and as far as his ability will take him,” and he pointed his own beginnings as proof.

President Ronald Regan

Throughout the history of our great United States of America we have seen many presidents some great and some insignificant, some impacting the nation in a positive way, others negatively, and some, seemly accomplishing very little in their four year term as president. Ronald Regan was a popular president, a former Hollywood actor he was reelected to a second term in 1985. President Regan was the oldest man elected president. He was the first President to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day OConnor.

Ronald Regan once said, What I’d really like to do is go down in history as the President who made Americans believe in themselves again. I see President Ronald Regan as a great president. According to the constitution of the United States, it is required the president must preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The President is duly responsible for the execution of laws; he has the ability to grant pardons and reprieves in criminal cases. As the Commander in Chief of the military, the president must also repel against foreign invasion.

Former President Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Ill. , on a Monday February 6th 1911 and is living today, in his homeland state of California. President Reagan was the first Hollywood actor to be elected President. He was a sports announcer for WOC, a radio station in Iowa when that job led him to acting he later served in the U. S. Army. Being a Republican leader Ronald Reagan led a campaign aimed to restore The great confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism.

Reagan focused his campaign on the poor economic policies of President Carter. And then President Cater called Reagan “trigger-happy” and said he would lead the country to a war. Elected in 1981 as our 49th President, he served a full two terms in the Presidency stepping down in 1989. On President Ronald Reagans inauguration day, Jan. 20, 1981, 52 American hostages who had been held by the revolutionary government of Iran for 444 days were released. Reagans inaugural address had a strong impact on our country with many promises to change the nation.

The opening paragraph of the address are my favorite portions because he very graciously thanks the past president, while giving insight as to what is wrong with the economy as well as the nation with terrific solutions to these problems. Sadly, 69 days after Regan took office, an assassination attempt put the president in the hospital. After a quick recovery President Regan began to rally legist ration to stimulate the economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment and strengthen national defense.

And change an economy that was suffering from very high inflation. The president cut taxes and government expenditures. Regan ordered Naval escorts in the Persian Gulf War. Reagans main domestic policy was known as “Reaganomics. This was a series of tax cuts and laws passed by legist ration that would boast the economy. He also created an innovative program known as the Regan Revolution, which he hoped would reinvigorate the American people. Allowing them, to once again rely on their government.

Reagans view on foreign policy was one of Peace Through Strength. During both of his terms he increased defense spending by 35% while improving relations with the Soviet Union. Regan declared war on terrorism, sending bombers to Libya after evidence came forward of an attack on American solders in West Berlin. Regan achieved much in the talks with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Geneva. Including a treaty Regan never actually led our country into war, but he did get us out of the cold war with military invasions as well as peace talks.

The American political scandal of 1985 and 1986 was known as the Iran-Contra Affair because high-ranking members in Reagans administration arranged the secret sale of our arms to Iran in a violation of existing U. S. laws. All profits ($30 million) were then provided to the Nicaraguan right wing contra guerillas to use against Sandinista government also violating U. S. laws. No evidence was even concluded that Reagan had broken the law, every person views Regan differently, some loved him, some hated him, and some love to hate our former president.

President Regan was a good president in my mind; because he tried to do what he felt was best for our country. He did raise the spirit of the country and began the truce in the cold war with the Soviet Union. Regan would handle todays war on terrorism, just as he did in his Presidency forcibly. As a popular president he would have the support of all Americans, much like the patriotism of today. I believe he would have captured and killed Osama Bin Laden and his people by this time because he is one of the few American Presidents who took serious action.

Potsdam Conference

Potsdam Conference, meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the USSR, and the United Kingdom, following the unconditional surrender of Germany in World War II. It was held in Potsdam, near Berlin, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. The purpose of the conference was the implementation of decisions reached previously at the Yalta Conference. The U. S. was represented by President Harry S. Truman and the USSR by Premier Joseph Stalin.

The United Kingdom was represented at first by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and later by the new prime minister, Clement Richard Attlee. A communiqu issued at the close of the conference, and known as the Potsdam Agreement, contained the decisions reached by the participants. The principal decisions related to Germany. Administration of the country, until the establishment of a permanent new government, was transferred to the military commanders of the U. S. he USSR, the United Kingdom, and France, in their zones of occupation, and a four-power Allied Control Council was created to resolve questions pertaining to Germany as a whole.

Pending definitive settlement in a peace treaty, all lands east of the Odra (Oder) and Neisse rivers were placed under Polish and Soviet jurisdiction. It was agreed that the four occupying powers of Germany should take reparations from their respective zones of occupation; but, because the USSR had suffered greater loss than any of the other major powers, provision was made for additional compensation to the USSR.

Rigid measures of control were decided on in the Potsdam Conference to prevent Germany from ever again becoming a threat to world peace. The conferees determined to disarm the country and prevent remilitarization; to outlaw the National Socialist (Nazi) Party that had been led by Hitler; to decentralize the economy and reorganize it with emphasis on agriculture; and to encourage democratic practices.

On July 26, the U. S. British, and Chinese governments issued an ultimatum, called the Potsdam Declaration, to the Japanese government, confronting Japan with a choice between unconditional surrender and total annihilation; the USSR was not then at war with Japan and was not a party to the ultimatum. The representatives at the conference also set up a Council of Foreign Ministers to draft peace treaties and confirmed their intention to try Axis war criminals.

The President George Walker Bush

Politics have been the family business for more than one family in the United States. The familiar family of several generations is the Kennedy family who remains in the political spotlight for fifty-three years and running. As Elizabeth Dole attempts to gain the Republican nomination for the 2000 presidential race she hopes to continue the forty-nine year Dole family streak. Coming close to twenty-five years in politics Bill Clinton prepares to turn the scepter over to Hillary Clinton as she prepares for a possible seat in the United States Senate. Perhaps the most interesting dynasties are those carried on by father-son teams.

Both John Adams and John Quincy Adams were United States Presidents. It also appears as though former President George Bush may be able to watch one of his two Governor sons take the presidential oath in the near future. His namesake child, the current governor of Texas, has recently announced his bid for the Republican nomination on the 2000 ballot. However, even if he makes it past the primaries it will take more than a “brand name” to win this election. According to the June 21, 1999 issue of Newsweek 65% of voters they polled still knew nothing or little of George W. Bush.

When looking at a possible future President of the United Sates of America it is not uncommon to start with their past and work forward to see their progress and failures. George W. Bush attended a preparatory school at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. Like many young men he was interested in sports and he selected to the men’s basketball team at Phillips Academy. Envied by his peers the young man was chosen to be part of a team that was exclusive to the best. However young George sat on the bench that year and only played one game.

The next year he opted not to try out for football and instead became the head cheerleader. He made many friends at this elite school considered to be the toughest in the country at that time. He successfully finished and the following year attended Yale. During George’s time at Yale he barely seemed to notice his father had been elected to Congress (1966). George, “W” as many refer to him, was not interested in any of the political organizations at the University. George W. Bush seemed to be more concerned with social matters than political matters.

He knew stories about most people that would pass him by on the campus and was a fan of his school’s sports teams. In the late 1960’s he joined a fraternity of Delta Kappa Epsilon, a fraternity for sportsmen and those who loved to watch them. They were called Dekes. This brings about a controversy that Bush himself may have been involved in overseeing harmful hazing rituals such as branding. Both Bush and other members of the fraternity have denied these rumors. Most members say the branding was a scare tactic that never actually happened. What did happen?

A close friend of Bush’s at the time stated, “…there was a lot of watching sports, girls, and beer drinking (Duffy). ” This is also where Bush had his first encounter with the law. Bush stated, “ We had a little too much Christmas cheer and for some reason we really thought we needed that wreath (Duffy). ” George and some of the other members of the Dekes were charged with theft as a misdemeanor and the misdemeanor was later dropped. During Bush’s junior year at Yale he surprised his family by announcing his engagement to a young woman from Rice University named Cathryn Wolfman.

They engagement did not last long after George decided that he was too young to settle down. While attending a Princeton, Yale’s rival, versus Yale football game in which Yale won, George encountered his second encounter with the law. As friends were leaving the game they turned around to see young George standing in the middle of the goal posts as he and his friends tore them down on the Princeton field. The mayor of Princeton, New Jersey told the young men as punishment to leave Princeton and never return and he has not to this day.

After graduating Yale George moved to Houston to live at the ritzy Chteaux Dijon, a popular place for late baby bloomers to live in the 1970’s. Not only was he changing girlfriends rapidly he was also changing jobs frequently. When he joined the Air National Guard in Texas he was criticized by many that he was allowed to override the long waiting list. The young man denied receiving any special favors from the Guard because of his father’s status. George worked in for an agriculture company at this time and then left calling the work dull and boring.

He then worked for a group that mentored young minority athletes but also left that job not being fulfilled. After applying for University of Texas Law School and being denied he applied to Harvard School of Business. George W. Bush graduated from Harvard with his Masters in Business in 1975. After Harvard George returned to Midland, Texas where he grew up. There he thought that he would try his hand at the oil business. He had no experience in this field yet he insisted on jumping into to it without working his way up the ranks. At the same time he started the oil firm he married a young lady by the mane of Laura Welch, a quiet librarian.

Laura and her new husband spent much of their honeymoon on the campaign trail. In Midland George thought that he might run for Congress and in the 1977 race he went up against Kent Hance. He won much support in the Midland area but Hance took a huge lead in Lubbock and won the 1977 election. That wasn’t the only misfortune he experienced during that period in his life. The gas prices were plummeting causing the price of oil to be forced down. Many people in the Midland area were losing jobs and very few oil companies could survive on their own. In 1982 George W. Bush sold 10% of his oil firm to a Panamanian investor.

As prices began to fall further Bush began drinking heavier and more steadily. In 1984 he merged the rest of his company with Spectrum 7. Even after Bush took 25% pay cut the oil prices continued on a downward spiral. Now Spectrum’s best offer was to be bought by an energy company by the name of Harken. In return Bush received $320,000 in stock and was retained as a consultant at a salary of $80,000 a year, $5,000 more than what he was previously earning (Pooley 36). He also convinced Harken to employ most of his former employees and he found jobs for the employees that were not taken on by Harken.

Other changes were also taking place in his life. After a joint 40th birthday party in Colorado Bush woke up with a hangover severe enough to cause him to quite drinking cold turkey. He also had twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara, to take care of. Now that he had money and no day job he was free to think on an offer that had been made to him several months before the Harken deal. In 1985 Lee Atwater spoke to George Bush about helping run his father’s (the Vice President of the United States from 1984-1988) presidential campaign. In 1987 Bush packed up his family in Midland and moved to Washington, D. C. to help his father.

The younger George spent countless hours defending his father from harsh journalist, unfaithful staff, and critics. He acted as a surrogate speaker on behalf of his father around the country. All of his hard work on the campaign not only helped his father win the 1988 presidential election; it also brought him in to the political spotlight as a serious man for the first time. After the elections Bush and his family returned to Dallas, Texas. After being in Dallas for a few years he received a hot tip that the Texas Rangers Baseball team was for sale.

Quickly Bush rounded up a group of investors and purchased a portion of the team and was made a manager. The money he used to buy the team he borrowed from a Midland bank where he was a director using his Harken stock as collateral. His initial $500,000 investment grew to $606,000 and his final return was over $15 million (Pooley 36). He was finally in the spotlight as a politician, a businessman, a sportsman, a family man, and as a down home man. He attended all 80 Ranger home games. He would often stay hours after the game to sign autographs and he did wonders for the stadium.

He and his partners renovated The BallPark in Arlington with bond money. His public relations were rising but things in Dallas were not going as smooth as in Arlington. When Bush sold all 212,140 of his Harken stocks in June of 1990 he received $848,569, more the 2 the original value (Pooley 41). Less than two months later Harken made the quarterly report and they stated that the company lost more than $23 million dollars. Bush says he did not know that Harken was going to announce the loss yet he was still criticized by many who said that as a director he should have know.

He compounded the problem by not filing a SEC form. After a SEC investigation he was cleared of all charges. One month later Bush resigned from Harken and declared for Governor. George took a leave of absence from the Rangers to spend time campaigning for Governor. He traveled the state as a well-known man separate from his father, at least in personality. George’s social circle drew him crowds of the elite oil and businessmen to the down home baseball fans throughout Texas. George also gained a tart sense of humor when his sister died in 1953 of leukemia.

His mother said that since more was expected from George, the oldest son, he diverted their attention by wisecracks and nicknames, a trait that he carries with him to this day. According to the June 1999 issue of Texas Monthly that may also of helped people relax and relate to him as a man and not just a politician while on his campaign trail. After George won the Governor election to Ann Hutchinson he put all of his Rangers assets in to a blind trust and did not sell the team until 1998.

In 1998 he received over $14. illion dollars for his share of the team. As a second term Governor of Texas George W. Bush has had a well-kept record. Although the governor of Texas has very little power he and legislation passed the largest tax cut in the states history. He has won praises from teachers by allowing for large teacher pay raises. Crime rate is down and although he did not back a hate-crimes bill the President Clinton urged him to sign his inclusive rhetoric and multicultural appointments have please the Hispanic and African American communities.

His pulling together of political factions saying it is better to work together than to work alone has impressed many leaders of both major parties. Bush is quoted in Time magazine saying, “I’m proud to be a compassionate conservative. I welcome this label, and on this ground, will make my stand (Duffy). ” According to the Washington Post’s Governors Guide strong families, local control, individual responsibility, and limited responsibility are principles guiding Governor Bush’s major initiatives. He continually states the importance of family and education in society.

He says that education is his number one priority. He believes for our society to become compassionate and responsible we must first teach children to read and comprehend. According to this page he says, “Government is necessary, but not necessarily government. ” His staff knows that any proposal brought before him must encourage personal responsibility, local control, and fiscal responsibility. He has encouraged a voluntary clean up program for companies and individuals to participate in that has brought back $170 million dollars in property and has created 3,000 jobs.

Since his first term 115 older companies have reduced emissions by 100,000 each year. To make Texas a safer place he has aided in passing anti-stalking laws and no sex offender is allowed to live in Texas without registering first with local authorities. He has declared a zero tolerance for violent crimes on school grounds. If any youth is found in violation of a violent of sexually orientated law he or she must be reported to the teachers of that school and he or she pose a threat they may be placed in alternative education programs.

He supports the legal drinking age of 21 and has implemented one of the nations toughest anti-youth-smoking laws. He believes in the death penalty for those who have committed “horrible” crimes. He also believes that Texas prisons are a place of work and punishment. All prisoners in Texas work either building houses for the needy, farming for food banks, making road signs, Braille books, government furniture, or laundry detergent.

He also supports welfare reform, creating jobs and not dependency for those in need, yet his 1997 legislation passed a bill not allowing government to interfere with private charity help for these people. Now Governor Bush will be able to make his stand on a national level. On June 12, 1999 Governor Bush announced he would run for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. He already has the backing of 15 Republican Governors. Even Kent Hance who beat him in the 1977 congressional elections has contributed money (Hance switched parties in 1985).

Although Bush has a long way to go until the elections he is already miles ahead of the other Republicans and Democrats (Vice President Al Gore and former Senator Bill Brady) hoping to earn the nomination for his or her party. In the Republican race for presidential nomination he faces Elizabeth Dole, Dan Quayle, Steven Forbes, and John McCain. In a Time/CNN poll 55% of those polled would vote for Bush, and 42% for Al Gore, however George Bush has the Republican nominee vote 40% ahead of the runner-up, Elizabeth Dole, who has 14% of the vote according to the Time/CNN poll.

Governor Bush still has a long time before the 2000 election, if he is chosen as the GOP nomination. He has matured a lot form his past and has impressed enough people in high places to earn the most money in the shortest amount of time ever in an United States presidential campaign according to June 30,1999 edition of the Corpus Christi Caller Times. According to the Caller Times Bush has earned $20 million in just four months (Van Natta A-12).

Fortunate for Bush he has made a connection with many Americans and not including those who know nothing about him most like him…they just don’t know why. For Bush supporters it is not the “name brand” that they believe will win him the Presidency, it is the values and policies he stands for. Right now the Republican Party’s worst nightmare is that if it is the name and if the name wares off their “school house built of straw will weaken and blow down. ” With the aide of family, Texas governor’s office veterans, and his fathers old aides, he hopes to prove them wrong before February.

First Amendment Essay

No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.

The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion. It also prevents the government from “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. ” Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans. In Langston Hughes’ poem, “Freedom,” he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his. He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, “I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.

I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread. ” He recognizes the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear. I think Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants’ quest for freedom in his poem, “Freedom’s Plow. ” He accurately describes American’s as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time. He depicts how people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause: freedom. I selected Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as a fictitious example of the evils of censorship in a world that is becoming illiterate.

In this book, the government convinces the public that book reading is evil because it spreads harmful opinions and agitates people against the government. The vast majority of people accept this censorship of expression without question and are content to see and hear only the government’s propaganda. I found this disturbing yet realistic. Bradbury’s hidden opposition to this form of censorship was apparent throughout the book and finally prevailed in the end when his main character rebelled against the practice of burning books.

Among the many forms of protests are pickets, strikes, public speeches and rallies. Recently in New Jersey, more than a thousand community activists rallied to draft a “human” budget that puts the needs of the poor and handicapped as a top priority. Rallies are an effective means for people to use their freedoms effectively to bring about change from the government. Freedom of speech is constantly being challenged as is evidenced in a recent court case where a Gloucester County school district censored reviews of two R-rated movies from a school newspaper.

Superior Court Judge, Robert E. Francis ruled that the student’s rights were violated under the state Constitution. I feel this is a major break through for students’ rights because it limits editorial control of school newspapers by educators and allows students to print what they feel is important. A newly proposed bill (A-557) would prevent school officials from controlling the content of student publications. Critics of the bill feel that “student journalists may be too young to understand the responsibilities that come with free speech.

This is a valid point; however, it would provide an excellent opportunity for them to learn about their First Amendment rights that guarantees free speech and freedom of the press. In his commencement address to Monmouth College graduates, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School defended the broad right to free speech. He stated, “My message to you graduates is to assert your rights, to use them responsibly and boldly, to oppose racism, to oppose sexism, to oppose homophobia and bigotry of all kinds and to do so within the spirit of the First Amendment, not by creating an exception to it.

I agree that one should feel free to speak openly as long as it does not directly or indirectly lead to the harm of others. One of the more controversial issues was the recent 2 Live Crew incident involving obscenity in rap music. Their record, “As Nasty as They Wanna Be,” was ruled obscene in federal court. They were acquitted of the charges and quickly became a free speech martyr. Although many stores pulled the album, over two million copies sold as a result of the incident. I feel that in this case the principles of free speech have been abused because young children can purchase and listen to this obscene music.

The American flag, symbol of our country’s history and patriotism, has also become a topic of controversy. The controversy was over the right to burn the flag without punishment. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan offered the response that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. ” Burning the flag is considered a form of symbolic speech and therefore is protected under the First Amendment.

As in the 2 Live Crew case, I feel that we are protecting the wrong people in this case. The minority is given precedence at the sacrifice of the majority. The book, American Voices, is a collection of essays on the freedom of speech and censorship. I chose to put this collection of essays into my book because they represent the strong central theme of freedom of expression as the cornerstone of American government, culture and life. Each essay strongly defends a case for free commercial speech. Each was generally in favor of fewer limitations on freedom of expression.

The American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout the course of history by the initial democratic notions of the immigrants to the same desire for greater freedom that we have today. The freedom of speech has constantly been challenged and will continue to be challenged in the future. It is important that we learn from the precedented cases of the past of our constitutionally protected rights so that in the future authority will not violate our freedoms or oppress our liberty. Ever since colonial times, the protection of personal freedoms in the United States has been significantly important.

Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison. The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history.

In Colonial America, members of diverse nationalities had opposing views on government, religion, and other subjects of interest. Serious confrontations were prevented because of the vast lands that separated groups of varying opinions. A person could easily settle in with other like believers and be untouched by the prejudices and oppression of others. For this reason, Unitarians avoided Anglican or Puritan communities. Quakers and Anabaptists were confined to Pennsylvania and Rho….. de Island while Catholics were mainly concentrated in Maryland.

As the United States grew larger and larger, these diverse groups were forced to live together. This may have caused individual liberties to be violated because of the distrust and hostile feelings between ethnic and religious groups. Most of the initial assemblies among the colonies considered themselves immune from criticism. They actually issued warrants of arrest, interrogated, fined, and imprisoned anyone accused of libeling the assembly as a whole or any of its members. Many people were tracked down for writing or speaking works of offense.

The first assembly to meet in America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, stripped Captain Henry Spellman of his rank when he was found guilty of “treasonable words. ” Even in the most tolerant colonies, printing was strictly regulated. The press of William Bradford was seized by the government when he printed up a copy of the colony’s charter. He was charged with seditious libel and spent more than a year in prison. A more famous incident was the trial of John Peter Zenger which established the principle of a free press. In his newspaper he published satirical ballads regarding William Cosby, the unpopular governor, and his council.

His media was described “as having in them many things tending to raise seditions and tumults among the people of this province, and to fill their minds with a contempt for his majesty’s government. ” The grand jury did not indict Zenger and the General Assembly refused to take action. The defendant was acquitted on the basis that in cases of libel the jury should judge both law and the facts. James Alexander was the first colonial writer to develop a philosophy on the freedom of speech. He founded the American Philosophical Society and masterminded the Zenger defense.

Alexander’s chief conviction was “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar in a free government: when this support is taken away, the constitution is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins. ” The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected by the states. However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest objection to the ratification of the Constitution. Less than a decade after the Bill of Rights had been adopted it met its first serious challenge.

In 1798, there was a threat of war with France and thousands of French refugees were living in the United States. Many radicals supported the French cause and were considered “incompatible with social order. ” This hysteria led Congress to enact several alien and sedition laws. One law forbade the publication of false, scandalous or malicious writing against the government, Congress or the President. The penalty for this crime was a $2,000 fine and two years in prison. The public was enraged at these laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pleaded for freedom of speech and the press.

The alien and sedition laws became a prime issue in the presidential election of 1800. Soon after Jefferson was elected, the Sedition Act expired and those who had been convicted under it were immediately pardoned. The next attack on the First Amendment occurred in 1835. President Andrew Jackson proposed a law that would prohibit the use of mail for “incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection. ” John C. Calhoun of South Carolina led a special committee that opposed the proposal on grounds that it conflicted with the First Amendment. The proposal was defeated because it was a form of censorship.

The next violation of the principles contained in the First Amendment came on January 2, 1920. Under the direction of A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson’s Attorney General, about 500 FBI agents and police raided 3,000 Russians and other European immigrants, looking for Communists to deport. The victims were arrested without warrants, homes were ransacked, personal property was seized, and they were hauled off to jail. An even more vicious episode was known as “McCarthyism,” an incident in the 1950’s when Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin proclaimed that the federal government had been thoroughly infiltrated by Communist agents.

His attacks on United States information libraries abroad led to the burning of some books accused of being Communist propaganda. Reduced congressional support caused many librarians to resign and the closing of libraries. On the morning of December 16, 1965, thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker went to school in Des Moines, Iowa. She and her fifteen year old brother, John, had decided to wear black armbands as a protest to the Vietnam War. In advance to their arrival, the principal had decided that any student wearing an arm- band would be told to remove it, stating that, “The schools are no place for demonstrations.

If the student refused, he would be suspended until the armband was permanently removed. On December 16, the Tinkers refused to remove their armbands. They were suspended and did not return to school until after January 1, when by a previous decision the protest had ended. The students brought suit in federal court to confirm their First Amendment right to wear the black armbands. They lost in The Federal District Court on grounds that this type of symbolic expression might disturb school discipline.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was divided equally (4-4) so the decision remained unchanged. On February 24, 1969, the United States Supreme Court decided in the students’ favor by a vote of 7 to 2. The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision was a landmark case for students’ rights and liberties. Speaking for the majority of the Court, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

During the sixties and early seventies a new wave of court battles for First Amendment freedoms emerged. The freedom of speech was recognized as a vital element in a democratic society. Censorship and the infringement of First Amendment rights, especially among students and their newspapers, could not and would not be tolerated. American citizens took a firm stand against the government and authority at important times when they could have yielded to the oppressive violations of their rights.

The Great Depression

The Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U. S. history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920’s, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade. The misdistribution of wealth in the 1920’s existed on many levels.

Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U. S. and Europe. This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1920’s kept the stock market artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the misdistribution of wealth, caused the American economy to capsize. The U. S. economy was also reliant upon luxury spending and investment from the rich to stay afloat during the 1920’s.

The significant problem with this reliance was that luxury spending and investment were based on the wealths confidence in the U. S. economy. If conditions were to take a downturn this spending and investment would slow to a halt. While savings and investment are important for an economy to stay balanced, at excessive levels they are not good. Greater investment usually means greater productivity. However, since the rewards of the increased productivity were not being distributed equally, the problems of income distribution were only made worse.

Lastly, the search for ever greater returns on investment lead to widespread market speculation. Mass speculation went on throughout the late 1920’s. In 1929 alone, a record volume of 1,124,800,410 shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange. From early 1928 to September 1929 the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 191 to 381. This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Company earnings became of little interest; as long as stock prices continued to rise huge profits could be made. One such example is RCA Corporation, whose stock price leapt from 85 to 420 during 1928, even though it had not yet paid a single dividend.

Even these returns of over 100% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time. Through the miracle of buying stocks on margin, one could buy stocks without the money to purchase them. Buying stocks on margin functioned much the same way as buying a car on credit. Using the example of RCA, a Mr. John Doe could buy 1 share of the company by putting up $10 of his own, and borrowing $75 from his broker. If he sold the stock at $420 a year later he would have turned his original investment of just $10 into $341. ($420 minus the $75 and 5% interest owed to the broker).

That makes a return of over 3400%! Investors’ craze over the proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high levels. By mid 1929 the total of outstanding brokers’ loans was over $7billion; in the next three months that number would reach $8. 5 billion. Interest rates for brokers loans were reaching the sky, going as high as 20% in March 1929. The speculative boom in the stock market was based upon confidence. In the same way, the huge market crashes of 1929 were based on fear.

Stock prices had been drifting downward since September 3, but generally people where optimistic. Speculators continued to flock to the market. Then, on Monday October 21 prices started to fall quickly. The volume was so great that the ticker fell behind. Investors became fearful. Knowing that prices were falling, but not by how much, they started selling quickly. This caused the collapse to happen faster. Prices stabilized a little on Tuesday and Wednesday, but then on Black Thursday, October 24, everything fell apart again. By this time most major investors had lost confidence in the market.

Once enough investors had decided the boom was over, it was over. Partial recovery was achieved on Friday and Saturday when a group of leading bankers stepped in to try to stop the crash. But then on Monday the 28th prices started dropping again. By the end of the day the market had fallen 13%. The next day, Black Tuesday an unprecedented 16. 4 million shares changed. Stocks fell so much, that at many times during the day no buyers were available at any price. This speculation and the resulting stock market crashes acted as a trigger to the already unstable U. S. economy.

Due to the misdistribution of wealth, the economy of the 1920’s was one very much dependent upon confidence. The market crashes undermined this confidence. The rich stopped spending on luxury items, and slowed investments. The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result industrial production fell by more than 9% between the market crashes in October and December 1929. As a result jobs were lost, and soon people starting defaulting on their interest payment.

Radios and cars bought with installment credit had to be returned. All of the sudden warehouses were piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been connected with the automobile and radio industries started falling apart. Without a car people did not need fuel or tires; without a radio people had less need for electricity. On the international scene, the rich had practically stopped lending money to foreign countries. With such tremendous profits to be made in the stock market nobody wanted to make low interest loans.

To protect the nation’s businesses the U. S. imposed higher trade barriers such as The Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930. Foreigners stopped buying American products. More jobs were lost, more stores were closed, more banks went under, and more factories closed. Unemployment grew to five million in 1930, and up to thirteen million in 1932. The country spiraled quickly into catastrophe. The Great Depression had begun. The Republican Party was in power during this time of economic strife. Their policies in no way aided the Great Depression; in fact they were detrimental to the cause.

Republicans believed in big businesses and tax breaks for the already wealthy. The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. Calvin Coolidge’s administration favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income and inheritance taxes dramatically. Andrew Mellon, Coolidge’s Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these and other tax cuts throughout the 1920’s.

In effect, he was able to lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. The federal government favored the new industries as opposed to agriculture. During World War I the federal government had subsidized farms, and paid absurdly high prices for wheat and other grains. The federal government had encouraged farmers to buy more land, to modernize their methods with the latest in farm technology, and to produce more food. This made sense during that war when war-ravaged Europe had to be fed too.

However as soon as the war ended, the U. S. abruptly stopped its policies to help farmers. During the war the United States government had paid an unheard of $2 a bushel for wheat, but by 1920 wheat prices had fallen to as low as 67 cents a bushel. Farmers fell into debt; farm prices and food prices tumbled. Although modest attempts to help farmers were made in 1923 with the Agricultural Credits Act, farmers were generally left out in the cold by the government. It can be clearly seen that the Republican’s platforms not only delayed the process of finding a solution to the economic strife in America, but also the world.

Aaron Burr Treason Trial

The early 1800’s were an unusual time in the history of the United States. A country in its infancy, growing, turbulent, and filled with intrigue where political and economic fortunes were made and lost overnight. While the country was founded on noble ideas—and no doubt these powerful ideas were taken seriously—how such ideas were to be put into practice created fertile ground for personal ambition and interest to be a stronger motivator than the “common good”.

In fact, at times it appears that the ideas were little more than vehicles for the personal ambitions—and in the case of this story—the personal vendettas of powerful personalities. Aaron Burr, brilliant, ambitious, and a great orator, was certainly larger than life. And his battles with Thomas Jefferson—no less a dramatic figure—lead finally to his trial for treason against the United States.

This trial was the culmination of a personal political battle between two great figures where Jefferson would stop at nothing to destroy Burr…even if it meant abusing the principles that he himself help enshrine as the basis for the United States. This trial, and the preceding events, are the subject of this paper. Reviewing the facts illustrates that the trial was really more about a vendetta between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr than the law. Aaron Burr was born in 1756 and was one of the rising stars of the new republic.

A rising star many felt was sure to be the President of the young country and to be a distinguished one at that. Burr’s conflict with Jefferson began when they tied for the presidential election of 1800. The election then went to the House of Representatives where Burr rejected Federalist overtures for a coalition, but did not publicly support giving the Presidency to Jefferson. Burr felt that an election should not be won through coalitions and he was especially bitter about the idea of working with the Federalists.

Burr, arrogant, confident and trusting in the ‘rightness’ of his position, made no effort to persuade congress to his side. On the other hand, Jefferson quickly established deals with many of the Federalist congressmen to insure their votes and consequently won the presidency. During several depositions following the election it became very clear to the public that Jefferson had worked with the Federalists in order to secure the election. A founder and the leader of the Republicans had, in the end, sided with the opposition in order to insure his own presidential victory.

This political maneuvering to ensure his election made Jefferson look opportunistic and self-serving, and left an enduring black spot on his reputation that was never removed. Jefferson directly blamed Burr, and he would distrust and despise Burr for the rest of his life. A close friend of Jefferson even declared, “that this fixed the destiny of Colonel Burr… Mr. Jefferson’s malignity toward Colonel Burr never ceased but with his last breathe. ” In the end, the election concluded with Jefferson as President and Burr as Vice President.

Their personal enmity only grew worse while they were forced to work together in the White House. Jefferson finally ousted Burr from the Republican ticket during his reelection. After this Burr would attempt to run for the governorship of New York, but through clever planning by Alexander Hamilton he would lose this election. This would result in the infamous dual of honor between Burr and Hamilton, in which Hamilton was fatally shot by Burr. Wanted for murder in two states, Burr would then be forced to flee to the west. Thus began the final chapter of his ambitious career.

Burr was almost fifty when he arrived in the West for the first time. He was amazed by the amount of untamed land and openness of the western plains, but was most impressed by the incredible isolation . His natural charm and great oratorical skill would serve him well in this untamed land. His uncanny ability to sway small and large groups alike–in an land where outsized ideas and ambitions seemed the order of the day–would aid him on the road ahead. Burr came west with no clear idea what to do. He thought he might simply rebuild his legal career, speculate in land, and seek public office.

Or possibly construct a canal around the Falls of the Ohio. But such ideas didn’t quite fit with a man who had been so close to the Presidency of the Republic. It is not known exactly where the idea for a conspiracy came from, but on April 29, 1805 Burr unveiled his plan to lead a revolution in Mexico (still a colony of Spain) over dinner with Herman Blennerhassett. Blennerhassett was a rich landowner who lived on a 300-acre island on the Ohio River and Burr realized that for this plan to succeed it would require a great deal of money, men and other resources .

But Blennerhassett wasn’t much for grand foreign adventures and Burr eventually settled on a strategy of swindling Britain and Spain into giving him the money and the troops he needed to revolutionize Mexico. This was difficult from the start, especially since the Spaniards controlled Mexico at the time. Burr’s plan was to lie to both Britain and Spain, telling them he was trying to tear the United States in half, east from west. But instead of breaking up the country he intended instead to use the money and troops from Spain and Britain to invade Mexico.

He outlined the first part of his strategy in a letter to Anthony Merry, the British minister to the US, and Don Carlos Yrujo, the Spanish minister to the US on January 1st, 1806. This letter eventually ended up in the hands of president Jefferson, and would become an important part of the prosecution’s case against Burr in his trial for treason. Burr maintained that he never had any intention of committing treason—it was simply a ruse against two countries that were not particularly popular in the US at that time.

Since it was well known at that time that to commit treason you had to actually commit an overt act of treason, not only plan one, Burr claimed (later) that his strategy was a reasonable one. Burr’s grand plan began to fail when he realized he could not obtain the funds he required without the help of both Yrujo and Merry. Both ministers had, unknown to Burr, discovered his true intentions. This left Burr desperate for funds and with nowhere else to turn except the east coast of the United States (where he was still wanted for murder…though nobody seemed particularly interested in prosecuting him).

Shortly after his arrival rumors began to spread that Burr was trying to split the East from the West. Jefferson, having received a letter about Burr’s offer to Yrujo and Merry, quickly made a public announcement declaring that he had learned of a conspiracy to split the country and that everyone associated with it should distance themselves as soon as possible (though he never mentioned Burr’s name). Within several days the conspiracy was shattered. Three months later, on January 22nd, 1806, President Jefferson issued a special message to congress saying, “Aaron Burr was the ‘arch conspirator’ in a treasonous enterprise to divide the nation.

Although Jefferson gave no evidence at this time, Burr’s reputation was ruined and public sentiment would be against him for the rest of his life. There were several important conspirators who helped Burr with his plan. The most important, and a key witness later in the trial against Burr, was General James Wilkinson. General Wilkinson was a corrupt and selfish politician who was always willing to sell himself to the highest bidder. In 1787 Wilkinson swore allegiance to the Spanish crown in order to get the exclusive privilege to sell Kentucky produce in the metropolis of Louisiana.

He would later try to separate Kentucky from Virginia, with the idea that upon achieving statehood Kentucky would not join the United States, but would be left free to make plans with its Spanish neighbors. This incident is known as the Spanish Conspiracy and it only becomes more incriminating when it was discovered that Wilkinson was receiving $2,000 a year from the Spanish government. After this Wilkinson would join the army and after only eight years, become the ranking general. At this point the Spanish government was paying him $16,000 for his “services”.

It may be that the corrupt Wilkinson was the only real traitor in this story…but he hadn’t made Thomas Jefferson his personal enemy. Wilkinson’s role in Burr’s plan was to lead Burr’s army of mercenaries against Mexico. In exchange, Burr would help Wilkinson become governor of the Louisiana territory (which he did) and compensate him with lands gained from Mexico. When Burr’s plan was uncovered, and Wilkinson learned that President Jefferson had heard of the plot, he quickly wrote Jefferson a letter admitting everything hoping to gain indemnity in exchange for testifying against Burr.

Jefferson first heard about Burr’s plan on December 1st, 1805. But for a full year he did nothing. This has led many historians to believe that Jefferson may have been involved in a plot to actually frame Burr. It wasn’t until Jefferson received a letter from the postmaster general on October 16th, 1806, (stating that Burr’s plan was to split the country) that Jefferson made the announcement warning people to distance themselves from the conspiracy. Jefferson hoped that in making a moderate proclamation, and that by not mentioning Burr directly, that he could trap Burr in a more overt act of treason that could be better prosecuted.

However by January 22nd, 1807, Jefferson felt that he had gathered suitable evidence to convict Burr and he delivered his message to congress accusing Burr of being the ‘arch-conspirator’ in a Western plot. John Randolph, a congressman, was outraged after hearing Jefferson’s proclamation against Burr and ordered Jefferson to provide evidence for his serious accusations. Jefferson provided several letters that he claimed were all written by General Wilkinson (although, in fact, some weren’t). The letters mentioned both a plot to split the West from the East and Burr’s intentions to invade Mexico. Congress was convinced.

Three months later on March 30th, 1807, Burr was arrested in Richmond, Virginia, on several charges. The first charge was the misdemeanor of having set forth on an expedition against the dominions of the King of Spain. The second charge was treason for having assembled an armed force for the purpose of seizing the city of New Orleans, revolutionizing Orleans Territory, and separating the Western from the Atlantic states. The warrant for his arrest was written and delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was also a leading citizen of Richmond. Burr went peacefully into custody and awaited the beginning of his trial.

Since he was arrested in the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice it was decided that Marshall would preside over the case. This would have a profound effect on the case. Prosecuting Burr was U. S. Attorney George Hay, a decent lawyer but nothing compared to the brilliant legal minds of the defense. Luckily for Hay however, he received daily letters from Jefferson ( a brilliant lawyer) offering legal advice. Eventually, Jefferson began to dictate the legal strategies of the defense (certainly a questionable action from the Chief Executive). The prosecution planned to convict Burr by using a precedent established in a previous trial.

That precedent established that if a treasonous act is in fact committed all persons involved, no matter how small their involvement, are guilty of treason. They planned to show that a group of fifty or so men assembled on Blennerhassett island for a treasonable purpose, and that although Burr wasn’t present at the time, his involvement in the scheme made him guilty of treason. The prosecution was aided by the patently illegal actions of President Jefferson, who at this point was sending blank pardons to Hay and authorizing him to pardon anyone involved in the conspiracy if they would testify against Burr.

The defense was made up of Burr himself, Edmund Randolph, John Wickham, and Luther Martin. These men were four of the best lawyers in the country and were all united in one thing, their hatred of President Jefferson. Their legal strategy was to depict Burr as the victim of a Presidential administration that had pursued him relentlessly and that had repeatedly violated his civil rights. Burr also made a request for a subpoena to require Jefferson to deliver several documents, including Jefferson’s correspondence with Wilkinson.

The court supported Burr’s request and this created a power clash between the judicial and executive branches. How should the independence of the president be balanced against the rights of an accused to obtain evidence? In the end, however, Jefferson submitted the documents, although he made it very clear that he was only doing so because he deemed the documents did not compromise national security. The trial finally began after a Grand jury indicted Burr on both charges. It took ninety-six prospective jurors before twelve suitable ones could be found.

This was because most admitted to a bias against the defendant. The prosecution had indicated they intended to call a large number of witnesses. However, few were actually allowed to testify in court because of objections by the defense or rulings by judge Marshall. For instance, testimony from William Eaton was never allowed because the defense forced him to admit that the government had recently settled a long standing claim for $10,000 which the government only agreed to pay when Eaton agreed to testify. Others were disallowed because of the pardons given to them by Jefferson.

Certainly the zeal of the prosecution, driven directly by the President, didn’t help their case. Burr and his colleagues argued two major points. First, no act of treason had ever occurred. Since the definition of treason in the constitution requires an overt act of war against the country and since no act of war was committed then no act of treason existed. Second, arguing against the earlier precedent, since Burr was not even present when the supposed act of treason took place, he clearly could not be guilty. Several days later on Monday, August 31, 1807, Marshall carefully and meticulously delivered a three-hour decision.

He ruled that contrary to a previous opinion, actual presence at the island was essential for proof of an overt act; “To advise or procure treason… is not treason in itself. ” The next day the case went to the jury, which ruled “ We of the jury say that Aaron Burr is not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us. We therefore find him not guilty. ” Jefferson was so outraged by the ruling that he threatened to impeach Marshall, and even took it to congress, but congress never brought the impeachment to a vote. History has made its assessment.

Jefferson’s personal hatred of Burr defiantly drove him to inappropriately pursue, and even illegally conspire to convict, a political opponent. Normally a brilliant and capable lawyer, based on the same facts he never would have brought a case of treason against an unknown man. Moreover, had he not known Burr he would never have let himself get as involved, preferring to let justice take its course. Under the influence of his patriotism, Jefferson may have believed that writing a letter planning treason was treason but more likely he simply wanted to destroy Burr.

Clearly, Jefferson let his own bias and vindictiveness drive his behavior and in so doing violated the very thing he tried so hard to protect, the Constitution. While he didn’t succeed in getting Burr convicted he did accomplish the driving objective. After the trial Burr was so hated by the public that he was almost lynched in the streets and was forced to flee America in a disguise to Europe where he stayed for four years in complete poverty. When he finally returned to United States his daughter and young grandson died at sea.

On his deathbed in 1836 a friend asked Burr if he had ever intended to separate the West from the Union. Burr responded, “NO! I would as soon have thought of taking possession of the moon and informing my friends that I intended to divide it among them. ” Still, as an example of how politicians use speech filled with noble sentiments to pursue the basest of political aims, the trial of Aaron Burr remains relevant. Those shocked by the self serving behavior during our last presidential election—lamenting the passing of more dignified times—may, by studying history, find that things really haven’t changed that much at all.

The Bay of Pigs Invasion

The story of the failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs is one of mismanagement, overconfidence, and lack of security. The blame for the failure of the operation falls directly in the lap of the Central Intelligence Agency and a young president and his advisors. The fall out from the invasion caused a rise in tension between the two great superpowers and ironically, years after the event, the person that the invasion meant to topple, Fidel Castro, is still in power. To understand the origins of the invasion and its ramifications for the future it is first necessary to look at the invasion and its origins.

The Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961, started a few days before on April 15th with the bombing of Cuba by what appeared to be defecting Cuban air force pilots. At 6 a. m. in the morning of that Saturday, three Cuban military bases were bombed by B-26 bombers. The airfields at Camp Libertad, San Antonio de Los Baos, and Antonio Maceo airport at Santiago de Cuba were fired upon. Seven people were killed at Libertad, and forty-seven people were killed at other sites on the island. Two of the B-26s left Cuba and flew to Miami, apparently to defect to the United States.

The Cuban Revolutionary Council, the government in exile, in New York City released a statement saying that the bombings in Cuba were . . . carried out by ‘Cubans inside Cuba’ who were ‘in contact with’ the top command of the Revolutionary Council . . . . The New York Times reporter covering the story alluded to something being wrong with the whole situation when he wondered how the council knew the pilots were coming if the pilots had only decided to leave Cuba on Thursday after . . . a suspected betrayal by a fellow pilot had precipitated a plot to strike . . .

Whatever the case, the planes came down in Miami later that morning, one landed at Key West Naval Air Station at 7:00 a. m. and the other at Miami International Airport at 8:20 a. m. Both planes were badly damaged and their tanks were nearly empty. On the front page of The New York Times the next day, a picture of one of the B-26s was shown along with a picture of one of the pilots cloaked in a baseball hat and hiding behind dark sunglasses, his name was withheld. A sense of conspiracy was even at this early stage beginning to envelop the events of that week.

In the early hours of April 17th the assault on the Bay of Pigs began. As in the spirit of a movie, the assault began at 2 a. m. with a team of frogmen going ashore with orders to set up landing lights to indicate to the main assault force the precise location of their objectives, as well as to clear the area of anything that may impede the main landing teams when they arrived. At 2:30 a. m. and at 3:00 a. m. two battalions came ashore at Playa Girn and one battalion at Playa Larga beaches. The troops at Playa Girn had orders to move west, northwest, up the coast and meet with the troops at Playa Larga in the middle of the bay.

A small group of men were then to be sent north to the town of Jaguey Grande to secure it as well. When looking at a modern map of Cuba it is obvious that the troops would have problems in the area that was chosen for them to land at. The area around the Bay of Pigs is a swampy marsh land area which would be hard on the troops. The Cuban forces were quick to react and Castro ordered his T-33 trainer jets, two Sea Furies, and two B-26s into the air to stop the invading forces. Off the coast were the command and control ship and another vessel carrying supplies for the invading forces.

The Cuban air force made quick work of the supply ships, sinking the command vessel, the Marsopa, and the supply ship the Houston, blasting them to pieces with five-inch rockets. In the end the 5th battalion was lost, which was on the Houston, as well as the supplies for the landing teams and eight other smaller vessels. With some of the invading forces’ ships destroyed, and no command and control ship, the logistics of the operation soon broke down as the other supply ships were kept at bay by Castro’s air force.

As with many failed military adventures, one of the problems with this one was with supplying the troops. In the air, Castro had easily won superiority over the invading force. His fast moving T-33s, although unimpressive by today’s standards, made short work of the slow moving B-26s of the invading force. On Tuesday, two were shot out of the sky and by Wednesday the invaders had lost 10 of their 12 aircraft. With air power firmly in control of Castro’s forces, the end was near for the invading army. Over the 72 hours the invading force of about 1500 men were pounded by the Cubans.

Castro fired 122mm. Howitzers, 22mm. cannon, and tank fire at them. By Wednesday the invaders were pushed back to their landing zone at Playa Girn. Surrounded by Castro’s forces some began to surrender while others fled into the hills. In total 114 men were killed in the slaughter while thirty-six died as prisoners in Cuban cells. Others were to live out twenty years or more in those cells as men plotting to topple the government of Castro. The 1500 men of the invading force never had a real chance of success from the first days in the planning stage of the operation.

Operation Mongoose, as it came to be known as, has its origins in the last dying days of the Eisenhower administration and that murky time period during the transition of power to the newly elected president John F. Kennedy. The origins of American policy in Latin America in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s had its’ origins in American’s economic interests and its anticommunist policies in the region. The same man who had helped formulate American containment policy towards the Soviet threat, George Kennan, spoke to US Chiefs of Mission in Rio de Janeiro about Latin America in 1950.

He said that American policy had several purposes in the region, . . . to protect the vital supplies of raw materials which Latin American countries export to the USA; to prevent the ‘military exploitation of Latin America by the enemy’ [The Soviet Union]; and to avert ‘the psychological mobilization of Latin America against us. ‘ . . . . By the 1950’s trade with Latin America accounted for a quarter of American exports, and 80 percent of the investment in Latin America was also American. The Americans had a vested interest in the region that it would remain pro-American.

The Guatemalan adventure can be seen as another of the factors that lead the American government to believe that it could handle Castro. Before the Second World War ended, a coup in Guatemala saw the rise to power of Juan Jose Arvalo. He was not a communist in the traditional sense of the term, but he packed his government with Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers. In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz succeeded Arvalo after an election in March of that year. The party had been progressing with a series of reforms, and the newly elected leader continued with these reforms.

During land reforms a major American company, the United Fruit Company, lost its land and other holdings without any compensation from the Guatemalan government. When the Guatemalans refused to go to the International Court of Law, United Fruit began to lobby the government of the United States to take action. In the government they had some very powerful supporters. Among them were Foster Dulles, Secretary of State who had once been their lawyer, his brother Allen, the Director of Central Intelligence who was a shareholder, and Robert Cutler, head of the National Security Council.

In what was a clear conflict of interest, the security apparatus of the United States decided to take action against the Guatemalans. From May 1st, 1954, to June 18th, the Central Intelligence Agency did everything in its power to overthrow the government of Arbenz. On June 17th and 8th, it peaked with an invasion of 450 men lead by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas. With the help of air support the men took control of the country and Arbenz fled to the Mexican Embassy. By June 27th, the country was firmly in control of the invading force.

With its success in Guatemala, the CIA had the confidence that it could now take on anyone who interfered with American interests. In late 1958 Castro was still fighting a guerilla war against the corrupt regime of Fulgencio Batista. Before he came to power, there was an incident between his troops and some vacationing American troops from the nearby American naval base at Guantanamo Bay. During the incident some U. S. Marines were held captive by Castro’s forces but were later released after a ransom was secretly paid.

This episode soured relations with the United States and the chief of U. S. Naval Operations, Admiral Burke, who wanted to send in the Marines to destroy Castro’s forces, but Secretary of State Foster Dulles disagreed with the measures suggested and stopped the plan. Castro overthrew Batista in 1959. Originally, Castro was not a communist, and even had meetings with then, Vice-President Richard Nixon. Fearful of Castro’s revolution, wealthy people such as doctors, lawyers, and the Mafia, left Cuba for the United States.

To prevent the loss of more capital, Castro’s solution was to nationalize some of the businesses in Cuba. In the process of nationalizing some business he came into conflict with American interests just as Arbenz had in Guatemala. Legitimate U. S. Businesses were taken over, and the process of socialization began with little, if any talk of compensation. There were also rumors of Cuban involvement in trying to invade Panama, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic and by this time Castro had been turn down by the United States for any economic aid.

Being rejected by the Americans, he met with foreign minister Anasta Mikoyan to secure a $100 million loan from the Soviet Union. It was in this atmosphere that the American Intelligence and Foreign Relations communities decided that Castro was leaning towards communism and had to be dealt with. In the spring of 1960, President Eisenhower approved a plan to send small groups of American trained, Cuban exiles, to work in the underground as guerrillas to overthrow Castro. By the fall, the plan was changed to a full invasion with air support by exile Cubans in American supplied planes.

The original group was to be trained in Panama, but with the growth of the operation and the quickening pace of events in Cuba, it was decided to move things to a base in Guatemala. The plan was becoming rushed and this would start to show, the man in charge of the operation, CIA Deputy Director Bissell said that There didn’t seem to be time to keep to the original plan and have a large group trained by this initial cadre of young Cubans. So the larger group was formed and established at La Finca, in Guatemala, and there the training was conducted entirely by Americans . It was now fall and a new president had been elected.

President Kennedy could have stopped the invasion if he wanted to, but he probably didn’t do so for several reasons. Firstly, he had campaigned for some form of action against Cuba and it was also the height of the cold war, to back out now would mean having groups of Cuban exiles travelling around the globe saying how the Americans had backed down on the Cuba issue. In competition with the Soviet Union, backing out would make the Americans look like weak on the international scene, and for domestic consumption the new president would be seen as backing away from one of his campaign promises.

The second reason Kennedy probably didn’t abort the operation is the main reason why the operation failed, problems with the CIA. The failure at the CIA led to Kennedy making poor decisions, which would affect future relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union. The failure at the CIA had three causes. First the wrong people were handling the operation, secondly the agency in charge of the operation was also the one providing all the intelligence for the operation, and thirdly for an organization supposedly obsessed with security, the operation encountered many security problems.

In charge of the operation was the Director of Central Intelligence, Allan Dulles, and main responsibility for the operation was left to one of his deputies, Richard Bissell. In an intelligence community geared mainly for European operations against the USSR, both men were lacking in experience in Latin American affairs. Those in charge of Operation Mongoose, based this new operation on the success of the Guatemalan adventure, but the situation in Cuba was much different than that in Guatemala. In Guatemala the situation was still chaotic and Arbenz never had the same control over the country that Castro had on Cuba.

The CIA had the United States Ambassador, John Puerifoy, working on the inside of Guatemala coordinating the effort, in Cuba they had none of this while Castro was being supplied by the Soviet block. In addition, after the overthrow of the government in Guatemala, Castro was aware that this may happen to him as well and most likely had his guard up waiting for anything that may indicate that an invasion were to come. The second problem was the nature of the bureaucracy itself. The CIA, while powerful in itself, was still a new kid on the block and still felt that it had to prove itself, it saw its’ opportunity in Cuba.

Obsessed with secrecy, it kept the number of people involved to a minimum. The intelligence wing of CIA was kept out of it, their Board of National Estimates could have provided information on the situation in Cuba and the chances for an uprising against Castro once the invasion started. Also kept out of the loop were the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff who could have provided help on the military side of the adventure. In the end, the CIA kept all the information for itself and passed on to the president only what it thought he should see.

Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, in Political Science Quarterly of 1984, based his analysis of the Bay of Pigs failure on organizational behavior theory. He said that the CIA . . . supplied President Kennedy and his advisers with chosen reports on the unreliability of Castro’s forces and the extent of Cuban dissent. Of the CIA’s behavior he concludes that, By resorting to the typical organization strategy of defining the options and providing the information required to evaluate them, the CIA thus structured the problem in a way that maximized the likelihood the president would choose the agency’s preferred option.

The CIA made sure the deck was stacked in their favor when the time came to decide whether a project they sponsored was sound or not. President Kennedy’s Secretary of State at the time was Dean Rusk, in his autobiography he said that, The CIA told us all sorts of things about the situation in Cuba and what would happen once the brigade got ashore. President Kennedy received information, which simply was not correct.

For example, we were told that elements of the Cuban armed forces would defect and join the brigade, that there would be popular uprisings throughout Cuba when the brigade hit the beach, and that if the exile force got into trouble, its members would simply melt into the countryside and become guerrillas, just as Castro had done As for senior White House aides, most of them disagreed with the plan as well, but Rusk said that Kennedy went with what the CIA had to say.

As for himself, he said that he did not serve President Kennedy very well and that he should have voiced his opposition louder. He concluded that I should have made my opposition clear in the meetings themselves because he [Kennedy] was under pressure from those who wanted to proceed. When faced with biased information from the CIA and quiet advisors, it is no wonder that the president decided to go ahead with the operation. For an organization that deals with security issues, the CIA’s lack of security in the Bay of Pigs operation is ironic.

Security began to break down before the invasion when The New York Times reporter Tad Szulc had learned of Operation Mongoose from Cuban friends earlier that year while in Costa Rica covering an Organization of American States meeting. Another breakdown in security was at the training base in Florida. Local residents near Homestead Air Force Base, had seen Cubans drilling and heard their loudspeakers at a farm. As a joke some firecrackers were thrown into the compound .

The ensuing incident saw the Cubans firing their guns and the federal authorities having to convince the local authorities not to press charges. Operation Mongoose was beginning to get blown wide open, the advantage of surprise was lost even this early in the game. After the initial bombing raid of April 15th, and the landing of the B-26s in Florida, pictures of the planes were taken and published in newspapers.

In the photo of one of the planes, the nose of it is opaque whereas the model of the B-26 the Cubans used had a Plexiglas nose, . The CIA had taken the pains to disguise the B-26 with FAR markings [Cuban Air Force], the agency overlooked a crucial detail that was spotted immediately by professional observers. The Cuban people only had to go as far as reading the newspapers to know that something was going to happen, and that those planes that had bombed them were not their own but American. On April 21st, The New York Times ran a story about the origins of the operation in the Eisenhower administration and appeared along with headlines as C. I. A. Had a Role In Exiles’ Plans revealing the CIA’s involvement.

By the 22nd, the story was fully known with headlines in The New York Times stating that CIA is Accused by Bitter Rebels and on the second page of that day’s issue is a full article on the details of the operation from its beginnings. The conclusion one can draw from the articles in The New York Times is that if reporters knew the whole story by the 22nd, it can be expected that Castro’s intelligence service and that of the Soviet Union knew about the planned invasion as well.

Tad Szulc’s report in the April 22nd edition of The New York Times says it all, As has been an open secret in Florida and Central America for months, the C. I. A. planned, coordinated and directed the operations that ended in defeat on a beachhead in southern Cuba Wednesday. It is clear then that part of the failure of the operation was caused by a lack of security and attention to detail on the part of the Central Intelligence Agency, and misinformation given to the president.

On the international scene, the Bay of Pigs invasion lead directly to increased tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. During the invasion, messages were exchanged between Kennedy and Khrushchev regarding the events in Cuba. Khrushchev accused the Americans of being involved in the invasion and stated in one of his messages that a so-called small war can produce a chain reaction in all parts of the world . . . we shall render the Cuban people and their Government all necessary assistance in beating back the armed attack on Cuba .

Kennedy replied giving American views on democracy and the containment of communism, he also warned against Soviet involvement in Cuba saying to Khrushchev, In the event of any military intervention by outside force we will immediately honor our obligations under the inter-American system to protect this hemisphere against external aggression. Even though this crisis passed, it set the stage for the next major crisis over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba and probably led to the Soviets increasing their military support for Castro.

In the administration itself, the Bay of Pigs crisis led to a few changes. Firstly, someone had to take the blame for the affair and, as Director of Central Intelligence, Allen Dulles was forced to resign and left the CIA in November of 1961. Internally, the CIA was never the same, although it continued with covert operations against Castro, it was on a much-reduced scale. According to a report of the Select Senate Committee on Intelligence, future operations were . . . to nourish a spirit of resistance and disaffection which could lead to significant defections and other by-products of unrest.

The CIA also now came under the supervision of the president’s brother Bobby, the Attorney General. According to Lucien S. Vandenbroucke, the outcome of the Bay of Pigs failure also made the White House suspicious of an operation that everyone agreed to, made them less reluctant to question the experts, and made them play devil’s advocates when questioning them. In the end, the lessons learned from the Bay of Pigs failure may have contributed to the successful handling of the Cuban missile crisis that followed. The long-term ramifications of the Bay of Pigs invasion are a little harder to assess.

The ultimate indication of the invasion failure is that thirty-eight years later Castro is still in power. This not only indicates the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion, but American policy towards Cuba in general. The American policy, rather than undermining Castro’s support, has probably contributed to it. As with many wars, even a cold one, the leader is able to rally his people around him against an aggressor. When Castro came to power he instituted reforms to help the people and end corruption, no longer receiving help from the Soviet Union things are beginning to change.

He has opened up the Cuban economy for some investment, mainly in telecommunications, oil exploration, and joint ventures. In an attempt to stay in power, he is trying to adapt his country to the new reality of the world. Rather than suppressing the educated elite, he is giving them a place in guiding Cuba. The question is, will they eventually want more power and a right to control Cuba’s fate without Castro’s guidance and support? If the collapse of past regimes is any indication, they will eventually want more power.

When Castro came to power in 1959, the major opponents in America to him, as with Guatemala, were the business interests who were losing out as a result of his polices. The major pressure for the Americans to do something came, not only from the Cuban exiles in Florida, but from those businesses. Today, the tables are turned and businesses are loosing out because of the American embargo against Cuba. It is estimated that if the embargo were lifted, $1 billion of business would be generated for U. S. companies that first year.

Right now, 100 firms have gone to Cuba to talk about doing business there after the embargo is lifted. Given the reasons why the United States got involved in Latin American politics in the first place, it is very likely that their position will change if they can find a face saving way to do so. American policy at this time though is still stuck in the cold war, the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helms said, Whether Castro leaves Cuba in a vertical or horizontal position is up to him and the Cuban people.

But he must and will leave Cuba. The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion was caused by misinformation and mismanagement, the consequences of that were harsh embarrassing for the Americans and led to an increase in tension between the superpowers at the height of the cold war. We will only have to wait and see if the Americans have really learned their lesson and will not miss another opportunity to set things right in Cuba.

Assimilation, Adaptation, and Adjustment of Immigrants as They Enter American Culture

Must pray on Saturday and can not keep the store open, anticipate loss of business; you are Jewish. Pray in school, anticipate objections; you are Muslim. Pray to 330 million gods, anticipate fear and injustice; you are Hindu. The United States of America is a country that welcomes immigrants with open arms to live in and bring their own religions, cultures, and traditions. Over time, as different religions come to America they do the best they can to stay distinct and resist conforming their beliefs and customs to the pressures of American culture.

Sociologist Will Herberg suggested that America was not only a melting pot, but a triple melting pot that represented the faiths of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. 1 The core values shared by these three denominations represent the American ideals. That is one of the only advantages that Judaism has over the other immigrant religions. Otherwise, Jews across America have felt the hardship of not being a part of the Christian nation. It is common to see the Irish out parading on St. Patricks Day, Christians bearing palm branches on Palm Sunday; however a Jew will never be seen parading with a Torah on Simchat Torah or parading on Purim.

There is a level of equality that unfortunately has not yet been reached. There are three different categories within Judaism; Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. Orthodox is the most observant and also has not changed its doctrines since they were instilled. Reform is the least observant and has adapted to the modern world and current way of life. One of the most noticeable differences is in the Sabbath, which is heavily observed by Orthodox and moderately observed by Conservative and Reform Jews.

The Sabbath is celebrated starting at sundown Friday evening continuing until sundown on Saturday evening, while Christians celebrate only on Sunday. This causes problems when Jewish people live in communities where the majority is Christian and they do not understand the need to observe on a Saturday. If Jews own businesses, this may hurt their profits, as sales are normally heavy on Saturdays. A fear of many Jewish immigrants is that when they move to America they will lose complete faith and their Judaic roots. 3 However, not all change constitutes a loss of faith and some change promotes the greater good of all mankind.

One thing that some orthodox Jews are learning is the equality of women. In orthodox synagogues, women sit separately from men and are not considered equal in many aspects of daily life. 4 American life allows women to hold positions of power and changed the way they are perceived. One great distinction between Jewish and American lifestyles is the dietary restrictions that Jews live by. Kashrut is the term for the body of dietary law. The numerous rules outline exactly how a Jew should prepare their food, what food they can and cannot eat, and what to eat on certain occasions.

It is difficult for Jews to keep kosher in America because they have to go out of their way and shop only in kosher marts and shops. Also, dining out or eating in someone elses home is almost impossible. Mainly just the orthodox Jews are strict to most of the laws, conservative and reform Jews just try to keep the basic laws. 5 In Israel, most of the food that is available is kosher and it is much easier to follow the kashrut. There are few hardships that one has to accept knowing that they are leaving their homeland to move to a foreign nation where there rituals and traditions are not commonly carried out.

Every minority community faces a variety of challenges living in America. The American way of life is secular, and religious belief or disbelief is held to be a private matter versus a public one. Muslims face challenges that are associated with the character of Islam. The Islamic faith and its practices involve special obligations and responsibilities that shape the way Muslims as individuals and groups respond to the conditions of American society. 6 Since Islam is not just a religion, but a way of life, it is difficult to live in a society where the main religion is not Islam.

In an Islamic country, everyone dresses the same and observes all of the same practices. Americans are not educated in the teachings of Islam and may not be sympathetic to some of the demands of the faith. To pray five times a day and fast for a month out of the year can be seen as non-productive and threatening. The obligation of salat (five daily prayers), is an issue in school and in the work place. As a religion, Islam will not conform and dismiss the necessity for these prayers because they are not a part of American life. Another part of a Muslims life is their dress, specifically that of a woman.

A Muslim woman is required to cover her hair in an effort to avoid attracting men and seeming flirtatious. This necessary article of clothing has been the cause of much controversy. In many public schools around the nation Muslim girls are being ridiculed and harassed because of the way their religion asks them to dress. One girl chose to not wear her hejab (piece that covers the hair) in public as to not draw undesired attention to herself. 7 These subtle conformities show that in time Islam will reshape more and more to fit in with American society.

Hindus comprise almost fourteen percent of the worlds religion, yet they are minorities in the United States. The foreign beliefs of this religion cause them to feel alienated by American society where so much revolves around the Judeo-Christian belief in one god. Hindus mainly practice their faith in peoples homes. A group called the Organization of Hindu Malayalees (OHM) was formed in 1991 to give Hindu immigrants a means for meeting people of their faith and observing together. To be able to fit in but yet still be able to maintain ones cultural and personal integrity is the challenge every immigrant faces.

Hindu men and women have special outfits that are distinctly Hindu that they wear on certain occasions. The trouble is that the Hindus that are born in America feel embarrassed to be seen with their parents when they are wearing this traditional dress. A major concern of many Hindu parents is their childrens future marriage partners. They feel that moving to America will lead their children to marry outside the faith and abandon their religion. Many Indians came to America in search of job opportunities in hope that they will eventually bring their good fortunes with them back home.

The stay in America seems to be more permanent and Hindus need to start establishing more concrete methods of practicing their religious beliefs. Not all immigrants that come to the United States have been of non-Christian religions. Christian immigrants from all over have been reshaping the way they practice their religion to conform to American culture and norms. There are several churches across America that are specific to certain ethnicities such as German, Italian, Mexican, etc. Germans converted their public meetings into English.

These groups observed their different ways of practicing within their own churches and communities. In the Italian community of East Harlem, they have managed to keep with their native traditions in celebrating their festa. 9 As a Mexican family moves to America they must get accustomed to prayer in English and being surrounded by white Irish priests. The way Catholicism is practiced in Mexico and most Hispanic nations is stricter and less secular than the United States. 10 The common theme between all the immigrant minorities is that they will lose their sense of ethnicity when they come to America.

However, there is a fine line between losing faith and religion and losing traditions, values, and the culture of ones people. It is acceptable to adopt American ways to demonstrate loyalty to the country without sacrificing ones own identity. There are many processes whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture. Immigrant religions struggle between keeping their roots and adjusting to American culture. As these immigrants conform to American society, America also conforms around them to form a universal identity unique to the nation of America.

The Ineptitude Of The United States

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” Those are the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. Yet, slavery continued in the United States for nearly ninety years after this document declared that “all men where created equal,” and those “unalienable rights” are still not shared by everyone in the United States. The U. S. has been lacking in its responsibility to its citizens.

The state responsibility for human and civil rights must be expanded in the United States. In December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The thirty articles of the UDHR were developed to provide a clear definition of human rights. It then became the responsibility of the states of the United Nations to protect those rights. This is where the United States is lacking. The U. S. is one of the founding nations of the United Nations and one of the most influential, yet it has failed to take adequate state responsibility for human rights.

Before the ineptitude of the United States can be discussed, the concept of state responsibility for human and civil rights must be clearly defined. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines state as “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory,” and responsibility as “moral, legal, or mental accountability. ” These definitions of state and responsibility can be interpreted and combined to provide a literal definition of state responsibility. The definition of state responsibility could then be seen as “the moral and legal accountability of a government.

A concise notion of state responsibility for human and civil rights would then be congruent to “the moral and legal accountability of government for life, liberty, security, and any other finite right of a person. ” With the concept of state responsibility for human and civil rights having been defined, the extent of state responsibility in the United States can be discussed. Rhonda Copelon once noted, “the most limited conception of state responsibility [in the United States] has been essentially dismantled. ”

Copelon also made a statement to the effect that rights in the U. S. e limited to constraints on government and that they do not reach private conduct or include the most basic social and economic needs. Copelon sights the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) as an example of the limitation of rights because of the constraints of government. In the DeShaney case, a child was subject to a series of beatings by his father. Social Services stepped in and took various steps to protect the child; they did not, however, remove the child from his father’s custody. The father finally beat the child so severely that the child became mentally retarded.

For the lack of prevention of the beatings, the mother of the child and the child filed suit against Social Services. The court ruled in favor of Social Services and sited that “private violence or other mishaps are not attributable to the conduct of its [i. e. state or local government] employees. ” Chief Justice Rehnquist established the ruling of the court better when he said, “[Nothing] in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect life, liberty and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.

The clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of minimal levels of safety and security. ” What does this mean? It means that the law establishes the rights of citizens, but does not provide for a means of providing those rights. This is why Rhonda Copelon used negative as “a word that aptly describes the U. S. framework of civil rights and civil liberties in a number of ways: Rights are limited to constraints on government; they do not include the most basic social and economic needs”The United States has been lacking in other areas of state responsibility for human and civil rights.

Racial discrimination has been a part of the U. S. since its origin. W. Haywood Burns once commented on the early legal status of black Americans in the U. S. :”The legal issue of the status of black people in pre-Civil War America came to a head in 1857 in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, which proved to be one of the most important judicial decisions in the history of the black experience in the law. Dred Scott, a slave who had been taken to a free territory by his master, attempted to sue for his freedom based upon the theory that residence in a free state had made him free.

As Chief Justice Taney put it, The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? ‘The Court’s answer was, simply, No.

In ruling that Dred Scott, and by extension, any other black person, could not be a citizen under the Constitution”The Court’s decision in Scott set precedence until Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the conclusion of the Civil War. Even after Reconstruction, racism and inequality were still a part of U. S. society and law. The Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 can be used to illustrate this fact. The Plessy case resulted in a statute of “separate, but equal. ” This statue was applied to separate blacks and whites in many aspects of life, from where one could sit to what school one had to attend.

The Plessy case came long before the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but its statute was up-held until the 1955 ruling of Brown v. The Board of Education. The ruling of Brown, which overturned the Plessy ruling, found the statute of “separate is never equal. ” Even this ruling maintained an establishment of a negative framework of civil rights and civil liberties because it provided no means for action for what should be done, only a guide for what cannot be done. The inadequacies of the United States’ state responsibility are not limited to the aforementioned.

The U. S. has been lacking in many of its responsibilities to its citizens. Those responsibilities range from the quality of education to the standards of living to general welfare. Though the United States may be the only remaining “super power” on the planet, the quiescent laws of the U. S. have inhibited state responsibility for civil and human rights. If the U. S. is to move forward and join the other nations of the world, it must improve its responsibility for human and civil rights so that it can fulfil the articles established under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Contemporary Literature and the Events That Influenced It

In the last forty years there have been some key people and events that have shaped history and in turn have influenced the works of some of literatures most prolific writers. During this time period some of the most powerful speeches, poems, and literary protests were written. These works of literature were sometimes written out of necessity for the times and spoke out to all that read them. It all started in 1960 when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, become one of the youngest men ever to hold the office of president; in the eyes of many this event began a new era in history.

When John F. Kennedy was elected he inherited the task of taking over a nation that was in the middle of many tragic events. Kennedys ideas and dreams were summed up in this famous line from his election speech when he stated And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. In 1963, when John F. Kennedy was only in his third year as president, the young, well liked president was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president in the wake of the assassination (Davidson 672-675).

That same year Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous I have a dream speech. In this speech he spoke out against racism and pushed towards the future, saying I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Two years later in 1965 President Johnson made the decision that affected the United States and all U. S. citizens more than any other event during that time.

He officially sent U. S. oops into Vietnam, beginning the massacre known as the Vietnam War. (Karnow) During the Vietnam War in the United States young men and women started to protest mainly against the war, but also against the Establishmentthe values, tradition, and views of their parents. Those who rejected the Establishment became hippies, dropping out of society to live together in communes. Make love, not war, they demanded and never trust anyone over thirty. For the first time in society, drug use became widespread and young people experimented with new freedoms.

This new found freedom started the sexual revolution that depleted the former idea of marriage and family that had shaped American life for decades. Many books, movies, records, and plays broke social rules. (Barr 49-66) The largest protest of the Vietnam War and of society at the time took place in Woodstock, New York. The Woodstock music festival took place in 1969 at the height of the war. The festival included some of the biggest stars in rock-n-roll history, such as Jimi Hendrix, Santana, Jefferson Airplane, The Who, Sly and the Family Stone, and Crosby, Stills, Nash.

Woodstock is seen by a lot of people as one of the most important events in history. A lot of the music was heavily inspired by the war and brought out the emotions of all who attended and those who wished they could have. (Pascal 76-113) Another revolution and movement that was in affect in the sixties was the civil rights movement. Blacks and other minority groups demanded the same rights enjoyed by whites. These demands led to violent confrontations between white people and black people. Race riots broke out in many American cities.

Black leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X lead the way of the civil rights movement, but in 1965 the same year that The Autobiography of Malcolm X was published, Malcolm X was killed. In 1968, three years after Malcolm X was killed, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in his prime, just as John F. Kennedy was five years earlier. (Encarta Encyclopedia) At the end of the sixties in 1969, one of the dreams of John F. Kennedy came true Neil Armstrong, commander of the Apollo 11 lunar mission, took his first step on the moon.

On the night of July 20, 1969, millions of people around the world watched as Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. , stepped onto the surface of the moon for the first time. Throughout the World the phrase the Eagle has landed echoed. The Space program was initiated by John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961 and led the way for many other explorations that followed. This event ended the turbulent sixties and led the way for the seventies and eighties. (Encarta Encyclopedia) In 1973 the Vietnam War came to an end, still to this day the Vietnam War is classified by many as the war nobody won.

When the bullet fire finally stopped on both sides, there were more than 58,000 Americans killed or missing and 153,300 wounded. An additional 1. 7 million Vietnamese people were killed. The war also left the United States in debt after nearly 150 billion dollars was spent in war; this created economic problems for years to come. The affects of this war can still be seen today. If you visit Washington, D. C. you can stop by the Vietnam Memorial and remember those who fought for this country. The Memorial was dedicated on November 13, 1982, almost a decade after the United States withdrew from the war.

The dedication was attended by thousands of veterans, many of who were bitter at having been ignored when they returned home from the war. (Karnow 613) In 1974, after the Vietnam War had come to an end, another dark event in United States history took place. Following charges of a coverup of improperties during the 1972 election campaign, including a break-in at the Watergate hotel in Washington, DC, President Richard Nixon resigned, saying in his resignation speech on August 8, 1974 I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office…. By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America. Richard Nixon was the first United States president in history to resign from office. The continuing Watergate scandal and the likelihood of impeachment led Nixon to resign, although he never admitted to any wrongdoing. He was eventually pardoned for all possible crimes by his successor, President Gerald Ford. (Encarta Encyclopedia)

Although the Ford Administration did not face as many problems as past campaigns, they did face some economic problems. The largest economic problem was an oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War that caused fuel prices to soar. Ford lost the 1976 election campaign to Jimmy Carter of Georgia. The Carter Administration followed policy of promoting human rights in the Middle East. However, domestic economic troubles and the inability to deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis, in which Islamic fundamentalists in Tehran, Iran, took over the American Embassy and held occupants hostage, led to Carters defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

During his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan increased defense spending of excessive funds, which greatly boosted the countrys budget deficit and helped to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. This collapse occurred during the administration of George Bush, Reagans vice-president and successor. Bush was highly affected by the economic problems and was later defeated for reelection by Bill Clinton, despite success at the end of the Gulf War. (Davidson 699-701) After the election of President Clinton in November 1992 the United States has made major strides in many areas.

President Clinton has greatly improved the economy and the budget, he and his administration have also made many positive steps in the war on drugs and gun control. Clintons administration has also helped gain allies and improve foreign relations over his two terms in office. Presently, in the year 2000 the country seems to be in fairly good shape, growing nearer to a new election and a new administration. In the year 2000 and years beyond, it will be the job of the new administration to work towards the future and continue on the present trend of improvement.

American literature during this contemporary era has had many great works that have contributed and influenced the United States. In the sixties, many radical forms of literature and expressions took place, leading the way for performance art and other literary forms (Contemporary Literature 785). Despite the many influential works during the contemporary era, including such present-day authors as Stephen King, Michael Crichton, and Tom Clancey, the so-called classics that will be studied for years to come have not yet been determined.

The Contemporary Era is still in progress and is still advancing in literature. The continuation of this era may produce historic authors that will be remembered and studied forever such as William Shakespeare was to the Renaissance Era. Like the historic works of Civil War authors, the writers of the Contemporary Era will be remembered most for how it influenced the literary works and what will inspire those who read them in the future.

Prohibition and the Roaring Twenties

The Roaring Twenties can be described as a period of American history during which people crossed the line, smashed tradition, and broke boundaries. A brand new culture was created during this period, with jazz, money, the flapper, gangster wars, loose morals, speakeasies, and last but not least, an abundance of liquor. The decade was also called the New Era, the New Freedom, the Jazz Age, the Golden Era, the Lawless Decade, or the Dry Decade. The last title was a joke- the twenties were far from dry.

This is the reason why the 1920’s were given names that described America’s lax view of the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act. The laws were literally ignored for the 13 years that they were in effect. Prohibition was meant to cause a nationwide revolution in morality. In actuality, it did quite the opposite. Prohibition law itself had the greatest effect on the culture of the “roaring twenties,” and the carefree lifestyle and feeling of rebellion and invincibility can both be connected to prohibition. The change in American lifestyle began even before the prohibition law was passed.

Several months prior to January 16, 1920 (when the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act were scheduled to go into effect), there were warehouse robberies, stocking up of cellars with liquor, and burglaries of these cellars. Some called it the beginning of the age of hijacking. (Chidsey 73) However, the law affected neither alcohol consumption nor the brewing and distilling companies. At the close of the nineteenth century, the annual per capita consumption of distilled liquors in America was more than one gallon, of wine slightly less than half a gallon, and of malt liquors more than sixteen gallons.

At the time of Prohibition there were 177, 790 saloons in the United States, 1217 legal breweries , 507 legal distilleries, and countless illegal ones. Together the brewers and distillers made up almost a billion- dollar industry- the fifth largest in the country. (Chidsey 58-59) In the early 1900’s when Prohibition was imminent, brewers supported the saloonkeepers as much as customers did. A beer company would finance a saloonkeeper if he agreed to only sell his sponsor’s beer. Problems arose, however, when other saloons began to stay open on Sundays and after closing hours to make more money.

If the first saloonkeeper wanted to stay open, he would be force to pay off the cops. If he didn’t stay open late, he would go out of business. (Chidsey 59-60) During Prohibition, the same ideology applied to the speakeasies. Generally, Americans had always been viewed as a law abiding people (Chidsey 79). This changed with the advent of Prohibition. Take for example Speakeasies. These illegal saloons were the cause of much crime, and a newfound immorality in people. As these speakeasies competed for business, they began to provide prostitutes and drugs.

They served minors if the minors had money to spend, and there were gambling tables. This was new corrupt thinking in American society, and it contributed to the carefree behavior of the roaring twenties, as is explained later. Bootleggers were also common during Prohibition. These criminals seemed like normal men, because they had the idea that lawbreaking, in this case, was okay to do. (Chidsey 80) The rest of the nation shortly adopted the same thinking. They found breaking the Prohibition law (and eventually, other laws) to be painless, comfortable, and exciting.

People including women and teenagers, began visiting their homey neighborhood speakeasy regularly. The population of cities grew at 1. 5% each year due to “country boys and girls leaving the farm for the excitement of Sodom. ” (Chidsey 63) Women had been barred from drinking places before Prohibition, so they went without encouragement to the speakeasies. They were curious, and as eager to break the law and try out their new freedom as the men were. Prohibition helped the advancement of women’s rights in two ways.

First, the drys (members of the Prohibition movement or party) tried to help women in their quest for suffrage because they believed that women would vote overwhelmingly dry. (Perrett 177) Second, speakeasies welcomed women equally with men, as long as they paid the same price for a drink. With this new freedom came the flapper and her unrestricted morals. Women began to drink and participate in wild behavior. Their appearance changed: they wore silk in place of cotton, rolled their hose, wore short skirts, bobbed their hair, and applied more makeup. They were slender and boyish.

Due to their freedom in drinking, with a little push from Freud’s writing, they loosened their sexual morals as well. Petting parties were not uncommon. Perrett describes a couple in a speakeasy: ” The sheik [young male] carried a hip flask, his sheba [girlfriend] a cigarette holder” (Perrett 152) Women who came into the speakeasies with their boyfriend or husband were nto the only girls that populated the bars. There were also less respectable women who sometimes rented rooms attached to the speakeasies and advertised their sales inside the saloons.

The prostitution in the speakeasies sometimes was condemned more than the selling and buying of liquor (Sann 195). Speakeasies purposely had girls for the use of their lonely customers. They were known as “cigaret” (sic) girls or checkroom girls. Not only the women and the youth were defying Prohibition with their rebellious ways, but middle-aged and reputable people were also taking parting flouting the law. On November 22, 1926, Time published a formula for making gin that was decent tasting (Perett 175).

Alice Roosevelt Longworth, the wife of the speaker of the House of Representatives, humbly admitted, ” We had a small still” (Perett 175). The fact that police disobeyed Prohibition and overlooked speakeasies should not be forgotten either. As the wet (anti-Prohibition) ignored Prohibition, so too they abandoned the traditional churches that backed temperance or the Anti Saloon League. Throughout the twenties there was a steady decline in the spirit of religious belief. Individual gifts to religious charities dropped by 40 percent. Churches in the cities and countries reported declining attendance.

Ernest Gordon said in his 1943 book The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment that the anti-clerical image of the ministry found in the twenties was due to the wet interests: “The Protestant ministers have for years been the ones to clean up after the distillers and brewers. They have helped the alcohol-sick at their own doors and in little missions,” and for this they have suffered “an attack unparalleled in American history, in movie and theatre, in novel, and magazine and newspaper. ” (Carter 94-95)

United Mine Workers president Tom L. Lewis said, “There is no easier way possible to make the unfortunate man, or the oppressed worker, content with his misfortune that couple of glasses of beer. ” (Carter 90) Carter also postulates that ” If the working man in America of that period had largely left the church, as the statistics indicate that he had, then perhaps religion had been displaced by a more powerful – or at least more cognenial – opiate for the people! ” (Carter 90) It was true that the religious faiths seemed increasingly out of place in the new lifestyle and behaviors of the American people.

The new vivacity of the twenties constantly being fueled by the illegal booze, which was acquired in many ways. Some prescription alcohol was stolen out of government warehouses to satisfy the need, although, near the end of Prohibition, it was poisoned to prevent such happenings. Many people concocted their own “bathtub gin” in glass gallon jugs or bottles, filled with one-third grain alcohol (bought from the neighborhood bootlegger), a few drops of glycerin and juniper juice, and bathtub tap water to fill the rest of the bottle (Chidsey 111-112 and Perett 175-176).

Viniculturists were also doing business with their grapes. Wine greapes were selling at twenty dollars a ton at the beginning of the Prohibition Era. Within the next six years the price jumped to $175 a ton, and demand was steadily increasing (Chidsey 82). However, the bootlegger was by far the chief sourc of booze in the Prohibition years. Organized crime did not begin with Prohibition; it became much better organized (Perett 401). When Prohibition came, hundreds of mobsters went straight into bootlegging. They made millions on illegal traffic in liqour.

Dion O’Banion was a classic gangster of the times. He controlled liquor sales in the north side of Chicago. His rival was the Syndicate, headed by Al Capone and Johnny Torrio, who took the profits from booze in all parts and suburbs of Chicago except the north side. Members of the Syndicate later killed Dion O’Banion. Gangsters killings were the result of the beer and whiskey feuds of the twenties. Murder rose dramatically in some areas in the twenties, but this was not all due to the gangs. Murder generally increased in proportion to population increase.

Gang wars such as these were ever been brougght about by Prohibition (Chidsey 119). Without Prohibition, the bootleggers would be unfamiliar to people, and nearly every gangster started with the illegal sale of beer and liquor (Chidsey 119). To some extent, the public did not protest against the gangs, because they knew ” that the modern crime gangs provided quality booze. ” (Chidsey 402). The speakeasies that these gangsters commanded eventually evolved into the nightclubs that were typical of the roaring twenties.

Prohibition had killed off the old fashioned cabarets. The night clubs took their place, with small tables, hard liquor instead of wine, loud entertainment, and a tiny dance floor. A new form of prostitution also helped the nightclub boom. This was usually attributed to Prohibition (Perrett 154). The girls were forced off the streets and out of the brothels, but they prospered in the new nightclubs where they were now known as “hostesses. ” (Perrett154). Nightclubs made their money by exclusiveness.

The more aloof the nightclub, the higher the admission price, and the freer the spending inside (Perrett 176). This is one way that the American began spending more money, a characteristic of twenties culture. Jazz had its beginnings in the nightclubs of Harlem. People went to the Harlem nightclubs to drink and dance, and jazz caught on. The new music grew into other nightclubs, cities, towns and eventually all across America as people enjoyed the music that was making them as happy as the illegal drink they were holding.

Prohibition also caused a class separation in the twenties. The upper class had supported Prohibition in order to save the workers by denying them drink. They didn’t intend for it to apply to them as well. Also, only the rich were able to store up beer and liquor for the dry days. During Prohibition, the illegal alcohol grew very expensive, and was sometimes out of the working man’s price range. (Perrett 177). In this way, productivity increased during Prohibition, because it had “cut down sharply on absenteeism, especially on Monday mornings.

This caused workers to turn to other, safer amusements than drinking, like radio, movies, and automobiles. (Perrett 178) All of these amusements advanced at lightning rate during the Prohibition Era. The Anti-Saloon League foresaw a much better America with the cork on the bottle. However , both wets and drys agreed that Prohibition did not work. The overall attitude during that time is appropriately expressed by the term scofflaw, which defined a Prohibition law violator. (Chidsey 110) Prohibition shaped the roaring twenties in numerous ways.

It promoted the rebellion because people thought that it violated their right to live by heir own standards and do what they wanted to do (and drink when they wanted to drink). By breaking the law frequently, American people developed slack morals, and felt that they were above the law. Women felt more freedom because they were also accepted in the illegal bars. Jazz, the music of the twenties, was created in the nightclubs that sprouted from speakeasies. People also spent more money in these nightclubs. Gangsters and their beer wars developed as a result of Prohibition.

Introduction To Federalism

Federalism is the form of government in the united states where separate states are united under one central authority but with specific powers granted to both components in a written constitution . Patrick Henry coined the word in 1788 when, during the Virginia ratification convention debates over the proposed U. S Constitution ,he angrily asked, Is this federalism?. In 1787 the constitution replaced it with another, more balanced, version that has worked for over two centuries.

During the time, however the history of federalism has been incessantly disrupted by a constant debate between those who wanted to enlarge the central government and those who demanded that states rights be strictly respected and even expanded. During Reconstruction the war argument over the use of federal power erupted in violence against newly enfranchised blacks and Republican government in the South . In the late nineteenth century the federal government retreated from its temporary expansion of power in saving the Union and trying to remake the South.

Whether in tolerating state created racial segregation or striking down federal efforts to regulate the new industrial order, the federal courts limited federal authority in many areas of public life. At the beginning of the twentieth century progressive reformers wanted to enlarge the role of the federal government and solve glaring economic and social problems. With mixed success they sought federal legislation to regulate the workplace, protect labor unions, and promote moral improvement.

During the 1930s the new deal redefined federalism and saved the economy by recognizing federal responsibility over many areas of public and private activity that previously had been unregulated or solely the purview of the states, Including banking, the stock exchanges, and the workplace. In the last half of the twentieth century federalism was the central issue in both black and womens civil rights. It was at the heart of a redefinition of criminal justice by the Warren Court .

The liberal interpretation of it by this court in turn became the target of a conservative attempt to diminish congressional power under the doctrine of original intent and to use the federal judiciary to return more authority to state and local government. At the beginning of the third millennium, the Supreme Court was bitterly divided over states rights, with five justices generally seeking to curtail the application of laws and four justices insisting upon upholding Congresss power to apply the Bill of Rights to the states to prevent them from infringing on an individuals constitutional rights.

When America declared independence from Great Britain in July 1776, it changed the historical English definition of sovereignty. As Bernard Bailyn, Gordon S. Wood, and other historians have pointed out, the American patriots made a radical and abrupt departure from the British tradition by stating in the Declaration of Independence that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed and thereby placed sovereignty in the people.

In the British system it had resided in Parliament, but in the new state constitutions of the 1770s and 1780s Americans, recognizing sovereignty of the people, made the rulers subordinate to the ruled. The initial call for a convention had been only to revise the Articles, not to discard them out of hand and devise a totally new form of government. Stanley Elkins and Eric McKitrick pointed out in their 1993 study that the Age of Federalism was legitimate. (Written by Robert P. Sutton, Federalism-page 5. )

The federalists, better organized and more imaginative, had their selling point s, best summarized in the The Federalist, a series of essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay for the New York ratification contest. Their main concern was to show how the Constitution contained checks on Congress. Ironically, in the last half of the twentieth century federalism became the center of a Supreme Court controversy over the very racial segregation it had sanctioned in Plessy v. Ferguson. By World War II racial separation was a salient feature of the American South.

American foreign policy in WWI

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U. S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class.

Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion. To understand the United States’ involvement in these wars, we must first be aware of the role each of these policies plays within our nation and the importance of these four objectives to the American people. Democracy, which is the classic liberal political tradition, ensures the right of the people to determine their own government and is the foundation upon which our nation was founded.

Manifest Destiny is defined as the responsibility to work to living in social harmony, or the belief that the U. S. is to show everyone how to live best in mutual striving and social harmony. Humanitarianism is described as the doctrine of ethics and humility toward the welfare of mankind worldwide. Economic expansion refers to increasing the American market overseas, which in turn guarantees jobs for the American middle class. These four objectives have been key factors in the defining and shaping of our country throughout its history, and they continue to influence our nation on the global spectrum as we enter the 21st century.

The U. S. ’ involvement in World Wars I and II did not occur immediately following the beginning of the wars. Rather, in WWI, President Wilson, who had built his re-election campaign around the slogan, “he kept us out of war,” entered the U. S. into WWI shortly after his re-election. Although Wilson had not specifically promised to keep the country out of war, he declared that only a negotiated “peace without victory” would prove durable (Bailey, 722). Unfortunately, when the German U-boats sank four unarmed American ships, Wilson was left with no choice than to ask Congress for a declaration of war.

Primary objectives of entering the U. S. into the war were not primarily to seek revenge on Germany. Wilson’s more important goal was to preserve democracy within the U. S. and restore manifest destiny to a war-torn world. Furthermore, the U. S. foreign policy of economic expansion contributed to the U. S. ’ involvement in WWI due to the fact that tensions were built around both global trade and trade routes used prior to the war. The British propaganda papers played a part in American humanitarianism as the U. S. eceived word of inhumane treatment by German soldiers of many European civilians.

Although the papers were propaganda, the U. S. felt a moral obligation to help those in need. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose primary objectives were both similar to and different from Wilson’s, entered the U. S. into WWII after the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. His two major concerns for doing this were his obligation to protect American democracy, and to increase economic expansion, which had ceased to exist in the decade prior to WWII as a result of the Great Depression.

Although all four major foreign policy objectives played a role in the U. S. ’ entrance into WWII, I will explore these two policies in depth using speeches of FDR’s that provide his rationale for U. S. involvement. Roosevelt knew that entrance into the war would help boost the crippled economy of the U. S. both at home and abroad. Again, humanitarianism for unfair treatment of citizens in other countries concerned Americans and contributed to U. S. involvement in the war. Concentration camps set up by Nazis, and the inhumane treatment of Jews, were of grave concern for the U. S. as millions of innocent lives were being taken.

So, once again it was our responsibility to show the rest of the world how to live in social harmony with one another, playing the role of global policeman, intervening in foreign crisis in hopes of restoring global and protecting our own domestic tranquility. U. S. involvement in the Cold War did not occur due to any aggressive physical action launched against our nation. Rather, it was the antagonistic views between the U. S. and Soviet Union’s beliefs of universal qualifications of it’s own particular ideology which brought the two countries head to head over a war-torn Europe which once had been the center of world affairs (Bailey, 891).

This tense standoff, known as the Cold War lasted four and a half decades. I will explore the importance of protecting democracy within our own nation, as many citizens feared the spread of communism, and felt the threats both globally and domestically with its expansion. Both humanitarianism and manifest destiny were contributing factors to U. S. ’ involvement in this “war of words” and I will investigate both these objectives more in depth through both the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. “The world must be made safe for democracy.

It’s peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty” (Wilson, Decl. War Germany). This statement was made by Wilson in his declaration of war on Germany speech upon the U. S. entrance into WWI. He stresses the importance of a world that is safe for democracy and the foundation of political liberty, which it was built upon. Without preservation of democracy our nation would lose the classical liberalism in which it was formed, shredding the people’s guaranteed right to rule themselves.

Without democracy, not only would our government crumble, but we would also lose the strength and security upon which our nation prides itself. “We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states” (Wilson, Decl War Germ).

Through this statement, Wilson addresses the foreign policy objective of manifest destiny and the importance of the U. S. entrance into WWI as our country must set the example to standards of conduct and punishments or misconduct to other nations of the world. “We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce” (FDR, 4 Freedoms). As mentioned earlier, Roosevelt was primarily concerned with the safety of American democracy after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This was because our national security was being tested.

If our nation was to prevail as one, we must not allow another country to threaten our own well-being, as it would surely lead to a hindering of our democratic system. Within this statement, FDR also addresses the reasons for U. S. participation in the two World Wars as also being preservation of peaceful commerce, which is defined by the foreign policy objective of economic expansion. Preservation of peaceful commerce, which came as a result of both wars, was a key factor in ensuring the U. S. ’ economic growth out of the Great Depression. Without entrance into WWII, it is not certain when the U. S. would have pulled out of the depression.

When President Truman confronted Congress in March of 1947, he asserted that, “The foreign policy and national security of this country are involved. One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey. . that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation” (Truman Doctrine). In his doctrine, Truman expresses his fear of a revived isolationism and the Communist threat to European countries. Once again our nation’s security of democracy would be threatened by Communist proliferation throughout Europe.

Truman’s plan to assist European countries at the request of their government reiterates the American foreign policy of humanitarianism as our government would not allow a country to be overtaken by another’s government without U. S. intervention. Furthermore, manifest destiny suggests that the U. S. must intervene and aide these struggling European governments so that they might be able to once again live in social harmony with each other without undue Communist influence. Shortly after the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan was established.

Within the Marshall Plan, all four foreign policies are addressed with special concentration on manifest destiny in order that we might assist European governments. Upon the rebuilding of Europe, the U. S. was once again able to expand its economic markets. In closing, I will discuss the importance of these four major foreign policy objectives as they apply to the middle class. Since the closing of the 19th century the middle class has emerged into the largest class in our society. With the four previously discussed policies, or ideals in place, the middle class would improve and become stronger, which it has.

Otherwise, without protection of U. S. oreign policy, our nations economy and power would deflate, sinking the middle class to becoming a poor working class. Fortunately, our nations leaders sought to protect and uphold foreign policy through out the decades, and as a result turned our society into one built on the foundations of the middle class. Emphasizing diligence in work and in savings, daily life lived on a strong moral basis, and education as the key to economic success, which has emerged into the cornerstone of the U. S. and its people through out the twentieth century.

Freedom in the United States

No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression. When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through obscenity or racism. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history.

The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion. It also prevents the government from “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. ” Since the early history of our country, the protection of basic freedoms has been of the utmost importance to Americans. In Langston Hughes’ poem, “Freedom,” he emphasizes the struggle to enjoy the freedoms that he knows are rightfully his. He reflects the American desire for freedom now when he says, “I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.

I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread. ” He recognizes the need for freedom in its entirety without compromise or fear. I think Langston Hughes captures the essence of the American immigrants’ quest for freedom in his poem, “Freedom’s Plow. ” He accurately describes American’s as arriving with nothing but dreams and building America with the hopes of finding greater freedom or freedom for the first time. He depicts how people of all backgrounds worked together for one cause: freedom. I selected Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 as a fictitious example of the evils of censorship in a world that is becoming lliterate.

In this book, the government convinces the public that book reading is evil because it spreads harmful opinions and agitates people against the government. The vast majority of people accept this censorship of expression without question and are content to see and hear only the government’s propaganda. I found this disturbing yet realistic. Bradbury’s hidden opposition to this form of censorship was apparent throughout the book and finally prevailed in the end when his main character rebelled against the practice of burning books. Among the many forms of protests are pickets, strikes, public peeches and rallies.

Recently in New Jersey, more than a thousand community activists rallied to draft a “human” budget that puts the needs of the poor and handicapped as a top priority. Rallies are an effective means for people to use their freedoms effectively to bring about change from the government. Freedom of speech is constantly being challenged as is evidenced in a recent court case where a Gloucester County school district censored reviews of two R-rated movies from a school newspaper. Superior Court Judge, Robert E. Francis ruled that the student’s rights were violated under the state Constitution.

I feel this is a major break through for students’ rights because it limits editorial control of school newspapers by educators and allows students to print what they feel is important. A newly proposed bill (A-557) would prevent school officials from controlling the content of student publications. Critics of the bill feel that “student journalists may be too young to understand the responsibilities that come with free speech. ” This is a valid point; however, it would provide an excellent opportunity for them to learn about their First Amendment rights that guarantees free speech and freedom of the press.

In his commencement address to Monmouth College graduates, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School defended the broad right to free speech. He stated, “My message to you graduates is to assert your rights, to use them responsibly and boldly, to oppose racism, to oppose sexism, to oppose homophobia and bigotry of all kinds and to do so within the spirit of the First Amendment, not by creating an exception to it. ” I agree that one should feel free to speak openly as long as it does not directly or indirectly lead to the harm of others. One of the more controversial issues was the recent 2 Live

Crew incident involving obscenity in rap music. Their record, “As Nasty as They Wanna Be,” was ruled obscene in federal court. They were acquitted of the charges and quickly became a free speech martyr. Although many stores pulled the album, over two million copies sold as a result of the incident. I feel that in this case the principles of free speech have been abused because young children can purchase and listen to this obscene music. The American flag, symbol of our country’s history and patriotism, has also become a topic of controversy. The controversy was over the right to burn the flag without punishment.

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan offered the response that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. ” Burning the flag is considered a form of symbolic speech and therefore is protected under the First Amendment. As in the 2 Live Crew case, I feel that we are protecting the wrong people in this case. The minority is given precedence at the sacrifice of the majority. The book, American Voices, is a collection of essays on the reedom of speech and censorship.

I chose to put this collection of essays into my book because they represent the strong central theme of freedom of expression as the cornerstone of American government, culture and life. Each essay strongly defends a case for free commercial speech. Each was generally in favor of fewer limitations on freedom of expression. The American voice on freedom has been shaped throughout the course of history by the initial democratic notions of the immigrants to the same desire for greater freedom that we have today. The freedom of speech has constantly been challenged and will continue to e challenged in the future.

It is important that we learn from the precedented cases of the past of our constitutionally protected rights so that in the future authority will not violate our freedoms or oppress our liberty. Ever since colonial times, the protection of personal freedoms in the United States has been significantly important. Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison.

The applications of the personal reedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history. In Colonial America, members of diverse nationalities had opposing views on government, religion, and other subjects of interest. Serious confrontations were prevented because of the vast lands that separated groups of varying opinions.

A person could easily settle in with other like believers and be untouched by the prejudices and oppression of others. For this reason, Unitarians avoided Anglican or Puritan communities. Quakers and Anabaptists were confined to Pennsylvania and Rhode Island while Catholics were mainly concentrated in Maryland. As the United States grew larger and larger, these diverse groups were forced to live together. This may have caused individual liberties to be violated because of the distrust and hostile feelings between ethnic and religious groups.

Most of the initial assemblies among the colonies considered hemselves immune from criticism. They actually issued warrants of arrest, interrogated, fined, and imprisoned anyone accused of libeling the assembly as a whole or any of its members. Many people were tracked down for writing or speaking works of offense. The first assembly to meet in America, the Virginia House of Burgesses, stripped Captain Henry Spellman of his rank when he was found guilty of “treasonable words. ” Even in the most tolerant colonies, printing was strictly regulated.

The press of William Bradford was seized by the government when he printed up a copy of the colony’s charter. He was charged with seditious libel and spent more than a year in prison. A more famous incident was the trial of John Peter Zenger which established the principle of a free press. In his newspaper he published satirical ballads regarding William Cosby, the unpopular governor, and his council. His media was described “as having in them many things tending to raise seditions and tumults among the people of this province, and to fill their minds with a contempt for his majesty’s government.

The grand jury did not indict Zenger and the General Assembly refused to take action. The defendant was acquitted n the basis that in cases of libel the jury should judge both law and the facts. James Alexander was the first colonial writer to develop a philosophy on the freedom of speech. He founded the American Philosophical Society and masterminded the Zenger defense. Alexander’s chief conviction was “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar in a free government: when this support is taken away, the constitution is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins.

The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected by the states. However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest objection to the ratification of the Constitution. Less than a decade after the Bill of Rights had been adopted it met its first serious challenge. In 1798, there was a threat of war with France and thousands of French refugees were living in the United States. Many radicals supported the French cause and were considered “incompatible with social order.

This hysteria led Congress to enact several alien and sedition laws. One law forbade the publication of false, scandalous or malicious writing against the government, Congress or the President. The penalty for this crime was a $2,000 fine and two years in prison. The public was enraged at these laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison pleaded for freedom of speech and the press. The alien and sedition laws became a prime issue in the presidential election of 1800. Soon after Jefferson was elected, the Sedition Act expired and those who had been convicted under it were immediately pardoned.

The next attack on the First Amendment occurred in 1835. President Andrew Jackson proposed a law that would prohibit the use of mail for “incendiary publications intended to instigate the slaves to insurrection. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina led a special committee that opposed the proposal on grounds that it conflicted with the First Amendment. The proposal was defeated because it was a form of censorship. The next violation of the principles contained in the First Amendment came on January 2, 1920.

Under the direction of A. Mitchell Palmer, Woodrow Wilson’s Attorney General, about 500 FBI agents and police raided 3,000 Russians and other European immigrants, looking for Communists to deport. The victims were arrested without warrants, homes were ransacked, personal property was seized, and they were auled off to jail. An even more vicious episode was known as “McCarthyism,” an incident in the 1950’s when Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin proclaimed that the federal government had been thoroughly infiltrated by Communist agents.

His attacks on United States information libraries abroad led to the burning of some books accused of being Communist propaganda. Reduced congressional support caused many librarians to resign and the closing of libraries. On the morning of December 16, 1965, thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker went to school in Des Moines, Iowa. She and her fifteen ear old brother, John, had decided to wear black armbands as a protest to the Vietnam War. In advance to their arrival, the principal had decided that any student wearing an arm- band would be told to remove it, stating that, “The schools are no place for demonstrations.

If the student refused, he would be suspended until the armband was permanently removed. On December 16, the Tinkers refused to remove their armbands. They were suspended and did not return to school until after January 1, when by a previous decision the protest had ended. The students brought suit in federal court to confirm their First Amendment right to wear the black armbands. They lost in The Federal District Court on grounds that this type of symbolic expression might disturb school discipline.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was divided equally (44) so the decision remained unchanged. On February 24, 1969, the United States Supreme Court decided in the students’ favor by a vote of 7 to 2. The Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District decision was a landmark case for students’ rights and liberties. Speaking for the majority of the Court, Justice Abe Fortas wrote, “It can hardly be argued that either students or eachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

During the sixties and early seventies a new wave of court battles for First Amendment freedoms emerged. The freedom of speech was recognized as a vital element in a democratic society. Censorship and the infringement of First Amendment rights, especially among students and their newspapers, could not and would not be tolerated. American citizens took a firm stand against the government and authority at important times when they could have yielded to the oppressive violations of their rights.

The Biggest Conference

Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the biggest conference since July 4, 1776. I come to you today to inform you of a new relationship we have formed with our neighboring country Canada. Many of you know that experiments of cloning have been becoming more and more elaborate with each year and some of you know that a number of these experiments have been successful. I am here today to tell you that one of our neighboring countries have perfected this process. We on the other hand have not. Canada perfected the entire process of cloning in 2047.

Being the quiet peaceful country 52 years ago, the United States government saw this new knowledge as no threat and decided to keep the information from the American people. However, it has become a threat. One week ago, Canada sent cloned troops towards the United States in hopes to overthrow our government. American troops were also sent for retaliation. Unfortunately because the United States has not properly funded our cloning program over the past few decades, hopes of victory have diminished to very slim chances.

Over the past few days, the Canadian clones have wiped out two-thirds of our American forces. Since every clone can be reproduced once destroyed, this battle has become an inevitable loss to the United States. On this basis, the United States government and all officials with influence on our society have decided to surrender to Canada so that no more lives will be lost. It is a sad day and probably the last of the United States of America. Under the terms set for surrender the border between Alaska, Canada, and the United States shall be dropped.

A new country shall be formed entitled UNITED CANADA. Clones have been enabled to use deadly force to insure the protection of others so panicking will only insure ones death. Our economies will merge, as will our governmental systems. All risk-taking jobs shall be abolished and will be worked only by clones. Clones will become our new police force, firemen, armed forces, navy, army, National Guard, coast guard, marines, et cetera. The border between Canada and the United States is being removed as we speak and the border between all other countries and us has been closed.

Canadians and Canadian clones are one their way south this very moment. Please do not put up any resistance to this movement for already too many lives have been lost. Everyone except those who are employed by the county, state, or United States government will have only minor changes in their every day lives. All United States government, state, and county officials will be relieved of their jobs and must report to the formerly secret base 719 in Toronto, our new capital.

You will then be cloned and your clone will then replace you at your current job. Toronto officials will assign a more useful occupation to you. These are all the orders we have received from Toronto so far. I will keep you up to date, as further details become available. As my last word as an influential member of this changing society, I wish you all the best of luck with your new government and I hope that we can merge together without any resisting bodies. Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to United Canada.

The State Of Colorado

This is a travelers guide to the state of Colorado. Colorado is a unique and interesting place to visit. If the reader would want to go to Colorado, this is the report to read. This report has both statistics and fun things to go and do.

Colorado is state of mountains and hills. Colorado is the highest of the states elevation at over 14,000 feet high. Many people visit Colorado each year. Many of the people that visit here are outdoor enthusiasts, skiers, and people just wanting to go on a get away vacation. This state offers numerous things to go, see, and do.

For the outdoor enthusiasts, Colorado has: many mountains to hike on, trails to walk on, nature centers to visit, and many other possibilities to do. The skiers have many mountains on top of other mountains to choose from to ski on. “Skiing is the major money making factor for Colorado.” -Comptons Interactive Encyclopedia. The people that just want to get away from the everyday hustle and bustle, find it comforting to retreat to nature for a quiet and peaceful vacation.

The information is unlimited. It just depends on what you want to find. “In Colorado, its biggest city is its capitol.” -World Book Atlas 1993. The capitol of Colorado is Denver. Some of the attractions Colorado offers is: skiing, hiking, and exploring. These play a major role in Colorados economic progression. The land in Colorado is rocky and steep basically all over. This does not make it a very good place to farm or raise livestock. (Unless you raise Mountain goats) Although it is not good agriculturally, Colorado is a beautiful place to see.

The recreation in Colorado is ideal for the outdoors (wo)man. The major sports end of the recreation has: football (Denver Broncos),basketball (Denver Nuggets), and baseball (Colorado Rockies). A popular sport stadium to visit is Mile High stadium, home of the Denver Broncos. Skiing is also a very popular activity in Colorado. Many thousand people visit the ski facilities of Colorado each year. “It is the best ski area in the United States,” many skiers say. Two of the major resorts in Colorado are Aspen and Vail. Aspen is a loose and carefree kind of resort. While Vail is more of a family resort to go to.

“The latest form of recreation in the in the skiing department is the ski board. The ski board is just what the name says, it is a pair of skis as well as a snowboard. There are to units that make up this “marvel of modern technology,” the skis hook together to form a board. The bindings then slide into a different position to work both ways. This enables people to hike up trails, and set the board up, and snowboard down. Many people have been buying these skiboards and using them to go on mountain treks.” – P.E. T.V. Skiing is the main basis of my report. In the itinerary, the majority of the things done involved skiing of some sort.

There are many other tourist attractions in Colorado. Like said above, skiing is a major attraction in Colorado. Some of the other things in Colorado to do are; The U.S. Mint offers a educational view of the money making process. Many people visit this site each year. There are millions of coins produced each year at the mint.

Although Colorado is not a good place to grow crops, it has other resources it depends on. These such resources contribute to the well being of the economy. The mountains provide raw material to mine. The forests are numerous, this is great for the logging company. This is also a major contributor to the economy .By selling the wood to mills, who then sell to people who need it, and then it pays back the workers to form a perfect cycle of distribution.

Colorado has many rest areas such as hotels. Although, no information could be found on any specific ones, but they should have: Holiday Inns, Best Westerns, Comfort Inns, Red Roof Inns, Nights Inn, Ramada Inns, and Holiday Inns. The prices on these may be a bit more than those in Ohio, because of location.

The eating places are numberless. Colorado has many places to eat like any other place. “Some of these smoke free restaurants are: (Denver) Caf Paradiso, Kates, New Orient, Viaggio, Walnut Caf, Bluepoint, Cinnobon, Genhas Khan, Healthy Habits, Kokoro, Mint Caf, Mountain Tower Caf, Steak Escape, and Yoshio to name a few, (Aspen) Aspen Grove Caf, Bahn Thai, Poppycocks, and The Silver City Grill, (Vail) Carrot Top, Daily Grind, LOstello, Sweet Basil, Terra Bistro, and The Wild Flower.”-Colorado Guide to Smoke-Free Dinning. The prices of these fine restaurants are a little on the high side, but it is worth it to spend a little more on a vacation of a life.

Like the other information, travel information was not found. This report has the best it could find though. “When flying, use only America Airlines. The fastest way to get where you want to go.” -Commercial. The price like most, will set the cash flow back a couple of hundred dollars.

US – Ukraine Relations

Recently with the Ukrainian presidential elections, the relationship between the U. S. and the Ukraine has come to the forefront of International policy. Ukraine has been making strides in reformatting its government and culture in a change from communism to democracy. Already they have changed from a command to free market, to an ownership society, and the consolidation of powers should be coming along smoothly with the new president. Lastly, the Ukrainian government has shown its willingness to work with western countries by aligning some polices with the E. U. , N. A. T. O. , and the U. S.

This willingness was also proven in their part in the signing of the START treaty and the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Currently Ukraine has a plethora of natural resources, arable land, and a willing workforce. This combination, with the right economic stimulus can flourish creating a stable and extremely potent economy. In order limit the Russian influence in the area, we must send economic stimulus packages to revitalize the Ukrainian industries. This has already shown promise with the Gore- Kuchma commission and should be continued.

Simultaneously it is important that we begin forming a strong trade relationship, focusing on limiting the Ukraine’s need for Russia, by providing an alternate means for goods. It is important that the U. S. insures Ukrainian independence from Russia. If the Ukraine became part of Russia, not only would Russia obtain the worlds leading supplier of ICBMs, But other countries part of the former Soviet Union are at risk of losing their independence. Russia’s interest in the region has recently come to light during the election scandal of 2004.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin strongly supported candidate Yanukovych in the election. Yanukovych’s main policies dealt with “Russifying the Ukraine”, and obviously the west did not support this. On the other hand, Yanukovych’s opponent Yushchenko supports more western based ideas. During the investigation into the voter fraud, it is important to point out the massive public protest to the outcome of the election, the so called Orange Revolution. This protest against the government shows the peoples’ want for a democratic government and willingness to fight the government using industry strikes and sit ins.

Another important point was the poisoning of Yushchenko which was linked to the KGB and the Russian government. The results of this election shows the need for the United States to help wean the Ukrainian government off of Russian influence. Another way to limit Russian influence on Ukraine is to support their entry into the E. U. and N. A. T. O. If the Ukraine was able to enter these organizations, it would help lead to boom in their economy and largely eliminate their Russian dependance.

US- Ukraine RelationsBecause of the likelihood of their entrance into both organizations, the U. S. eds to begin to form lasting ties to them. Also because of their abundance of natural resources, a strong trade relationship would be mutually beneficial, but only after economic and diplomatic aid packages were sent. Ukraine is more likely to establish a long term trade relationship with the U. S. if their economy is in good shape, and their government is stable. If we begin to trade with the Ukrainian government, then after the next election they decide to align more with Russian, all our work was in vain. Therefore it is important to aid Ukraine first and establish a strong lasting trade relationship.

American foreign policy in WWI

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U. S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class.

Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion. To understand the United States’ involvement in these wars, we must first be aware of the role each of these policies plays within our nation and the importance of these four objectives to the American people. Democracy, which is the classic liberal political tradition, ensures the right of the people to determine their own government and is the foundation upon which our nation was founded.

Manifest Destiny is defined as the responsibility to work to living in social harmony, or the belief that the U. S. is to show everyone how to live best in mutual striving and social harmony. Humanitarianism is described as the doctrine of ethics and humility toward the welfare of mankind worldwide. Economic expansion refers to increasing the American market overseas, which in turn guarantees jobs for the American middle class. These four objectives have been key factors in the defining and shaping of our country throughout its history, and they continue to influence our nation on the global spectrum as we enter the 21st century.

The U. S. ’ involvement in World Wars I and II did not occur immediately following the beginning of the wars. Rather, in WWI, President Wilson, who had built his re-election campaign around the slogan, “he kept us out of war,” entered the U. S. into WWI shortly after his re-election. Although Wilson had not specifically promised to keep the country out of war, he declared that only a negotiated “peace without victory” would prove durable (Bailey, 722). Unfortunately, when the German U-boats sank four unarmed American ships, Wilson was left with no choice than to ask Congress for a declaration of war.

Primary objectives of entering the U. S. into the war were not primarily to seek revenge on Germany. Wilson’s more important goal was to preserve democracy within the U. S. and restore manifest destiny to a war-torn world. Furthermore, the U. S. foreign policy of economic expansion contributed to the U. S. ’ involvement in WWI due to the fact that tensions were built around both global trade and trade routes used prior to the war. The British propaganda papers played a part in American humanitarianism as the U. S. eceived word of inhumane treatment by German soldiers of many European civilians.

Although the papers were propaganda, the U. S. felt a moral obligation to help those in need. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose primary objectives were both similar to and different from Wilson’s, entered the U. S. into WWII after the Japanese surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. His two major concerns for doing this were his obligation to protect American democracy, and to increase economic expansion, which had ceased to exist in the decade prior to WWII as a result of the Great Depression.

Although all four major foreign policy objectives played a role in the U. S. ’ entrance into WWII, I will explore these two policies in depth using speeches of FDR’s that provide his rationale for U. S. involvement. Roosevelt knew that entrance into the war would help boost the crippled economy of the U. S. both at home and abroad. Again, humanitarianism for unfair treatment of citizens in other countries concerned Americans and contributed to U. S. involvement in the war. Concentration camps set up by Nazis, and the inhumane treatment of Jews, were of grave concern for the U. S. as millions of innocent lives were being taken.

So, once again it was our responsibility to show the rest of the world how to live in social harmony with one another, playing the role of global policeman, intervening in foreign crisis in hopes of restoring global and protecting our own domestic tranquility. U. S. involvement in the Cold War did not occur due to any aggressive physical action launched against our nation. Rather, it was the antagonistic views between the U. S. and Soviet Union’s beliefs of universal qualifications of it’s own particular ideology which brought the two countries head to head over a war-torn Europe which once had been the center of world affairs (Bailey, 891).

This tense standoff, known as the Cold War lasted four and a half decades. I will explore the importance of protecting democracy within our own nation, as many citizens feared the spread of communism, and felt the threats both globally and domestically with its expansion. Both humanitarianism and manifest destiny were contributing factors to U. S. ’ involvement in this “war of words” and I will investigate both these objectives more in depth through both the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. “The world must be made safe for democracy.

It’s peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty” (Wilson, Decl. War Germany). This statement was made by Wilson in his declaration of war on Germany speech upon the U. S. entrance into WWI. He stresses the importance of a world that is safe for democracy and the foundation of political liberty, which it was built upon. Without preservation of democracy our nation would lose the classical liberalism in which it was formed, shredding the people’s guaranteed right to rule themselves.

Without democracy, not only would our government crumble, but we would also lose the strength and security upon which our nation prides itself. “We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states” (Wilson, Decl War Germ).

Through this statement, Wilson addresses the foreign policy objective of manifest destiny and the importance of the U. S. entrance into WWI as our country must set the example to standards of conduct and punishments or misconduct to other nations of the world. “We had even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce” (FDR, 4 Freedoms). As mentioned earlier, Roosevelt was primarily concerned with the safety of American democracy after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. This was because our national security was being tested.

If our nation was to prevail as one, we must not allow another country to threaten our own well-being, as it would surely lead to a hindering of our democratic system. Within this statement, FDR also addresses the reasons for U. S. participation in the two World Wars as also being preservation of peaceful commerce, which is defined by the foreign policy objective of economic expansion. Preservation of peaceful commerce, which came as a result of both wars, was a key factor in ensuring the U. S. ’ economic growth out of the Great Depression. Without entrance into WWII, it is not certain when the U. S. would have pulled out of the depression.

When President Truman confronted Congress in March of 1947, he asserted that, “The foreign policy and national security of this country are involved. One aspect of the present situation, which I wish to present to you at this time for your consideration and decision, concerns Greece and Turkey. . that assistance is imperative if Greece is to survive as a free nation” (Truman Doctrine). In his doctrine, Truman expresses his fear of a revived isolationism and the Communist threat to European countries. Once again our nation’s security of democracy would be threatened by Communist proliferation throughout Europe.

Truman’s plan to assist European countries at the request of their government reiterates the American foreign policy of humanitarianism as our government would not allow a country to be overtaken by another’s government without U. S. intervention. Furthermore, manifest destiny suggests that the U. S. must intervene and aide these struggling European governments so that they might be able to once again live in social harmony with each other without undue Communist influence. Shortly after the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan was established.

Within the Marshall Plan, all four foreign policies are addressed with special concentration on manifest destiny in order that we might assist European governments. Upon the rebuilding of Europe, the U. S. was once again able to expand its economic markets. In closing, I will discuss the importance of these four major foreign policy objectives as they apply to the middle class. Since the closing of the 19th century the middle class has emerged into the largest class in our society. With the four previously discussed policies, or ideals in place, the middle class would improve and become stronger, which it has.

Otherwise, without protection of U. S. oreign policy, our nations economy and power would deflate, sinking the middle class to becoming a poor working class. Fortunately, our nations leaders sought to protect and uphold foreign policy through out the decades, and as a result turned our society into one built on the foundations of the middle class. Emphasizing diligence in work and in savings, daily life lived on a strong moral basis, and education as the key to economic success, which has emerged into the cornerstone of the U. S. and its people through out the twentieth century.

American Attack on Omaha and Utah Beaches during D Day

It was 1944, and the United States had now been an active participant in the war against Nazi Germany for almost three and a half years, nearly six years for the British. During that period occurred a string of engagements fought with ferocious determination and intensity on both sides. There is however, one day which stands out in the minds of many American servicemen more often than others. June 6, 1944, D-Day, was a day in which thousands of young American boys, who poured onto the beaches of Utah and Omaha, became men faster than they would have ever imagined possible.

Little did they know of the chaos and the hell which awaited them on their arrival. Over the course of a few hours, the visions of Omaha and Utah Beaches, and the death and destruction accompanied with them formed a permanent fixation in the minds of the American Invaders. The Allied invasion of Europe began on the 6th of June 1944, and the American assault on Utah and Omaha beaches on this day played a critical role in the overall success of the operation. (Astor 352)An extensive plan was established for the American attack on Utah and Omaha Beaches.

The plan was so in-depth, and complex, its descriptions detailed the exact arrivals of troops, armor, and other equipment needed for the invasion, and where exactly on the beach they were to land. Before the landings were to begin, the coastal German defenses had to be adequately prepped, and softened by a combination of a massive battering by United States ships, and bombing by the United States Air Force. Between the hours of 0300 and 0500 hours on the morning of June 6, over 1,000 aircraft dropped more than 5,000 tons of bombs on the German coastal defenses.

As soon as the preliminary bombing was over, the American and British naval guns opened fire on the Normandy coastline (D’ Este 112). A British naval officer described the incredible spectacle he witnessed that day: “Never has any coast suffered what a tortured strip of French coast suffered that morning; both the naval and air bombardments were unparalleled. Along the fifty-mile front the land was rocked by successive explosions as the shells of ships’ guns tore holes in fortifications and tons of bombs rained on them from the skies.

Through billowing smoke and falling debris defenders crouching in this scene of devastations would soon discern faintly hundreds of ships and assault craft ominously closing the shore. If the sight dismayed them, the soldiers borne forward to attack were thrilled by the spectacle of Allied power that was displayed around them on every hand,” (D’ Este 112). The scene witnessed by the British officer off of the British sectors, was also witnessed by American commanders off of Utah and Omaha, however not to the same extent.

Many American bombers missed their targets up to as much as five miles inland due to the thick cloud cover. Rockets which were fired from offshore destroyers landed short killing thousands of fish, but not any Germans. Artillery from US battleships slammed the tops of the bluffs of Omaha, and sailed into the adjacent towns, but not did not successfully accomplish their goals of destroying targets on the beachhead such as enemy pillboxes, artillery, and machine gun positions. (D’ Este 117)Contrary to Omaha, Utah Beach was much less fortified.

Over looking the beachhead were two large concrete casemated positions to hold large guns. Due to neglect, and Rommel’s (who was in charge of fortifying the coast of France) deflected attention to other possible invasion sights, resulting in only one of the casemated positions to install a large gun. The Germans had also not been able to fully construct defensive barriers yet by the time of the invasion and also had not completely laid the number of land mines Rommel had in mind. Aiding to the success at Utah were the underwater demolition teams who were able to knock off many of the coastal defenses awaiting the Americans.

As the American soldiers steamed toward Utah Beach in their transports, it was quite evident the pounding the beachhead fortifications had taken from US naval artillery and rockets. Pillboxes, concrete casemated gun houses, machine gun posts, and infantry positions were among many of the targets weakened, or destroyed. The artillery not only aided the soon to be arriving troops in that many coastal threats had been eliminated, but in that the hundreds of shell holes created provided excellent cover for the troops coming ashore. (Astor 222)The American assault on Utah was meticulously planned.

Troop, armor, and equipment arrivals were timed to the minute. Landing first on the beach at 0630 hours, immediately following the naval barrage were thirty-two light assault tanks known as DD tanks to further soften fortified positions, provide cover for the oncoming troops, and to act as a rallying point for troops while attacking. The tanks came ashore in eight LCTs, a type of equipment transport used for the invasion. In the wake of the LCTs came the 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry in twenty Higgens boats, another type of transport designed to hold a thirty-man assault team.

The 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry arrived, bringing engineers and naval demolition teams at the same time as the second wave came ashore in thirty-two more Higgens boats. The third wave, containing bulldozers, and the light and mobile Sherman Tank arrived in the second, both fifteen minutes after the initial landing. Following, the third and fourth waves were the 237th and 299th Engineer Combat Battalions which arrived two minutes later to begin demolition. (Ambrose 275) Before the assaults began, the planners, including General Eisenhower, hoped everything would stick to the tight schedule.

This however, proved a pipe dream as some craft landed late, others too early, and some off course as far as a kilometer south of the target. There were many factors which resulted in the aggravating of the time table. Tides, wind, waves, and a thick cover of smoke were all partially responsible for the trouble, while the biggest factor was the mines fixated just off of the coast. These mixups resulted in the tanks landing a kilometer south, as well as the initial ground assault of Company E of the 2nd Battalion, 8th Infantry, 4th Division led by General Roosevelt.

The American forces were in for a strike of luck however, as the German defensive fortifications at their new and accidental landing site, had been badly damaged from the naval artillery and air battering. The fortifications where the landing was supposed to take place were still strong, unscathed from the preceding bombardment. The engineers and naval demolition teams came ashore after the first wave. They consisted of five Navy Seabees, also known as combat demolition units, and two or three American engineers.

The engineers, who were highly trained in explosives, made quick work of the outermost set of obstacles before the tide had a chance to cover them up. The engineers worked at a furious pace clearing the way for more landing craft who previously had to weave in and out of the obstacles. A foot soldier on the beach at Utah commented on the scene. “I hopped into a slit and watched what was happening offshore. It was all of a sudden like a beehive. Boats were coming through the obstacles, bulldozers were pushing sand up against the seawall, and half-tracks and tanks were able to go into the interior.

It looked like an anthill. ” (D-Day, Ambrose 281) Engineering teams continued to work hard as more and more forces began piling up on the now secured beach awaiting the chance to punch through the booby trapped, and mined interior defenses. The assault on Utah Beach proved to be fairly easy and simple compare to what was going on at Omaha. An anonymous Infantryman from the 4th division said, “You know, it sounds kind of dumb but it was just like a [training] exercise. Easier. We waded ashore like kids in crocodile and up the beach.

A couple of shells came over but nowhere near us. I think I even felt somehow disappointed, a little let down. “(Lewis, 101)Omaha Beach in itself was a formidable and easily defendable position. If the Germans were going to try and stop an Allied Invasion, Omaha Beach was the place to attempt it. Omaha Beach stretched for approximately 10 kilometers, its sand was golden brown in color, it was firm and fine, and during low tide there was a stretch of 300 to 400 meters of firm beach sand. It was an obvious choice for an invasion if one was to occur.

The physical makeup of Omaha Beach made it easy for the Germans to defend. The beach was adjacent to bluffs perpendicular to the beach spanning the entire 10 kilometers. On this basis, the German fortifications had an extreme advantage holding not only the safety of the bluffs, some 200 foot height advantage at some points. Omaha was the perfect place to hold a defensive stance against an invasion. It provided a narrow, enclosed battlefield with no chance of being flanked.

Its bluffs provided the perfect place for fortifications, pill boxes, and machine guns, the sloping ground leading up to the bluffs allowed for a useful trench system, and the overall height advantage provided for a clear view of the entire killing field. (D-Day, Ambrose 321) Eisenhower did not like the idea of having to attack Omaha, but he knew it had to be done. Rommel took full advantage of what he learned from defending frontal infantry assaults during the First World War. He heavily mined the coastline, and the shore.

He placed extensive amounts of barbed and razor wire leading up to the bluffs. He placed machine guns at angles to have better shots at all points of the beach. Rommel added all types of weapons to cover all possible weaknesses in the fortificatins. Ranges were even predetermined to make the killing all the quicker and easier. Rommel’s setup allowed for fire coming from three different directions which was to later prove extremely deadly. He added mortars and artillery pieces on top of the bluffs to bring fire from above.

Adding to the defense were dozens of pillboxes containing machine guns, and obstacles to further hinder and slow down the force. (The Victors, Ambrose 135)There were four main factors which led the Americans to believe that an attack on such a difficult position would succeed. Intelligence reports gave the Americans the impression that the fortifications and trenches were being manned by the 716th Infantry Division, a supposed low quality force composed of Poles and Russians. This was untrue, as the positions were being held by the German 352nd Division, a division of well-trained troops.

Second, intelligence reports gave the Americans the impression that only 800 troops were manning the defenses, when in actuality, a number three to four times that was more realistic. Third, B-17 bombers were to thoroughly prep the site by dropping thousands of tons of bombs, however, due to the intense cloud cover, bombers missed their targets by as much as 5 kilometers inland. Finally, the invasion was to consist of 40,000 men and 3,500 motorized vehicles. This idea later failed quickly as troops and vehicles quickly became backed up on the beach.

Captain Walker on a landing craft headed toward the beach commented on the sight, “I took a look toward the shore and my heart took a dive. I couldn’t believe how peaceful it was, how untouched, and how tranquil the scene was. The terrain was green. All the buildings were intact. The church and steeple were still standing in place. Where are the d*#n Air Corps! ” I yelled. “(D-Day, Ambrose 324)The first wave in was to consist of two battalions of the regiments landing in a column of companies. The plan was to have assault teams to cover every inch of beach.

Weapons used to cover the successive landing crafts were to include M-1’s, . 30 caliber machine guns, bazookas, 60mm mortars, and flame throwers. Just like the assault on Utah, DD tanks were to lead the invasion ashore while naval demolition teams worked to clear the area. Following the initial craft were to be reinforcements to bring up stronger firepower ranging from greater numbers of M-1’s to 105mm howitzers, in addition to more tanks, jeeps, medical units, head quarters and communication units. Two hours after the first wave, it was planned that vehicles would have already scaled the bluffs and begin to push farther inland.

Nothing planned for the assault on Omaha went according to schedule. Only one company landed at their target (Company A). E Company was as much as two kilometers off course due to winds, waves, and the tides. This resulted in large gaps between the forces coming ashore and allowed the Germans to concentrate their firepower on the hapless Americans. The Germans poured the artillery, mortar, and machine gun fire down onto A Company. It was an absolute slaughter. Only a few dozen people of the 200 survived, and practically all of them were wounded.

By 0640 hours, just ten minutes after the first wave, only one officer from A Company was alive, and he had been shot in the heel and the belly. On one boat, when the ramp was dropped, every single man of the thirty-man assault team was killed before they could get out of the boat. A short way down the beach, F and G Companies were experiencing problems of their own. Sgt. Harry Bare describes the experience as they disembarked, “I tried to get my men off the boat and make it somehow to the seawall. We waded to the sand and threw ourselves down and the men were frozen, we could not move.

My radioman had his head blown off three yards from me. The beach was covered with bodies, men with no legs, no arms-God it was awful. “(D-Day, Ambrose 331) It was clearly evident as wave upon wave came ashore that everything was in sheer chaos. People were being cut down left and right by machine guns, and blown to pieces by artillery and mortar fire. “Sgt. Clarence ‘Pilgrim Robertson had a gaping wound in the upper right corner of his forehead. He was walking crazily in the water. Then I saw him get down on his knees and start playing the rosary beads.

At that moment the Germans cut him in half with the deadly crossfire. “(D-Day, Ambrose 337) “When we were 200 yards from our landing point I could see heavy machine-gun-bullets cutting up the sand and making a noise like a huge swarm of bees. “My God, we are going to be slaughtered. “-Sgt. H. M. Kellar (Lewis 120)Omaha Beach on that day was in a state of pandemonium. There was no organization which was proven as the troops found themselves pinned with no leadership and no where to go, with additional equipment and troops coming ashore to only back things up worse. The Americans were pinned on the beach.

Rommel had constructed the ultimate killing field, and for a few hours, it seemed like it was going to take a miracle to save the Americans now. It was becoming ever more evident to American commanders that if they remained on the beach, it would be suicide. After more than a few hours of fighting, the Americans had only a few yards of beach, and it was under intense enemy fire. Under these hell-like conditions, heros were sprung. Division Brigadier General Norman D. Cota deliberately exposed himself to enemy fire while walking up and down the beach, rallying his troops to get them moving. Colonel George A.

Taylor performed a similar feat in leading an attack against a German machine-gun post while declaring, “Two kinds of people are staying on this beach, the dead and those about to die. Now lets get the hell out of here! “(D’ Este 114)As the hours wore on, a greater foothold on Omaha was established. The American Forces knew that it was absolutely imperative that they get off the beach. As more and more soldiers began to make their way froward, reinforcements continued to arrive bringing tanks, engineers, and more troops. Soldiers, lacking order and organizations began working together to establish routes up the bluffs.

One by one, razor wire was blown clear, pillboxes were destroyed, and artillery batteries were eliminated. By the end of the day more than 2,500 Americans lay dead on Omaha. It was a bloodbath, compared to the 200 who were lost on Utah. D-Day, June 6, 1944 was the beginning of the end of the Nazi empire. It was one of the most important days in military history as Eisenhower’s cross channel attack, the largest in history, proved an overall success. The actions of the American soldiers on Utah and Omaha beaches that day aided greatly in the overall triumph of the operation as a whole.

The victory at Omaha came at a very high cost, and the soldiers who took part certainly had no idea what they were about go through before the landing. They had no idea of the death and destruction which awaited their stepping foot onto those beaches. For a few hours on the morning of June 6, 1944, it appeared that Rommel had created the ultimate coastal fortification. His strategic placements of machine-guns, mortars, and artillery pieces took a tremendous toll on the American invaders. For a short time, it appeared that the Americans were not going to make it off the beach that day.

If not for the courage of a few individuals leading the way, all could have been lost. Every American soldier who set foot on the beached of Omaha and Utah that day is forever a hero. Their actions played a critical role in the success of D-Day, and the death and destruction of the Nazi Empire. Even through all of the factors which went wrong that day, even with out the aid of computers, they made the invasion possible. The safety of the free world today can be directly related to the actions of the men who came ashore on Omaha and Utah that day, June 6, 1944. D-Day.

Analysis and Recommendation of the 2001 USA Patriot Act

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

While this act made legislative changes that increased surveillance and the investigative powers of law enforcement agencies to protect America from further terrorist acts, the passing of the USA Patriot Act has reduced the privacy rights of Americans and also does not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Terrorism is a serious matter that should not be handled lightly, but the act has gone over the top in trying to stop terrorism. The USA Patriot Act, enacted for protecting America from further attacks, not only does little if anything to protect Americans, but rather undermines their civil rights.

The Patriot Act targets not only terrorists, but also the American people which it intended to protect. This paper will primarily speak of the violations of the First and Fourth Amendments and the lack of checks and balances in relation to the USA Patriot Act. After the September 11th terrorist attacks, America was understandably frightened that this could happen again. Less than a week after the attacks the Bush administration introduced legislation that included items which had previously been voted down, sometimes repeatedly, by Congress. (Surveillance Under the USA Patriot Act)

The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it much less analyze it before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version.

Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks – a serious threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack would come at any moment and when reports of anthrax letters were appearing daily. (Surveillance Under the USA Patriot Act) The bill was officially signed into law as the USA Patriot Act on October 26, 2001 by President Bush.

Congress acted without determining whether the weaknesses in our surveillance had contributed to the attacks or whether the changes they were making would help prevent further attacks. The two amendments that were effected the most by the USA Patriot Act were the First and Fourth Amendments. The First Amendment reads “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”     .

United States House of Representatives-Amendments to the Constitution) Section 802 of the USA Patriot Act titled “Definition of Domestic Terrorism” states that acts committed within the United States “dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws” can be considered acts of domestic terrorism if they “appear to be intended” to “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” or “to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. ” (H. R. 3162) With a definition as broad as “appear to be intended,” there is a great deal of opportunity for abuse.

This greatly restricts American’s First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and protest. The PATRIOT Act’s Section 216 threatens free speech by authorizing the use of the Carnivore system, an electronic tracking system that is capable of capturing all forms of internet activity. Because Carnivore provides the FBI with access to the communications of all subscribers of a monitored Internet Service Provider and not just those of the court-designated target, it raises privacy issues for millions of law-abiding American citizens.

The PATRIOT Act’s Section 411 infringes on our First Amendment rights as well. It broadens the definition of activities that can be considered punishable for citizens and “deportable offenses” for non-citizens. For example, it deems soliciting funds for an organization that the government labels as a “terrorist group” as “engaging in a terrorist activity. ” The government often defines such organizations without due process, using alleged “secret evidence. ” (H. R. 3162)

The Fourth Amendment reads “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ” (United States House of Representatives-Amendments to the Constitution)The Patriot Act assumes that lack of information caused by laws that restricted government information-gathering was the major reason for the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Section 215 of The USA Patriot Act, titled “Access to Certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence and International Terrorism Investigations” (H. R. 3162) is in direct violation of this amendment by giving law enforcement the ability to obtain without subpoena, search warrant or probable cause, a court order giving them access to any records or tangible thing’ which includes personal records from libraries, booksellers, doctors, financial and educational institutions.

The government only needs to claim that the records may be related to an ongoing investigation related to terrorism or intelligence activities. Section 213 includes Sneak and Peek warrants that allow law enforcement agencies to break into a suspected terrorists’ home while they are not there, go through their things, take pictures, and seize property, all with no warning or notification after the fact. Section 411 allows the Secretary of State to label any person or group (foreign or domestic) which has engaged in any type of “violent activity” to be a “terrorist organization.

Section 412 expands on section 411 by giving the Attorney General the authority to certify immigrants as a risk and requires no proof of probable cause. Section 206 expands FISA to permit “roving wiretap” authority, which allows the interception of any communications made to or by an intelligence target without specifying the particular telephone line, computer or other facility to be monitored.

Such orders could have a significant impact on the privacy rights of large numbers of innocent users, particularly those who access the Internet through public facilities such as libraries, university computer labs and internet cafes. (H. R. 3162) Upon the suspicion that an intelligence target might use such a facility, the FBI can now monitor all communications transmitted at the facility. The problem is made worse by the fact that the recipient of the assistance order would be prohibited from disclosing the fact that monitoring is occurring on those patrons.

The USA Patriot Act gives sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies and eliminated the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that such powers were not abused. Most of these checks and balances were put into place after previous misuse of surveillance powers by these agencies were uncovered including the revelation in 1974 that the FBI and foreign intelligence agencies had spied on over 10,000 U. S. citizens, including Martin Luther King.

Objections Emerge To U.S. Resolution

If Baghdad fails to follow through, however, U. S. officials said a Pentagon (news – web sites) plan calls for more than 200,000 troops to invade Iraq. In brief remarks as he entered Sunday’s meeting, Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said only that the Arab position is firm in rejecting any use of U. S. military force. A day earlier Sabri said “no decision has been taken,” but several other Arab diplomats at a late-night Saturday meeting of the Arab League said Iraq had already accepted the resolution.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said early Sunday morning, “I think we can expect a positive position by the Iraqis. ” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal also indicated Iraq would accept the resolution that dictates return of arms inspectors. “They (Arab ministers) welcomed Iraq’s approval of this resolution with the confirmation that Syria received that there would be no automatic military action,” Saud said. Syria, whose surprise agreement to the U. N. Security Council resolution allowed for 15-0 passage on Friday, defended its vote.

We have struggled and shouldered a lot of difficulties to bring about the resolution,” Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa told journalists Sunday. Al-Sharaa said he received a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell (news – web sites) “in which he stressed that there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq and that if the U. S. administration had any intention of resorting to military action, this resolution wouldn’t have taken seven weeks. ”

On Sunday, Iraq’s state-controlled media carried no news about the resolution, not even the usual vitriolic editorials blaming the United States for pushing the Security Council into a tough stance. Saddam himself has said nothing publicly about Friday’s unanimously adopted resolution. The United States and Britain have threatened military action against Iraq if Baghdad does not fully comply with the U. N. resolution. The New York Times reported late Saturday on its Web site that Bush has approved a Pentagon plan for invading Iraq, should the new U. N. arms inspection effort fail.

Several White House officials reached Saturday declined to comment on the report, but defense officials said on condition of anonymity that the plan calls for a land, sea and air force of 200,000 to 250,000 troops, at least twice the number initially considered. The Pentagon already is moving forces into position to ensure that it will be capable of launching swift strikes into Iraq, should Bush decide on war. Sabri tried Saturday to put the best face on the U. N. blueprint for renewed arms inspection.

He said that in the diplomatic haggling that led to passage of the resolution, the international community succeeded in diluting U. S. plans for aggression on Iraq. In Washington, President Bush (news – web sites) praised the 15-0 vote, saying the resolution “presents the Iraqi regime with a test, a final test. ” Iraq, he said, must now cooperate with U. N. inspectors and dismantle its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities. Arab officials and commentators have said the resolution revised to satisfy French and Russian concerns has at least set back the chance of war.

But some have expressed fear that Washington still could use the document as an excuse to attack Baghdad at the earliest opportunity. Beyond al-Sharaa’s assurances, Russian President Vladimir Putin (news – web sites) was quoted Sunday by Russian news agencies as saying the resolution “does not contain a mechanism for the use of force. ” Maher, the Egyptian foreign minister, said early Sunday that Iraqi acceptance would depend on guarantees that “inspectors would act in a neutral … nd objective way, respecting strictly all the resolutions of the Security Council particularly those with regard to the respect of Iraqi sovereignty. ”

Iraq had accused inspectors who were in the country during 1991-1998 of acting as spies. The new resolution gives inspectors unrestricted access to any site, and that could remain a point of dispute. Iraq insists on respect for its sovereignty, an argument it has used in the past to restrict access to Saddam’s palaces. subservient to foreign intelligence agencies,” Tishrin daily newspaper said in an editorial.

Jury Nullification and Its Effects on Black America

It is obvious that significant improvements have been made in the way that the criminal justice system deals with Blacks during the history of the United States. Blacks have not always been afforded a right to trial, not to mention a fair one. Additionally, for years, Blacks were unable to serve on juries, clearly affecting the way both Blacks and whites were tried. Much of this improvement has been achieved through various court decisions, and other improvements have been made through federal and state legislatures. Despite these facts, the development of the legal system with regard to race seems to have become stagnant.

Few in this country would argue with the fact that the United States criminal justice system possesses discrepancies which adversely affect Blacks in this country. Numerous studies and articles have been composed on the many facets in which discrimination, or at least disparity, is obvious. Even whites are forced to admit that statistics indicate that the Black community is disproportionately affected by the American legal system. Controversy arises when the issue of possible causes of, and also solutions to, these variations are discussed.

Although numerous articles and books have been published devising means y which to reduce variance within the system, the most recent, and probably most contentious, is that of Paul Butler, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Special Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia. Butler’s thesis, published in an article in the Yale Law Journal, is that “for pragmatic and political reasons, the black community is better off when some nonviolent lawbreakers remain in the community rather than go to prison.

The decision as to what kind of conduct by African- Americans ought to be punished is better made by African-Americans themselves. 1 The means by which Butler proposes for Blacks to implement these decisions is termed jury nullification. By placing the race of the defendant above the facts of the case, and thus producing either an acquittal or a hung jury, Butler hopes that Blacks will be able to keep a large portion of Black males out of prison.

Although several commentators have voiced criticisms with the ideas of Professor Butler, most of these criticisms focus on what is best for the American legal system, what legal precedents dictate, or as is most often the case, on what is “right. ” It is, however, negligent to simply focus on these ssues when examining the proposal of Professor Butler. Instead criticism and analysis must be based upon what is best for the Black community in this country. From this perspective it becomes clear that although race-based jury nullification has many attractive features, it must be modified to be truly beneficial.

The first step in analyzing Butler’s conception of jury nullification is to examine problems which Butler claims cause a need for a solution. These problems are flaws in the criminal justice system, intrinsic or otherwise, which present themselves as disparities in treatment of whites and Blacks. In any policy discussion, formulation of a plausible and effective solution clearly must be based upon the nature of the problem. Butler lists many examples of racism in the criminal justice system, but many are simply specific cases meant to illustrate his point.

Although these cases are important, they are nearly impossible to discuss in a general examination of discrimination in the justice system because specific cases do not necessarily entail widespread discrimination. However, Butler does cite past and contemporary administration of the death penalty, disparities between punishments for white-collar crimes nd punishments for other crimes, more severe penalties for crack cocaine users than for powder cocaine users, and the high rate of incarceration of African- American men.

All arguments regarding Butler’s thesis must be framed within the context of these problems, if not directly addressing them. Although Butler lists it last, he does note that the problem of high incarceration rates among Black males is the one noted most frequently. This problem is one which is essential to the discussion of jury nullification, and should be explored specifically for a number of reasons. First, whatever the eason, the number of Black men in prison is frighteningly high.

One out of every twelve black males in their 20s is in prison or jail. Additionally, there are seven Black males in prison for every one white male. More than half of all black males are under the supervision of the justice system in some way. 4 These two factors indicate a very important trend. A high number of black males are in prison, and many more black males are in prison than white males. This would definitely lead a reasonable person to assume at least some measure of discrimination within the criminal justice system. Secondly, and perhaps more ignificantly, the high rate of incarceration, upon further examination, leads to conclusions about its causes which then shed light on the discussion of jury nullification.

The first step in examining this phenomenon is to examine what role racism plays in the high rate. There are several levels within the system at which discrimination could occur. The initial contact which anyone has with the justice system is with the police. The police are the institution which serve as a gateway to the legal system, and thus it is only logical to look here first. First, in 1984 almost 46% of those arrested for violent crimes were Black, while Blacks constitute only about 12% of the national population on the whole. Overall, Blacks are twice as likely to be arrested when compared to whites. 6 This data could be construed to mean simply that Blacks commit more crimes than whites. Although this may be true, “the argument that police behavior is undistorted by racial discrimination flatly contradicts most studies, which reveal what many police officers freely admit: that police use race as an independently significant, if not determinative, factor in deciding whom to follow, detain, search, or arrest. “7

Despite the fact that discrimination may exist among police, the arrest figures still do not account for the vast disparity in incarceration rates. So other aspects of the criminal justice system must be examined. Another level in which discrimination can be claimed is that of the prosecutor. Because prosecutors have such enormous discretion when deciding which charges to file, which penalties to seek, and which cases to prosecute, there are many instances in which a prosecutor’s racism can be turned into discrimination against a defendant.

Indeed, “statistical studies indicate that prosecutors are more ikely to pursue full prosecution, file more severe charges, and seek more stringent penalties in cases involving minority defendants than in cases involving nonminority defendants. “8 This discrimination becomes even more evident, and disturbing, when examining the death penalty. A study in Georgia found that in matched cases, prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70 percent of the cases in which a Black killed a white, and 15 percent of the cases in which a white killed a Black. Although these numbers cannot be extrapolated to indict the entire nation’s prosecutors, other figures do indicate vast disparity.

In McCleskey v. Kemp, the defendant introduced a comprehensive, multiple regression analysis of the death penalty, done by Professor David Baldus. The study controlled for 230 independent variables, and indicated that race is by far the most important factor in whether a defendant receives the death penalty. It also found that Black killers of white victims are far more likely than white killers of Black victims to receive the death penalty. 0

Although the Court upheld the death penalty, it only did so because of precedent which states that discrimination must be proved through demonstration of intent, and not just results. This disparity is reflected in the number of Black death row inmates. The NAACP Legal Defense fund reports that nearly 39 percent of the inmates on death row in the 35 states in which the death penalty is used. It also found that of all federal death row inmates, 67 percent are Black. 11 Despite the fact that these statistics are startling and important, they are insufficient to justify race-based jury nullification at face value.

First, “the studies of Dean Alfred Blumstein of Carnegie-Mellon and of Joan Petersilia of the RAND Corporation conclude that about 80 percent of the black verrepresentation in prison can be explained by differential involvement in crime and about 20 percent by subsequent racially discriminatory processes. “12 Twenty percent is definitely significant and does deserve action, but it is not as high of a number as some might speculate, and therefore might dictate a more moderate solution. This will be discussed further later.

Second, “the crime and delinquency rates of incarceration, and rates of arrest and of victimization of those who move away from these slums are indistinguishable from whites of the same social class. “13 This fact suggests that socioeconomic factors are very mportant in the existence of crime. Butler argues that the this fact is simply more impetus for the implementation of his plan. He asserts that discrimination and segregation deprive Blacks of adequate opportunity to improve their social and economic standing.

He describes a “radical critique,” by which he states he is persuaded, in which “the radical critic deduces that but for the (racist) environment, the African-American criminal would not be a criminal. “14 Certainly this is a compelling argument. It is not clear, however, exactly how economic inequalities cause crime. Logic would certainly support the idea that Blacks, aced with stark living conditions, would commit crime either to strike back at whites or to attain more wealth. There are several problems with this idea, however.

First, many crimes are unrelated, if not contrary, to acquisition of wealth. Not all murders are committed over material goods, and assuredly drug use in no way is helpful to the attainment of financial security. Second, to assume that crime is dictated by social or psychological purposes is to ignore that fact that in most cases commission of criminal acts is governed by the proximity, ease, and convenience of reward. “In short, crime is an ill- onceived mechanism for the redistribution of wealth or for the extraction of revenge on one’s oppressors, and no racial or ethnic group believes otherwise. 15

Once again, the merits of jury nullification in alleviating these problems will be discussed, as will other solutions, later. From the viewpoint of the Black community, it may not be exactly obvious whether discrimination in public policy and in the criminal justice system is reason enough to allow guilty criminals to go free. But even assuming that there is there is a significant reason to implement jury nullification, Butler’s ssertions with regard to the intentions of jury nullification must be examined.

Butler claims that it is important that Black males be released not only because often they are on trial as a result of discrimination, but also because they are too important to the community to lose. He states, “Black people have a community that needs building, and children who need rescuing, and as long as a person will not hurt anyone, the community needs him there to help. “16 He maintains that the Black community needs its young males too much to punish them. There is significant reason to believe this idea.

William Julius Wilson states, “black women, especially young black women, are facing a shrinking pool of “marriageable” (i. e. economically stable) men. “17 Much of Wilson’s book is dedicated to the discussion of the dissolution of the Black family and its effects on the Black community. It seems quite clear that Black males are important to Blacks on the whole, but Butler seems to underestimate the negative effect of crime upon the community in his attempt to prove discrimination. This is clear in his claim that longer punishments for possession of crack than for powdered cocaine are evidence of discrimination.

The issue is summarized quite well by Kate Stith: While it appears true that the enhanced penalties for crack cocaine more often fall upon black defendants, the legislature’s action might also have been viewed as a laudatory attempt to provide enhanced protection to those communities – largely black, according to the court’s own statistics – who are ravaged by abuse of this potent drug… [I]f dealers in crack cocaine have their liberty significantly restricted, this will afford greater liberties to the majority of citizens who are the potential victims of drug dealing and ssociated violent behaviors.

This is the logic of the criminal law. 18 Studies indicate that almost 97 percent of those charged with possession of crack were black, while 80 percent of those charged with possession of powdered cocaine were white. 19 Thus, it could be argued that differences in sentences indicate an attempt to help the Black community rather than hurt it. Butler presents several hypothetical cases, one of which involves a Black defendant arrested for possession of crack. Butler states that this case is easily decided, and that jury nullification is the clear answer.

He justifies this position by stating that since the crime was victimless, and since there exists such a disparity in sentencing procedures between crack and powdered cocaine, there is no question that the jury nullification is the preferable option. Butler seems to ignore the detrimental effects of drug use and distribution on the Black community. But the drug possession and distribution are not the only areas in which it is logical to protect innocent Blacks. “Among black males and females ages 15 to 44, the leading cause of death is homicide. 20 Studies also report that ost crimes committed against Blacks are committed by Blacks.

“In Chicago in the 1970s, for example, 98 percent of black homicides were committed by other blacks. “21 This phenomenon is only strengthened by the segregation which Butler reports. “In concentrating poverty, segregation acts simultaneously to concentrate anything that is correlated with poverty: crime, drug abuse, welfare dependency, single parenthood, and educational difficulties. 22 It is only logical that if Blacks are surrounded by Blacks, when Blacks commit crimes, they will victimize Blacks.

Although this segregation might be ascribed to whites, hat is no reason for Blacks to further worsen the situation by releasing criminals into the community. Another factor which Butler misunderstands is the effect of rehabilitation. He states that the idea of rehabilitation as a justification for punishment can be dealt with summarily. He states, “If rehabilitation were a meaningful option in American criminal justice, I would not endorse nullification in any case. 23

According to Michael Vitiello, much of the reason for the abandonment of rehabilitation as a plausible reason for imprisonment stems from the work of one man, Robert Martinson. Vitiello states that most of he analysis of rehabilitation is based upon the studies of Martinson, which originally stated that it would never be a plausible idea. However, Martinson later retracted his conclusions, though none of the work based on those conclusions was subsequently retracted. Vitiello goes on to conclude that rehabilitation can work and has worked, and thus abandonment is irrational.

He states that some improvements can be made, and the rehabilitation is an achievable goal. 24 Ironically, Butler refers to Vitiello’s article in his discussion of rehabilitation. He refers to Vitiello’s statements about the ejection of the rehabilitative model by those involved in the criminal justice system. However, this reference is taken out of context, as it is simply justification for increased attention and discussion of rehabilitation. The importance of this analysis is hard to overestimate.

If rehabilitation can be implemented effectively, sending Black males to prison would be the best possible option for Black jurors convinced of defendants’ guilt. Rehabilitation of the Black community could rest upon the rehabilitation of its young male criminals. Butler admits that rehabilitation is preferable to ullification in theory, but simply does not believe that rehabilitation is possible. It is unfair to judge jury nullification based simply on its own merits. This may sound ludicrous, but any plan must be judged in terms of its competition.

If no alternative exists to any given strategy, the only way in which the plan can be rejected is if a negative effect can be reasonably expected. Thus, if it can be determined that no alternative plan is superior, or even plausible, then jury nullification need only help one city, one neighborhood, or even one person, and have no visible negative effects, to merit implementation. Harvard Law Review proposed a number of solutions to the specific problems of unfounded arrests by the police, misuse of prosecutorial discretion, and jury misrepresentation.

Most of these reforms involve changes as to the admissibility of certain evidence in court. For instance, the article suggests disallowing the use of a criminal profile as a factor in proving probable cause. Also, it advises new tests to prove discrimination by prosecutors, which would allow for the introduction of statistics regarding prosecutorial practices. The other changes are simply more reform of court practices, such as reducing the umber of peremptory challenges which prosecutors can use in hopes of limiting the number of Black jurors removed from juries.

Butler’s argument with these solutions, recognized as being the most important proposals for criminal justice reform, and others like it, is that they rely on powers outside of the Black community. He would claim that although these solutions might have some good effects, it is naive of Blacks to assume that they can rely on the solutions to be implemented. Butler stated, “Jury nullification is power that black people have right now and not something Congress has to give them. 25 Jury nullification might not seem as appealing as the ideas proposed by Harvard Law Review, but Blacks can implement it themselves.

Although laws prohibit jurors from being instructed about jury nullification in criminal cases, Butler does provide a number of methods to implement his plan. Rap songs, black newspapers and magazines, ministers’ sermons, flyers, and other various Black cultural events are all arenas in which the idea could be made popular, according to Butler. He likens the plan to the famous Montgomery bus boycott, in which a grass-roots campaign had clear effects. 26 Despite its relative ease of implementation, jury nullification is still suspect in its potential for effectiveness.

First of all, although socioeconomics may not completely explain the high rate of Black incarceration, studies make it fairly clear that much of the problem is not a result of discrimination. This leads to the conclusion that maybe Butler’s goals should not be limited to criminal justice reform, but also other areas. Second, despite Butler’s claims as to the fairness of his plan, there would no doubt be a great deal of controversy, and white backlash would be difficult to avoid. It s even possible that the plan would backfire by causing prosecutors to almost completely reject Black jurors in cases with Black defendants.

It would be hard to argue with this practice since it is the prosecutors’ jobs to win cases, and if jury nullification gained much momentum, it would be doubtful if prosecutors would take the chance that Black jurors had not heard of the plan. There might also be a great deal of white nullification. In short, there would probably be many negative ramifications to the implementation of such a potentially unpopular plan. The question, then, is how can progress be made? One significant omission on Butler’s part is a set of goals or requests which would make Butler’s intentions clearly known.

The only goal which Butler discusses is the release of Black males into the community. He even neglects analysis of possible changes which he would hope to instigate through jury nullification. Inclusion of specific reforms which would be desired would have two positive effects. First, it would help to avoid white backlash. By demonstrating that jury nullification had specific purposes, Butler would deflect criticism that the plan is simply a racially selfish scheme to keep Blacks from receiving unishment. Explicit goals would also make it clear to the public that there are discriminatory practices which Butler wishes to end.

Second, only by explaining what jury nullification is meant to accomplish can the government be expected to reform the criminal justice system. This is especially true if the goals include public policy changes not directly related to the legal system, such as the elimination of discriminatory housing practices or augmentation of job training programs. Then, if jury nullification proves effective, and the government is forced to some concessions, Blacks will benefit much more than ust from the release of Black males.

Clearly, Blacks have much more to expect from public policy and the criminal justice system than they currently experience. Discrimination, to at least some extent, occurs at almost every level of the system. Although there is no way to be sure whether racism, socioeconomics, or some other mysterious factor is to blame for the high level of Black incarceration, clearly something ought to change. Jury nullification, despite some gaps in Butler’s explanation and justification, is one of the only methods by which Blacks can hope to affect change.

Even if Paul Butler accomplishes nothing else, he can reasonably expect to achieve one goal: raising awareness of race in criminal justice. As Butler states in the conclusion of his article, “Perhaps, when policy makers acknowledge that race matters in criminal justice, the criminal law can benefit from the successes and failures of race consciousness in other areas of the law… To get criminal justice past the middlepoint, I hope that the Essay will facilitate a dialogue among all Americans in which the significance of race will not be dismissed or feared, but addressed. “

Contemporary Literature and the Events That Influenced It

In the last forty years there have been some key people and events that have shaped history and in turn have influenced the works of some of literatures most prolific writers. During this time period some of the most powerful speeches, poems, and literary protests were written. These works of literature were sometimes written out of necessity for the times and spoke out to all that read them. It all started in 1960 when John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, become one of the youngest men ever to hold the office of president; in the eyes of many this event began a new era in history.

When John F. Kennedy was elected he inherited the task of taking over a nation that was in the middle of many tragic events. Kennedys ideas and dreams were summed up in this famous line from his election speech when he stated And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country. In 1963, when John F. Kennedy was only in his third year as president, the young, well liked president was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president in the wake of the assassination (Davidson 672-675).

That same year Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous I have a dream speech. In this speech he spoke out against racism and pushed towards the future, saying I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Two years later in 1965 President Johnson made the decision that affected the United States and all U. S. citizens more than any other event during that time.

He officially sent U. S. oops into Vietnam, beginning the massacre known as the Vietnam War. (Karnow) During the Vietnam War in the United States young men and women started to protest mainly against the war, but also against the Establishmentthe values, tradition, and views of their parents. Those who rejected the Establishment became hippies, dropping out of society to live together in communes. Make love, not war, they demanded and never trust anyone over thirty. For the first time in society, drug use became widespread and young people experimented with new freedoms.

This new found freedom started the sexual revolution that depleted the former idea of marriage and family that had shaped American life for decades. Many books, movies, records, and plays broke social rules. (Barr 49-66) The largest protest of the Vietnam War and of society at the time took place in Woodstock, New York. The Woodstock music festival took place in 1969 at the height of the war. The festival included some of the biggest stars in rock-n-roll history, such as Jimi Hendrix, Santana, Jefferson Airplane, The Who, Sly and the Family Stone, and Crosby, Stills, Nash.

Woodstock is seen by a lot of people as one of the most important events in history. A lot of the music was heavily inspired by the war and brought out the emotions of all who attended and those who wished they could have. (Pascal 76-113) Another revolution and movement that was in affect in the sixties was the civil rights movement. Blacks and other minority groups demanded the same rights enjoyed by whites. These demands led to violent confrontations between white people and black people. Race riots broke out in many American cities.

Black leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X lead the way of the civil rights movement, but in 1965 the same year that The Autobiography of Malcolm X was published, Malcolm X was killed. In 1968, three years after Malcolm X was killed, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in his prime, just as John F. Kennedy was five years earlier. (Encarta Encyclopedia) At the end of the sixties in 1969, one of the dreams of John F. Kennedy came true Neil Armstrong, commander of the Apollo 11 lunar mission, took his first step on the moon.

On the night of July 20, 1969, millions of people around the world watched as Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr. , stepped onto the surface of the moon for the first time. Throughout the World the phrase the Eagle has landed echoed. The Space program was initiated by John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961 and led the way for many other explorations that followed. This event ended the turbulent sixties and led the way for the seventies and eighties. (Encarta Encyclopedia) In 1973 the Vietnam War came to an end, still to this day the Vietnam War is classified by many as the war nobody won.

When the bullet fire finally stopped on both sides, there were more than 58,000 Americans killed or missing and 153,300 wounded. An additional 1. 7 million Vietnamese people were killed. The war also left the United States in debt after nearly 150 billion dollars was spent in war; this created economic problems for years to come. The affects of this war can still be seen today. If you visit Washington, D. C. you can stop by the Vietnam Memorial and remember those who fought for this country. The Memorial was dedicated on November 13, 1982, almost a decade after the United States withdrew from the war.

The dedication was attended by thousands of veterans, many of who were bitter at having been ignored when they returned home from the war. (Karnow 613) In 1974, after the Vietnam War had come to an end, another dark event in United States history took place. Following charges of a coverup of improperties during the 1972 election campaign, including a break-in at the Watergate hotel in Washington, DC, President Richard Nixon resigned, saying in his resignation speech on August 8, 1974 I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office…. By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America. Richard Nixon was the first United States president in history to resign from office. The continuing Watergate scandal and the likelihood of impeachment led Nixon to resign, although he never admitted to any wrongdoing. He was eventually pardoned for all possible crimes by his successor, President Gerald Ford. (Encarta Encyclopedia)

Although the Ford Administration did not face as many problems as past campaigns, they did face some economic problems. The largest economic problem was an oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War that caused fuel prices to soar. Ford lost the 1976 election campaign to Jimmy Carter of Georgia. The Carter Administration followed policy of promoting human rights in the Middle East. However, domestic economic troubles and the inability to deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis, in which Islamic fundamentalists in Tehran, Iran, took over the American Embassy and held occupants hostage, led to Carters defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

During his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan increased defense spending of excessive funds, which greatly boosted the countrys budget deficit and helped to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union. This collapse occurred during the administration of George Bush, Reagans vice-president and successor. Bush was highly affected by the economic problems and was later defeated for reelection by Bill Clinton, despite success at the end of the Gulf War. (Davidson 699-701) After the election of President Clinton in November 1992 the United States has made major strides in many areas.

President Clinton has greatly improved the economy and the budget, he and his administration have also made many positive steps in the war on drugs and gun control. Clintons administration has also helped gain allies and improve foreign relations over his two terms in office. Presently, in the year 2000 the country seems to be in fairly good shape, growing nearer to a new election and a new administration. In the year 2000 and years beyond, it will be the job of the new administration to work towards the future and continue on the present trend of improvement.

American literature during this contemporary era has had many great works that have contributed and influenced the United States. In the sixties, many radical forms of literature and expressions took place, leading the way for performance art and other literary forms (Contemporary Literature 785). Despite the many influential works during the contemporary era, including such present-day authors as Stephen King, Michael Crichton, and Tom Clancey, the so-called classics that will be studied for years to come have not yet been determined.

The Contemporary Era is still in progress and is still advancing in literature. The continuation of this era may produce historic authors that will be remembered and studied forever such as William Shakespeare was to the Renaissance Era. Like the historic works of Civil War authors, the writers of the Contemporary Era will be remembered most for how it influenced the literary works and what will inspire those who read them in the future.

Handgun Control in the United States

Handguns should be outlawed in the United States with the exception of law enforcement purposes. Two weeks before Christmas Day, 2002, 17 year-old Randy Ball was shot and killed a few blocks from his high school in southeast Ohio. Police arrested two teenage students who they believe killed Ball while trying to steal his “boom box” radio. A few days earlier, in Pasadena, California, a 14-year-old eight grader at a Junior High School whipped a snub-nosed . 38 out of his jacket and held the assistant principal hostage for two hours. Police said the boy was distraught over his parents’ recent separation.

Stanza 19) These were not isolated incidents. All across America, the number of kids using- and being harmed by-guns is rising at an alarming rate. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, more than 27,000 youths between 12 and 15 were handgun victims in 1995, up from an average of 16,500 for each of the previous years (Stanza 19). The increase in gun use often stems from urban crack trade. Many crack gangs have more firepower than a small police department. Whatever the cause, authorities are finding the use of handguns by youngsters an extremely diff-icult trend to stop ( Stanza 19).

As long as pistols are as easily accessible as candy, people of all ages will continue to be on both ends of the barrel. Kids in America have reached a new level of criminal violence that seems linked to the nation’s ever-expanding arsenal of handguns. Guns are everywhere, and they are being used in increasingly horrific ways (Morganthau 33). According to Thomas Morganthau, author of Why Not Real Gun Controll? , in America, firearms kill more people between the ages of 15 and 24 than do all natural causes combined.

According to a survey taken in 1993, gun deaths, including uicides, now total more than 37,000 a year, and handgun homicides have reached 13,000 a year. The big question that everyone is asking now, is “What should we do about this? “. The answer outraged voters say in poll after poll, is to pass more restrictive laws to control handguns. This mood is moving a reluctant Congress toward renewed consideration of the Brady Bill, named after Jim Brady, who was permanently disabled in John Hickney’s attempt to assassin-ate Ronald Regan in 1981 ( Morganthau 33).

The Brady Bill is a common sensical and an ad-mittedly odest attempt to impose a five-day waiting period for the purchase of handguns, and to require local police agencies to make a “reasonable” effort to ensure that the buyer does not have a criminal record (Morganthau 34). But the bill rests on a largely unsupported assumption that the combination of a waiting period and police background checks will somehow reduce handgun crime. There is no real proof of this, because of the simple fact that background checks cannot catch crime-minded “wanna-be’s” who do not have records yet (Morganthau 34).

Handgun Control Inc. the lobbying group that is the prime backer for the Brady bill, contends that the bill will work and that it is only a first step toward a “sensible” national gun-control policy that need not include an outright ban on handguns or some form of licensing for gun owners (Morganthau 34). The real problem, according to President Bill Clinton, is handguns, which are easily concealed and widely available on the street. But no one thinks Congress will be able to conquer its fear of the National Rifle Association to do anything much about limiting handgun sales any time soon.

And that, in all probability, means America’s tragic obsession with lethal weaponry will continue for years to come ( Morganthau 34). The cost of crime in America is adding up at a surprisingly quick rate. Americans are scared. The fear of crime permeates their lives. They worry about being raped or mugged in parking lots at gunpoint. A high percentage of these muggers and rapists are kids who get their hands on illegal handguns. Kids these days spend too much time watching t. v. , and some people believe that this leads to the violence.

There is violence everywhere on t. , and with all the time kids are spending watching it, the more they believe it is o. k. Part of what’s scary about the latest wave of crime is the brutality involved, especially the widespread use of firearms. From 1986 to 1991, robberies increased by 27%, but the use of firearms during these robberies increased by 49% (Mandel 85). Can this violence be broken? Certainly a federal law making handguns ill-egal would sharply decrease the number of guns sold and make their street price much higher, though, like Prohibition in the 1920s or the war gainst drugs in the 1980s, it might be very ex-pensive to enforce.

But with 60 million handguns already in private hands, even an effective ban on guns might not be enough. One intriguing possibility is to return to approach that has been tried successfully in the past- buying back handguns. In 1974, the City of Baltimore de-cided to offer $50 per gun. In three months, 13,792 guns were turned in. A similar program today could help get illegally owned guns off the street, especially if combined with national gun control ( Mandel 85). It is growingly hard for law enforcement officers to fight a war on the treets against gang members and drug dealers who possesses more firepower than that of the officers.

This can all be stopped if Congress would face up to the National Rifle Association and pass a law bann-ing the manufacturing and selling of handguns. In the end, no one solution will work, and no cheap and easy cure is possible. But with the help of the community, and if everyone pulls together, we can get handguns out of the hands of America’s youth. And for these extremely strong reasons listed in this paper, I once again state that handguns should be outlawed with the exception of law enforcement purposes.

The United States Government and Out Land

The United States government is known to give its citizens great advise with much care and concern. With this being known, many people come to the conclusion that United States citizens can faith in the government when it comes to making crucial decisions. Terry Tempest Williams is not one of these people. In The Clan of the One-Breasted Women, Williams gives her views on the government conducting nuclear tests in Utah.

In contrast, in Americas Energy Plan in Action: Bearing Witness, an article Williams contributed to Orion magazine and OrionOnline, Williams speaks on issues containing actions of the government drilling for oil and natural gases. This is also conducted in Utah. Both of these articles share a common topic and tone. These two pieces both focus around major concerns for the Earth and how the government will is helping to destroy it for things like nuclear testing and drilling for oil and gases.

Most Mormons refrain from confrontation, but Williams is not the type to let issues that are of concern blow over. In The Clan of the One-Breasted Women, the urge to protest and fight back is so intense that she dreams about it. Williams feels as though the nuclear testing in Utah is the cause of the many people that is suffering from cancer. She has pretty convincing evidence. She states that no one in her family, but one, had breast cancer preceding 1960. She also goes on to state that the government tested atomic bombs from January 27, 1951 through July 11, 1962.

Williams made a bold statement that convincing the public that the testing was not hazardous to humans health was just a matter of good public relations person of the government. Her tone towards the government is light. She is infuriated with the government because of this and shows it in her tone. She also has a sarcastic tone that would irritate anyone. In this piece Williams uses very effective persuasion. She starts off by telling you about how all the females in her family suffers from breast cancer. This brings a lot of emotion out of the audience that leads to added sympathy fro the author.

I know I felt sorry for her. I was on her side from the start of the piece. Her tone was very sentimental. Then she goes on to state facts. Nothing wins an argument better than sound, strong facts and Williams definitely these present in this piece. The issue that infuriated Williams was the Irene Allen v. The United States of America case. It started off fairly pleasing but ended in ruin. She states in line thirty-two that it was the first time that the federal court determined that nuclear testing had been the cause of cancers, but this landmark ruling was not permanent.

In line thirty-eight, she says, In April 1987, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jenkinss ruling on the ground, that the United Sates was protected from the suit by the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, a centuries-old idea from England in the days of absolute monarchs. What happens next is probably what sent Williams over the edge. Williams states tat the Supreme Court refused to review the Appeals Court decision in January 1988. Williams also shows her sarcastic tone with the quote, The King can do no wrong. (Williams 128) Williams ends The Clan of One-Breasted Women with the telling of her dream.

She dreamt that women from everywhere came together to talk, sing, and dance, somewhat like prayer rituals. There were bombs being tested two miles away from where they were gathering. They claimed that the ridges in the desert were stretch marks from these nuclear testing. In other words, they are saying that the nuclear testing was weakening the land. The women grew restless and could not take it anymore. They came to conclusion that something had to be done because their land and future children were at stake. Williams and nine other women manage to trespass onto the government property.

When their presence was known the authorities were alerted. For trespassing on military grounds, military officials apprehended the ten women. Although they were not arrested, they were cuffed, searched, and dropped off in the middle of the desert with no way to get home. The group of ten did not mind this situation at all. They felt as though the land was theirs. This was home and they had a strong spiritual connection to the land. This dream says a lot about the author. For one, she is a very spiritual person. Also she wants to take action, but she sees that her action will not go anywhere and not be taken seriously.

She also knows that she is not alone in her beliefs but she does feel like she should be the leader of those who also want to protest. The Clan of One-Breasted Women is not the only piece that Terry Tempest Williams has that against some of the governments action. Americas Energy Plan in Action: Bearing Witness is another strong piece that Williams contributed to Orion magazine and OrionOnline. This piece also presents Williams sarcastic tone. She doesnt waste time either. In the beginning of the piece she states, Access appears to be no problem.

She is saying that it appears to be no problem for companies to come and drill wherever they want. This is an obvious blow towards Congress. Congress should be making it more difficult to gain access to drill and damage the land. Williams describes the process of drilling very descriptively. They stop at the designated post, put on their brakes; lower the steel plate on the desert; clamp tight; apply some 64,000 pounds of pressure against the sand like a lethal stethoscope to cold skin, then send a jolt of seismic waves below to record density. The ground goes into a seizure.

This is repeated eleven times. The steel plate lifts. The once supple red sand has turned to concrete. The brake is released and with a gearshift, the convoy moves forward until the next post appears, leaving behind a trail of shattered rock. (Bearing Witness 3) In this piece, similar to Clan of the One-Breasted Women, Williams uses words that get to the audiences emotions. When she speaks of the land she uses words that would pertain to humans. She uses words like stethoscope to cold skin and we feel the Earths pain. This is a very effective tool in her writing. She also speaks of the people working.

She feels as though they dont even have a care for the earth. She says, men read newspapers as the operations proceeds, computerized and routine. (Bearing Witness 3) She is obviously stating that these men have no concern, for they are hurting and destroying the land. Williams shows her sarcasm again when she talks about her conversation with a manager from the Bureau of Land Management. At first she claims to be relieved when he shows up. She feels as though it is his job to protect the land and make choices in the best interest of the land. He should be furious at such actions being taken on this precious land.

She is sadly mistaken. Yes, he is mad, but not at the workers. He is mad at her and the rest of the “observers” because they may be an obstacle in finishing the project. Like worker, the manager doesnt have much concern either. He states, But in the end, its all a trade-off, weve chosen to just accept the project as they give it to us. (Bearing Witness 4) Williams two pieces have much similarity in topic and style. In both pieces, she uses an emotional tone to capture the audiences attention. And once she has your attention she gives the facts. This is very effective method. Also in both pieces, she uses sarcasm.

Sarcasm can be good and bad. But Williams uses sarcasm well in proving her points. On contrary, she uses so well that if you dont pay attention you will miss it. This can be ineffective if the reader does not possess a high intellectual capacity. Furthermore, the issues that William has brought to the table in these two pieces are very important and overlooked. We should not let the government just walk over us and the land we need to live. We have to question and fight for the land that is irreplaceable. We need to question government actions even if their reasoning sounds convincing.

The Removal of the Cherokee

The Removal of the Cherokee from their land in the 1830’s remains a national disgrace today. How could our great conscientious country have done such a thing? The Cherokee were brutally moved west with disregard for the laws that existed. It showed that the United States government felt it had the power to do as it wished (Wright 280). The fate of the Cherokee was to befall most of the other Indian nations The U. S. encountered (Hudson 460). It is however, unfortunate that the Cherokee were herded together like animals because they had adopted many European ways (Wright 280).

This did not satisfy the settlers’ hunger for land. The growing of cotton rapidly depleted the soil, so much land was needed to grow (Kehoe 182). The need for land became even worse with the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 (Kehoe 183). Along with the competition between Cherokee farmers and local farmers (Kehoe 183) and the discovery of gold (Spicer 63) in Cherokee land made it apparent that the Cherokee would have to be moved if the white man was to prosper (Kehoe 183). The United States was not the first power to force themselves upon the Cherokee.

The British ad been tring to colonize the Cherokee’s land in the 1700’s (Kehoe 181). Although this was different in the respect that the Cherokee nation resorted to violence. Involved in a costly and destructive war that started in 1759, the Cherokee were forced to accept further colonization of their ancestral lands in 1762 (Kehoe 181). With the outbreak of the Revolutionary war in 1775, most Cherokee sided with British (Kehoe 181). As bad as the British might have been, the thought of having lawless rebels roaming the countryside bothered the Cherokee (Kehoe 181).

In the early 1800’s, Georgia ceded land in what is now Mississippi, to the Federal government. In return, the federal government would help remove the Indians from Georgia (Spicer 58). Then, on December 19, 1829, Georgia passed a law that incorporated a large part of Cherokee land. It -All Cherokee laws were null and void. -Unlawful for anyone to encourage the Cherokee to resist the state of Georgia. – Illegal for any Indian to testify against a white person in court (Hudson 462). The law gave whites a license to steal and cause trouble, without any consequence to whites, ince no Indian could testify against a white (Hudson 462).

While the state of Georgia was Tring to undermine the Cherokee’s rights to their land; President Jackson signing the removal act of 1830 setting aside land for the Indians in exchange for their eastern lands (Kehoe 185). The Cherokee also had supporters. The most effective were Protestant missionaries living in Cherokee country (Hudson 462). Georgia’s solution was in 1830, made it illegal to reside on Cherokee land without a license from the governor (Hudson 462). In order to get a license, they igned an oath of allegiance to Georgia. Many of the missionaries refused, and were arrested. Among those arrested was Samuel Worcester (Hudson 462).

The charges would be dropped if they signed the oath of allegiance. Worcester refused and was sentenced to four years hard labor (Hudson 462). Worcester then appealed to the Supreme court. In the controversial case, Worcester vs. Georgia,Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that they had violated Worcester’s rights and that some of Georgia’s laws ere unconstitutional. Marshall therefore ordered his release (Hudson 463). In the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia ,Marshall ruled that because the Cherokee nation was independent of Georgia, through previous treaties, Georgia laws did not apply (Wright 280).

President Andrew Jackson was furious, and reportedly remarked, “John Marshall has rendered his decision; now let him enforce it” (Hudson 463). The results of the two decisions were that the Cherokee were not protected under the Constitution, and they did not own they land, just merely using it (Kehoe186). The catch was that the Cherokee could not be moved because of existing treaties (Spicer 63). The Supreme Court would not allow Jackson to move the Cherokee legally; Jackson, along with the Georgia governor, would draw up a treaty so that the Cherokee would agree to removal (Spicer 63).

A small faction within the Cherokee’s ranks signed the treaty. John Ross argued in Congress that the signatures on the treaty were void because they did not represent the whole Cherokee nation (Spicer 63). Nevertheless, it was all in vain, removal now seemed inevitable. The Cherokee still refused to leave their homeland (Hudson 462). Since the Cherokee were stripped of their land title, white settlers started to seize their and. Some whites, when they were in control of the land, sued the Cherokee for what little money they had left (Hudson 463). Since no Indian could testify against a white, any Indian automatically lost (Hudson 463).

Other whites simply came in and beat the Cherokee men and women with cowhides or anything else they could use (Hudson 463). The General who was in Charge of intimidating the Cherokee, General Ellis wool tried to protect the Cherokee, but was Court-martialed for trampling the rights of Alabama’s citizens. He was later cleared of all Although some Cherokee had voluntarily left in the 1700’s, it was time for the remaining Cherokees to relocate (Hudson 462). General Winefield Scott was put in Charge of removing the Cherokee. He and 7,000 men came into Cherokee territory and set up headquarters in New Echota, the Cherokee capital.

General Scott also set up concentration camps to put the Cherokee until they were ready to be moved (Hudson 463). After the soldiers arrested the Cherokee, they looted their villages, burned their houses and even dug up their graves in search of the Cherokee’s valuables (Hudson 463). Some Cherokee managed to escape to the mountains of western North Carolina and remain there even today, but the rest were to move to Indian territory in present day Texas and Oklahoma (Hudson 464). The conditions in the camps began to worsen. They were cramped and filthy. Cholera broke out from time to time, killing a small number of Cherokee ((Hudson 464).

About 2,000 Cherokee had already moved, about 5,000 left in the June of 1838, an unusually hot and dry summer (Hudson 463). A larger party waited until fall to move, but they suffered from measles, whooping cough and exposure. It took some Cherokee six months to reach Indian Territory (Hudson 464). About 4,000 Cherokee of 16,000 died in the removal, known as the “trail of tears” (Spicer 63). The conditions were not much better out there. After the civil war, the land held by the Cherokee was again coveted and swindled by white settlers (Hudson 470). So how could the United States be so brutal to the Indians, and the Cherokees in particular?

Was it that poor white farmers needed land to grow their crops on, to start families? The answer is no, the need for land came not from the poor farmer, but from rich lanters who needed plenty of soil to plant cotton on (Hudson 451). It then became popular onion that we should move the Indians west. It was one of the major reasons why Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832, on his position to move the Indians west of the Mississippi river (Wright 280). Jackson therefore defeated the Indian’s last hope, Henry Clay (Hudson 463). Even Thomas Jefferson thought the Indians should give way to the needs of the white man (Hudson 452).

Why? Because it was believed that the white man could better use the land that the Indians(Hudson 452). Jefferson even said that the poor whites should mix with the Indians It is very unfortunate, because the Cherokee and the other “five civilized tribes” had adopted many of the white man’s ways. The Cherokee had their own newspaper, The Phoenix, ratified a constitution written by the CHEROKEE (Kehoe 186). They gave women important roles in government, such as councils (Kehoe 180). Yet the white man did not care, for the Cherokee stood in the way of his hunger for land.

Andrew Jackson and the state of Georgia were in clear violation of the law when they first ried to move the Cherokee, but that did not stop them. When their law stood in their way, they simply went around it by ratifying a treaty that was obviously fraudulent (Spicer 63). The removal of the Cherokee showed little respect for human life and human rights, causing the needless death of about 4,000 people (Spicer 63). Although the Cherokee kept a delegation in Washington, D. C. to fight removal, it was without success (Spicer 63). Once the Cherokees were out in Indian territory, they were forced from it also. Texans ran them out of eastern Texas

In conclusion, I find frightening that the United States perceive someone as second class people, and have the power to do as they wish. Given the United States’ stand on human rights today, I find it ironic because our past, in particular the “trail of tears” we did not care at all of human rights what so ever. Although, under the removal act of 1830, compensated the Indians for relocation (Kehoe 185), it was not however, able to pay for the 4,000 dead Cherokee. It remains a national disgrace that will forever stain our record of human rights how we so brutally and unlawfully removed the Cherokee from their homes.

Presidential Election of 1856

For the presidential election of 1856, the Democrats nominated James Buchanan and John Breckenridge, the newly formed Republican party nominated John Fremont and William Drayton, the American [or Know-Nothing] party nominated former president Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson, and the Abolition Party nominated Gerrit Smith and Samuel McFarland. Buchanan started his political career as a state representative in Pennsylvania, was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1821, appointed minister to Russia in 1832, and elected US Senator in 1834.

He was ppointed Secretary of State in 1845 by President Polk and in that capacity helped forge the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War. He was appointed by President Polk as minister to Great Britain in 1853. As such, he, along with the American ministers to Spain and France, issued the Ostend Manifesto, which recommended the annexation of Cuba to the United States. This endeared him to southerners, who assumed Cuba would be a slave state. He was one of several northerners supported over the years by southern Democrats for being amenable to slaveholders’ interests, a situation riginating with Martin van Buren.

Buchanan’s two major rivals for the nomination, Franklin Pierce and Stephen Douglas, were both politically tainted by the bloodshed in Kansas. Buchanan was untainted, since he had been abroad during most of the controversy. Even so, he did not secure the nomination until the seventeenth ballot. Fremont was best known as an explorer and a war hero. He surveyed the land between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, explored the Oregon Trail territories and crossed the Sierra Madres into the Sacramento Valley.

As a aptain in the Army, he returned to California and helped the settlers overthrow Mexican rule in what became known as the Bear Flag Revolution, a sidebar to the Mexican War. He was elected as one of California’s first two Senators. The infant Republican party was born from the ashes of the Whig party, which had suffered spontaneous combustion as a result of the slavery issue. The party’s convention was a farce; only northern states and a few border slave states sent delegates. Sticking to their Whig roots, they nominated a war hero, albeit a minor one.

William Drayton’s runner-up for the VP slot as Abraham Lincoln. Fillmore, having been the thirteenth president following the death of Zachary Taylor, found himself representing the American party after many northern delegates left the convention over a rift caused by the slavery issue. Their objection was that the party platform was not strong enough against the spread of slavery. The party’s vice presidential nominee was a nephew of Andrew Jackson and the editor of the Washington Union. The party, also known as the Know-Nothings, was extremely antagonistic towards immigrants, Catholics and other assorted minorities.

The party was born in 1850, when several covert “Native American” societies joined together, their secret password being “I know nothing. ” Smith was nominated by the Abolition party in New York, which had nominated Frederick Douglass for New York secretary of state the year before under the label New York Liberty Party. The Campaign: Neither Buchanan nor Fremont campaigned themselves. Republicans declared Buchanan dead of lockjaw. Fremont, however, had a splendid campaign substitute, his beautiful wife Jessie, prompting “Oh Jessie! ” campaign buttons.

The Democrats tried desperately to avoid the lavery issue altogether, opting instead to pursue the conservative effort to preserve the Union. The Republicans, on the other hand, actively attacked slavery. Their campaign slogan was “Free Soil, Free Men, Freedom, Fremont”. [Shields-West, pgs 78 & 80] The self-serving efforts of Stephen Douglas did more to mold the campaign of 1856 than did any other single event. Although he did not intentionally destroy the North-South balance created by the Compromise of 1850, his focused quest for the White House caused him to make some foolish choices.

Douglas coveted a rail head in Chicago for the new ranscontinental railroad. This would make Chicago a major trade center for the country, not unlike New York City when the Erie Canal was completed. He knew increased economic power for his home state would translate as increased political power for him. The South, on the other hand, wanted the rail head located in St. Louis, or even New Orleans. In order to secure southern support for his plan, Douglas chose to win them over by proposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a bill that would divide the Nebraska Territory into two separate territories, each having popular sovereignty.

This would amount to nullification of the Missouri Compromise. Using the power of his new southern allies, Douglas wheeled and dealed the Kansas-Nebraska Act through Congress. By doing so, Douglas alienated his northern colleagues. The anti-slavery movement had become a formidable force in northern politics. Douglas mistakenly believed popular sovereignty had become more acceptable to the general public than it actually had. In July of 1856, ‘Conscience Whigs”, northern Democrats and Free Soilers met in Jackson, Michigan, to form the Republican party for the specific urpose of opposing slavery.

In the meantime, pro-slavery factions, many from across the Missouri border, held a bogus election in the newly formed Kansas Territory, adopting a pro-slavery constitution and electing a pro-slavery state government. When anti-slavery citizens learned what had happened, they organized their own elections. President Pierce, in a serious error of judgement, recognized the first government as the official one, prompting widespread bloodshed throughout the territory. This new territory, born of such dubious beginnings, became known as “Bleeding Kansas”. Pierce and Douglas, from that moment forward, would be scarred politically.

Buchanan ultimately won the election in the electoral college, although he did not garner a popular majority. It was an uneasy victory, with sectionalism clearly present in the vote tallies. Normally, a period of relative calm follows a presidential election, but the political rhetoric of this campaign and the unrelenting tension between the North and the South would not allow it. On December 1, Pierce sent a bitter and highly partisan message to Congress. He pointedly blamed the ontinuing Kansas problems on northern propogandists and outside “agents of disorder”. He accused the Republicans of preparing the country for civil war.

Many in Congress were understandably outraged, reversing the charges of sectionalism right back at Pierce. Some blamed the Kansas situation directly on the outgoing president. In all, it was an unnecessarily unmagnanimous annual message. The Buchanan Presidency: In their attempt to find a non-controversial presidential candidate, the Democrats instead found themselves with a weak president. Buchanan tried to appease both sides by appointing a mix of orthern and southern politicians to his cabinet, but each side accused him of favoring the other for the important positions.

Buchanan never married, so the social duties of the White House were handled by his niece, Harriet Lane. During a state visit by the Prince of Wales, an orchestra performed the premiere of a new song dedicated to Miss Lane, titled “Listen to the Mockingbird. ” [Saturday Evening Post, pg 57] Two significant events took place shortly after Buchanan’s inauguration, both of them having a terrible affect upon the nation and neither one attributable to Buchanan. Two days after taking office, the Taney supreme court handed down its infamous Dred Scott decision, or rather non-decision.

The supreme court basically decided that slaves were property and, therefore, had no rights in the court system. The court cited the Fifth Amendment in refusing to meddle in disputes involving slaves. In the larger sense, though, the ruling declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Buchanan supported the decision. The second event was the Panic of 1857. Though not as severe as the Panic of 1837, it did cause widespread unemployment. A drop in crop exports o Europe, caused by the unexpected end to the Crimean War, caused a glut on the US market with corresponding price drops.

Bank failures led the way, starting with the Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Company, which was actually one of the most respected financial institutions in the country. Lack of specie on hand led to many more bank closures. Secretary of the Treasury Cobb had another $4 million in gold coins minted to increase the supply, but the effort was fruitless. [Stampp, pgs 223-4] The industrialized Northeast was hardest hit by the depression and northern manufacturers and bankers aturally blamed southern Democrats. Sectionalism continued to worsen.

The Kansas controversy continued to plague the Buchanan administration. He favored the admission of Kansas as a slave state. The territorial government [the pro-slavery one recognized by Pierce] held a statehood constitutional convention in Lecompton, which anti-slavery factions refused to recognize. As a result, the pro-slavery forces won control with only about ten percent voter participation. Anti-slavery forces regained control of the territorial legislature in the next election and oted down the document. Brinkley, pg 375] Buchanan, against clear evidence to the contrary, decided to side with the Lecompton proposal.

Stephen Douglas, in another bizarre moment of political suicide, argued against the Lecompton document. The statehood constitution was ultimately submitted to the general population of Kansas, who overwhelmingly defeated the illegitimate document. However, Kansas was not admitted to the union, as a free state, until the closing days of the Buchanan administration. By then several southern states had already seceded. Buchanan had failed.

Diversification within American Organizations

The United States has the most diverse and multicultural population ever known to man. The symbolic metaphor “the melting pot,” strongly states that the major problem organizations face in American society is a diverse personnel with different economical status, beliefs, and cultural background; because of this, operating an organization in American society is a very complex task. For many years, researchers struggled with the concept of finding the perfect organizational structure to meet the need of the employee and the demands of society.

However, research has consistently shown because of historical American idealism that individuals choose to interact more often with members of their own cultural groups or identity rather it’s gender, physical, race, or religious base. This type of interaction makes managing a diverse work force a major challenge for managers in the 21st century. This paper will examine diversification from four important issues facing today and future American corporations: Gender, Disability, Ethnicity, and Religion.

The four issues are protected by Federal and State laws and enforce by Federal and State courts. Since Americans are comprised of individuals from various countries, and different ethnicities many organizations have begun to embrace diversification in the workplace. Diversification within American Organizations (GENDER) The study of organizations shows the significant differences and similarities of groups. American organizations have recognized that the composition a workforce or any organization, is beginning to reflect the composition of American society.

Diversity of gender is one that is characterized by rolls of a person or persons. Research has shown that men and women are equal in terms of learning ability, memory, reasoning ability, creativity, and intelligence (Gibson, 96). Some people regard issues of treatment of various employee groups, such as those based on gender, race, and sexual orientation as primarily an issue of moral fairness. Women should be given the same career opportunities as men; homosexual couples should be given the same health insurance benefits as heterosexual couples.

American society and culture has changed considerably on these issues over the last 150 years (when women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still practiced), and organizations are asked to not only follow but to lead the way. However, many managers would counter that organizations are not supposed to change American society. They are supposed to manufacture goods and provide services for money. Their responsibilities are to their stockholders, not women’s groups.

In our media-intensive culture it is not difficult to find differing opinions. The difficulty lies in deciding which opinions to agree with and which experts seems the most creditable. As society places more of an emphasis on equal opportunity and treatment, many disparities will disappear. A well-known Dutch researcher by the name of Geert Hofstede developed a study to determine how cultures are similar in different. In this research he developed four dimension tools. One of these tools was the Masculinity-Femininity tool.

Hofstede used the term masculinity to designate the degree to which a culture emphasizes assertiveness, dominance, and independence. He also used the term Femininity to describe how culture tends to favor such values as interdependence, compassion, and emotional openness (Gibson, 63). His theory is that work in cultures can be divided on the basis of a masculine-feminine dimension. Men had jobs that emphasizes power, authority, and responsibility and women were suppose carry roles such as teaching, caring for patients, and helping the les fortunate.

Others see the issues of diversity primarily in strategic terms. Organizations compete for human resources and as the workforce becomes more diverse, organizations will have to serve the diverse needs of this workforce or they will lose them to their competitors. Organizations that discriminate against women are forced to select workers from a smaller pool, reducing their ability to find top performers. At the same time, some managers would point out that increased diversity could cause management problems.

For example, having more women has meant more problems with sexual harassment. Increased diversity brings with it the need for more flexibility, which makes management more complicated (e. g. , scheduling, compensation plans. Gender diversity recognizes that in order to have a balanced and productive workforce, organizations should foster a nurturing work environment for both women and men. This is important because ignoring the presence and contribution of women in the workforce means that employers would be losing out on a valuable resources.

In order to maximize the contribution of the female workforce, employers need to recognize that women employees bring special strengths and, to a certain extent, have different requirements that need to be addressed to realize their full potential. Male managers who have their own stereotypes of working men and women dominate traditional organizational structures. Both of these constituents need to break out of these stereotypes as the changing role of each now defy these stereotypes. Both partners need to establish new working relationships based on a proper appreciation of each party’s contribution.

Through the year 2005, the Labor Department estimates that half of all labor force entrants will be women. In addition, a third of the labor force will be people of color, and the working population is aging along with the country. In order to hire and promote the best and brightest, in order to compete globally, companies must manage increasingly diverse employee populations. In the past, many employers made a commitment to fostering diversity, women made significant leeway into professions that had previously been off limits tot them. In 1972, women comprised 3 percent of architects.

By 1993, that number had climbed to 18. 6 percent (Braun, 206). In 1972, women were 10 percent of all physicians, but by 1993, that number had grown to 22 percent (Braun, 206. ) In 1972 women made only 4 percent of all lawyers, a number that grew to 23 percent by 1993 (Braun, 206). The workplace is not the only source of accusations of gender bias. Some researchers contend that the justice department routinely demonstrates bias against one gender or another (Braun, 204). A 1994 law passed by Congress to protect the civil rights of victims of gender-motivated violence.

Society’s point of view is not a stable diagnosis of how different genders are or should be. Changes in society will result in more similarity between men and women or the opposite. In terms of workplace behavior men and women are becoming more alike. Diversification within American Organizations (DISABILITY) The American workforce is changing in age, race, sexual orientation and physical and mental ability. Working and managing in these societal trends have an impact on the public and private organizations. For years, many organizations have made efforts to provide people with various disabilities the opportunity to work.

Most of the time, people with a disability were given a job because employers felt it was the right thing to do. In certain cases these employees were terminated as a result of acquiring a disability. However, as a result of a number of governmental regulations beginning with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, people with disabilities were identified as a group to receive special consideration in employment. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 law used the term handicapped to define individuals with physical or mental impairment, but the preferred usage today is individuals with disabilities.

This law also required certain employees doing business with the government and other federal agencies to develop an affirmative action program and to make reasonable accommodations for the employment of such persons. In 1990, the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), which covers and estimated forty million disabled Americans was passed, however, it did not go into effect until January 1992. The law as adopted, applies to employers with fifteen or more employees and identifies protection for people who have disabilities.

The law requires that employers provide access to public spaces for people with disabilities. This includes making sure that individual with disabilities are ensured equal opportunity in the application process; enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the job; and to enable an individual with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. It is estimated that 17 percent of the United States population has a disability. Two-thirds of the people are between the ages of 16 and 64 were unemployed in 1990.

Studies show that 66 percent of those people indicated they would like to be employed. The EEOC, which is the enforcement agency for ADA, estimates that the annual productivity gains from passage of ADA could be $164 million not including reduced governmental support payments and increased tax revenues of approximately $222 million. The Americans with Disabilities Act is aimed at changing the perception and actions of people in the workplace. It encourages employees to recognize the abilities of co-workers rather than their disabilities.

Understanding and complying with this law means employers must take appropriate steps to change the organizational attitudes of their employees and provide training programs designed to familiarize them with the needs of people with disabilities. It is important that members of the organization understand that this is not preferential treatment and understands the organization’s intent to comply. In most instances, this does not create a problem because most unions or other bargaining units endorse this for their members.

To be considered or protected under ADA employment provisions, an individual must be qualified. This means a person with a disability must be able to perform the essential components of a job position with or without reasonable accommodations on the part of the employee. The law does exempt a number of categories from its definition of the protected class with a disability, such as people with an infectious disease whose job includes handling food; homosexuals; and people who currently use illegal drugs.

However, the definition of disability covers most major diseases, including cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, and HIV/AIDS. In some circumstances, pregnancy can be considered a disability. Generally a normal pregnancy resulting in temporary disability is not covered under ADA. However, in certain limited cases, a pregnant employee who is experiencing substantial complications that limit a major life activity may be considered disabled under the law and entitle to reasonable accommodation. The term reasonable accommodation is a critical component of the ADA’ s assurance of nondiscrimination.

It means altering the usual way of doing a job or altering the job application process and/or work environment so that another wise qualified disabled person can perform the essential job duties, but without creating an undue hardship for the employer. Undue hardship is defined as an accommodation which creates significant difficulty or expense when taking into consideration, the nature and cost of the accommodation; the overall size and financial resources of an organization; the type of business, nature of work and the functions performed by the individual.

In some cases, if you are not able to accommodate an employee in their current position, you may need to consider whether you can do so by transferring them to a vacant position. Reasonable accommodations could also mean making buildings accessible by building ramps, altering restrooms or arranging furniture to allow people in wheelchairs access to job locations. It could include modifying work schedules and purchasing certain equipment to assist in performing essential job functions.

Many employers have made it mandatory that supervisors’, who have a significant responsibility in carrying out the organization’s goals and objectives, attend training programs that assist in making the necessary adjustment. In many cases employers have altered their employment process to comply with the provisions of the law. This includes reviewing their application forms to make sure that improper questions are not included. Employers who are covered by the ADA can no longer ask any questions about an applicant’s mental or physical disabilities until after a contingent job offer has been made.

However, employers may ask if applicants can perform the specific task required by the job. This is why many employers have revised their job description to define the essential functions of each job. While the intent of the ADA law is clearly defined, the issue of disability is just one of the un-funded federal mandates that some organizations are forced to comply with. Many organizations have not taken a close look at the impact of administrative and operational cost to comply with the ADA law. The cost to comply with these mandates can sometimes cost as much as wage increase proposed by some organizations.

In its current form, the ADA law provides people with a disability the opportunity to be productive and monitors the activities of certain employers. It is no doubt the individuals with disabilities can make excellent employees provided they are placed in jobs where their abilities can be adapted and utilized appropriately. However, to be effective, the departmental supervisor has to buy in to the organization’s attitude toward disability and make it happen. Diversification within American Organizations (ETHNICITY) Since World War II the United States highly volatile economy has experienced many changes within organizations.

Whether organizations grow or decline, automate or stay traditional, personnel continue to be the means of production and the lifeline of the business. As companies develop new services, they must also develop or obtain new personnel qualified to produce these services. In this era of strikes, unions, and disgruntle workers’ one must strongly question if the problem is within the organizational structure or within our society. This section will examine diversity within two traditional organizational structures: Structural and Political.

Diversity and Organizational Conflict Our increasingly diverse society is reflected in our growing workforce diversity. Leading organizations acknowledge that working successfully with others who don’t share the same background, beliefs, or traditions is a top priority in today’s workplace. Diversified integration within an organization is the idea that all members and their cultures are appreciated and utilized to achieve organizational success; no one way is assumed to be correct; many ideas and styles are encouraged.

However, the organization cultural system imply that managers will steer the organization in the right direction and not just playing lip service to diversity but allowing each organizational member to grow for the benefit of themselves and the organization (COX, 34). Recognizing international culture within an organizational system often leads to organizational conflict; organizational conflict is the result of interdependent relationships between and among individuals within an organizational system designed to achieve a common purpose that is oppose of the organizational goal.

The causes of conflict may vary but they normally reflect the differences between an individual culture and an organizational cultural system. Levine, in his book Ethnocentrism discusses that organizational conflict manifests itself in different ways; it can be between the governing body and management, management and employees or unions and management. These conflicts are serious but not detrimental to the organization.

When the conflict clashes with or involves one culture it becomes a very serious liability that causes, poor performance, destructive attitudes, animosity, and reduced productivity, which is very detrimental to the survival of any organization. Experts have addressed the cultural conflict that many members of the minority population face when attempting to interact within the corporate structure of America. This research examines International culture within three organizational frames: Structural, Political, and Human Resource. Structural Frame Organizations

The structural frame mainly derives its concepts from Max Weber’s, “Conception of Monocratic Bureaucracy’s. The frameworks of this theory are the following: 1. A fixed division of labor 2. A hierarchy of offices 3. A set of rules governing performance 4. Separation of personal property from official property and rights Organizations such as McDonald’s, Universities, and the Military use the Structural frame as its organizational framing principle. The problem that diversified cultures cause in a structural frame organization is that of an individual’s or a group’s worth to the organization.

The following statement shows a hierarchical separation within a structural system: In 1 1996 Texaco executives were caught on tape talking about the Jelly Bean experiment, which referred to African-Americans as the black jellybeans in its structure. They stated, “The black jelly bean stays at the bottom and no one likes the black jelly bean”(CNN, 1996). The non-bonding among upper-level and lower-level individuals is a major problem within organizations that ensue a structural frame. This type of top down system clashes more deeply with organizations that have a diverse workforce rather than those that are more homogeneous.

Since the structural system is divided into labor, specialty, and rank, it is often understood what groups get into the top positions or highly skilled divisions (O’Reilly, 27). The more homogeneity the upper-level contains, the more likely the organization will face cultural conflicts with a diverse workforce. However, the more heterogeneous with the upper-level positions becomes a motivating factor that gives the employees the belief that they can also achieve that upper-level position through hard work and increase performance.

Another major problem that individuals or groups face in structural frame organizations is assimilation. Some organizations like the military are resistant to change and require the individual or group to assimilate to its traditional structural culture. The culture member(s) that chooses not to attempt assimilation into the majority culture organization by maintaining a strong social identity will experience less success signified by slower rates of promotion than the member(s) that attempts to assimilate.

I recall in Goldstein and Leopold 1994-article corporate culture vs. hnic culture, they argue that, a minority culture member(s) will experience more inter-role conflict than a majority culture member(s) when assimilation is necessary in a traditional culture organization. This effect is due to the individual’s or group’s unwillingness to accept the culture of the majority or the majority’s unwillingness to accept the minority’s culture. Political Frame Organizations In the Political Frame, one must assume and understand the realm of political functions of an organization under this model. The main goal in a political organization is power.

The Political Frame asserts that in the face of enduring differences, conflict is inevitable and power is the key”(Deal, 161). Power is defined as the ability to influence behavior, change the course of events to overcome resistance, and the potential to get people to do things they would not otherwise do. Obtaining power and influence is the ultimate goal of a political base organization. The means of achieving that goal by influence, manipulation, and coercion is the basic motivating factors within a political organization.

The political frame assumes that, agreement and harmony is much easier to achieve when everyone shares similar values, beliefs, and culture. This statement is more likely to work in homogeneous cultures like China, Korea, and Japan, but not in a multicultural country like America. “The assumption of enduring differences implies that political activity will be more visible and dominant under conditions of diversity than under conditions of homogeneity (Deal, 164). ”

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Gov. Clinton promised voters that he would change the face of government to reflect “The True face of America. ” After winning the election, President Clinton selected the most diverse cabinet ever selected by any President. This example shows the political maneuvering by Clinton to use his power to change the course of events and implies the statement of Deal that political activity will be more visible under conditions of changing from homogeneity to diversity. Although this shows how the political frame can work with diverse cultures, more often the political frame conflicts with multiculturalism.

The political frame and multiculturalism conflict in ways of cultural morals and multiple realities which produce confusion and conflict when individuals of groups view the same event through different lenses for example: A high executive position just open up in the organization and the president wants the employees to make a suggestion on who should fill the opening. Instead of the employees selecting the best-qualified person to fill the job, they begin to separate themselves into groups.

The Japanese employees want a Japanese executive in the position to support their views and give them more sense of power and influence in the organization. The Chinese want a Chinese for their point of view, Germens want a German for their point of view, and so on. Instead of the employees being concerned with the organization’s best interest, the fight for power among the groups brings conflict, confusion, and separatism within the workforce, which is detrimental to the organization.

Diverse cultural moral is another problem faced by political framed organizations. This is a problem because the political frame requires certain means to achieve an end. The political frame suggests that coercion; manipulation, force, and seduction are the motivating factors in achieving a goal. When a group or department within the organization begins to brainstorm on ideas of how to obtain their goal the methods suggested could lead to conflict with some other group’s beliefs and values; this could cause more division inside the organization.

Or social, ethic, educational and cultural backgrounds shape our individual values, beliefs, and attitudes about society and are part of what creates our individual uniqueness. This paper discusses how diversity affects two traditional organizational frames: Structural and Political. Cultural conflict often arises when one’s social culture expresses an identity, which clashes with the written or unwritten rules of an organizational culture or the organization, fails to recognize the culture identity of that individual or group of employees.

Then one must say, the tension between the work culture and social culture increase the demand made upon member(s) of an organization; this in turn affects the overall performance of the organization. Therefore, the manager is forced to create strategies to find a balance between the values and goals of its members and the organization. Diversity will challenge organizational leaders to make the necessary changes to develop a multicultural organization in today’s diverse society that fits society demands and the organizational needs.

Diversification within American Organizations (RELIGION) The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees each individual the right to religious freedom. As managers embrace the concept of diversification, and hire individuals from varying ethnic backgrounds they are also faced with the challenge of ensuring every employee the right to that freedom. During this decade nearly all of the growth in the workforce in this decade will come from people who are not white (Morrrison, 1998 p. 18). What exactly is religious freedom?

Religious right or freedom of conscience is an idea, which never ceases to be important. “In biblical terms, it is understood, as the priesthood of the believer or in a more general sense, the competence of the individual before God. If the state, infringes upon ones freedom to worship God in a free sense, for example then religious (Jersild, 1995 pp. 112-115) is compromised. Religious liberty is considered to be a God-given right to worship. ” The author Jersild (1988), writes that Americans have exalted individual autonomy and freedom to the point of a crisis in values.

The individual has become the source and judge of what is good and evil, resulting in the loss of a common morality to which society is accountable. Even the deepest ethical virtues are justified as matters of personal preference. Indeed, the ultimate ethical rule is simply that individuals should be able to pursue whatever they find rewarding, constrained only by the requirement that they not interfere with the value systems of others. It is difficult to find two concepts more appealing to the American mind than individualism and freedom.

Together they seem to capture the essence of our character (Jersild, 1988 pp. -17) as a people, yet if they are understood in certain ways they become concepts that can also threaten our common life. ” Freedom has come to mean little more than being left alone; it is our claim to our own bit of space in which we can exercise personal moral autonomy. ” Managers and leaders in today’s global and dynamic organization must get to know and understand the religious rights and customs of each individual in the workplace. Today’s leaders have to recognize that ethnicity and diversity encompass more than racial and age discrimination.

Many organizations take steps to hire minorities, women, and individuals with disabilities but they have difficulties enforcing, protecting, and guaranteeing religious freedom. Everyone made major adjustments after witnessing the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Did the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 change corporate America’s view on religious worship? Immediately following the September 11 attack, Many American corporations sent departmental correspondences to all employees requesting that they take a moment out of their daily schedule to pray for the individuals that lost their lives on that day.

Some managers allowed employees to gather collectively in groups to pray. In addition, managers distributed buttons to employees with a picture of the American flag and the Words God bless America inscribed on it.. Some employees within the organization perceived the distribution of pins to be an infringement on their personal freedom and refused to accept them. The author Capps (1990) states, ” According to social observers, the new workers are demanding of its employers. This group of new employees, which is increasingly dominated by people of color and white women, is more resistant to “fitting in” at work.

Increasingly, these employees want their individual and group needs recognized, and they ( p 119) are less interested in conforming to an organization’s already established norms. ” Other American organizations openly hung or displayed flags in front of their buildings. On the other hand, businesses that decided to remain neutral were perceived to be unpatriotic. Would you as managers and leaders consider your employees to be unpatriotic if they refused to display the American flag in the workplace if future attacks occurred on our soil?

Capps (1990) further states, “that values are dependent upon ones personal preference, and since each ( p. 120) person is unique, it is inappropriate for anyone to make moral judgment of another” Did the organization violate the rights of its workers by asking them to pray on September 11th? Were those organizations being insensitive to its employees? The author Tillman (1986) states, “there is some high-powered logic in the idea that if a certain act were done by everyone that caused great harm to come, then it would be better if no one did the act.

In the reverse, the author suggested that we think of the great good that would come if everyone performed a particular moral act in a positive way. He said the morality of an act depended on its motive ( p. 56). Therefore, management determined that they could find universal acceptance of prayer by appealing to our moral senses and it worked. Did they consider the fact that individuals in the workplace have different religious beliefs? During the last several decades our society has become more diverse and no longer share in a common religious and moral tradition (Jersild, 1990 p 37).

According to social observers, the new workers are more demanding of its employers. This group of new employees, which is increasingly dominated by people of color and white women, is more resistant to “fitting in” at work. Increasingly, these employees want their individual and group needs recognized, and they are less interested in conforming to an organization’s already established norms (Jersild,1990 p. 37). Organizational managers and leaders may have assumed that the individuals within their organization shared their beliefs and look more like themselves.

Let us consider these staggering statistics, “only 15% of the workforce population will be native white men, while the rest will be native white women (42%) native non-white women (13%) and men 7%, and immigrant men (13%) and women (9%),” (Morrison, 1988, p. 70) These statistics clearly shows how diversified the workforce has become. On February 25th, 2002 one line supervisor decided to have a unit luncheon in honor of Black History month. The supervisor asked all of the employees to join hands as she blessed the food with prayer.

Immediately after the luncheon was over, a complaint was filed with the Office of the Inspector General by one of the workers that were present at the luncheon. The worker that complained stated that she took offense to words that was uttered in the prayer. In that particular instance no disciplinary action was taken against the employee, because she used the executive director’s call for prayer on September 11th as justification for her actions. Shortly thereafter, everyone received a departmental email that forbade prayer. The employees perceived the leaders to be hypocritical for banning a practice they earlier embraced.

How do you protect the rights of one without offending another? Managers hire individuals from diversified backgrounds because they realize that they bring a wealth of knowledge and skills that will benefit the company. It is the responsibility of the organizational leaders to remove obstacles, and create a work environment that is conducive to the employee’s overall growth. Furthermore, studies have shown that employees who felt valued and supported by their organization were more innovative and productive (Clutterbuck, 1981, p. 86). Many people refuse to work for organizations that don’t express certain values to which they are committed.

For instance, young workers are rejecting employment with certain companies because of differences in values and may evaluate a potential employer on such things as it s stance on the way it treat its employees (Morrison, 1988. P. 27). How should managers and leaders handle diversification in the workplace? Morrison (1988) suggest, ” that organizations should establish accountability for Diversity. It is very difficult and complex to allocate the accountability of diversification, however, Responsibility must be distributed throughout the organization if diversity goals are to be achieved (p. 5).

Who should bear the burden of setting and meeting these goals? All enforcement techniques require top management’s direction and support. As more executives identify diversity goals as business objectives, Accountability for diversity spreads more widely throughout the ranks. We suggest that you build diversity into the ongoing responsibilities of all managers. Diversity should be discussed as part of the manager’s normal work routines, just as other business objectives (sales and customer service) are handled. Some organizations establ

American Democracy Essay

The paper in which I chose to write about is American Democracy. When the thirteen British colonies in North America declared their independence in 1776, they laid down that “governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. ” This meant that they wanted a government for the people, run by the people. This is one of the basic ideals upon which our nation was founded. The “colonies” needed to have a written constitution to define and therefore more specifically limit government powers.

After the Articles of Confederation failed to work in the 13 colonies, the U. S. Constitution was created in 1787. One ideal found in the Preamble of the Constitution is the ideal that majority rules. In our government, the Congress uses majority rules to pass bills, through Congress and the President. As there are so many checks and balances, sometimes they don’t even make it as bill. This is one of the ideals found in the Constitution.

This separation of powers, within the three co-ordinate branches, the legislative, executive, and judiciary branch has no supremacy over the others. This was designed to prevent any branch, from infringing individual liberties safeguarded by the Constitution. Our constitutional rights are very important. Without these rights, the United States would not be any different from other places of the world that do not have as many rights. Our rights secure our liberties and ensure justice for all.

I believe the Constitution was such a great document necessary for achieving American Democracy. This document was very concise in its expressed powers. In the words of James Madison, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. ” This was from Federalist #51 and states the only way government wouldn’t be needed is if we all were perfect angels and we wouldn’t need rules. The Declaration of Independence means to me that all men and women join freely together to make an equal government for the U. S.

This is basically said in the preamble by a famous quote: “All men are created equal. ” The ideal of our government have remained true over 225 years. The U. S. grants its citizens with the rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion, etc, which separates us from other countries. I think that all countries should be able to decide what government they want to have until they harm the United States of America in any way. Then we should try all peaceful ways to negotiate and if none of that works we should use armed forces.

In conclusion the American political system has about as many strengths and as many weaknesses, but it evens out in the long run. If our democracy consisted of all strengths it would not be fair and equal to all citizens. We are all different and have different beliefs and values so a utopian democracy is not possible. We live in a democracy that has succeeded mainly because it has changed with society. “We the people” have the right to run the government and if we are not satisfied with the government, we have the power to change it, because we are a democracy.

Is the Gulf War Syndrome Real

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States government acted very quickly. Ships were dispatched to the Persian Gulf, and oil prices shot up as and oil embargo was placed against Iraq. The U. S. government told us that Saddam Hussein was poised to invade the neighboring countries, including Saudi Arabia, and the worlds oil supply was threatened. George Bush launched operation Desert Shield in which a coalition of many nation’s armies gathered in the deserts of Saudi Arabia bordering Iraq and Kuwait.

As the war began, the coalition of national armies assembled in Saudi Arabia took few SCUD missile shots fired from Iraq. When the troops started moving in, Sadams army turned and tried to get out of Kuwait. The Iraqi Republican Guard stayed safely back, far from the fighting. Several hundred U. S. troops died in the brief battle, and ten’s of thousands of Iraqis died. Many, if not most, of the U. S. deaths were the result of friendly fire. At this point, George Bush decided to bring the troops home. UN weapons inspectors converged on Iraq and the coalition armies dispersed.

Perhaps the most hyped war in history was now over. It was almost certainly the war most orchestrated for the media. All the troops had been drilled for months in preparation for a tremendous battle and possibly chemical and biological weapons. Suddenly it was over. They were sent home and returned to their normal everyday lives. Memories of the threat of chemical and biological weapons remained. Years pass before rumors begin to surface, a veteran suddenly died for no known cause there was a veteran who developed an enormous tumor and there was a veteran who’s new child is severely malformed.

The threat of chemical and biological weapons returns to everyones memory. People start thinking that perhaps this is the cause of all hese illnesses. The threat seemed very real. If it could be demonstrated that Gulf War veterans are suffering from the effects of chemical or biological weapons, they might have grounds for some restitution from the United States government, or perhaps the Iraqi government. Organizations began to form in response to rising concern over the plight of Gulf War veterans.

Official Pentagon numbers show a total of 697,000 U. S. citizens took part in the Gulf War, but they may not include non-military members. About 6 percent of Gulf War veterans have reported an ailment they believe is linked to their service. The Pentagon found that 85 percent had ailments or diseases with known causes not linked to the Gulf War. Further Defense Department research is focusing on the slightly less than 1 percent of all Gulf War veterans, whose ailments could not be diagnosed.

Their problems included headache and memory loss, fatigue, sleep disorders, and intestinal and respiratory ailments. These have come to be known as the symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome. The Gulf War Syndrome is nothing more than a hearsay. It is a disease in which all of the science involving it is replaced by rumor. The opinions or real medical experts re replaced by the opinion of veterans who believe they are now medical experts.

There have been accounts of symptoms such as: aching muscles, aching joints, abdominal pain, facial pain, chest pain, blood clots, flushing, night sweats, blurry vision, photosensitivity, jaundice, bruising, shaking, vomiting, fevers, sinus growths, irritability, fatigue, swollen lymph nodes, weight loss, weight gain, loss of appetite, heartburn, nausea, bad breath, hair loss, graying hair, rashes, sore throat, heart disease, diverticulitis and other intestinal disorders, kidney stones, a growth in the eye, tingling and itching ensations, sore gums, cough, cancer, diarrhea with and without bleeding, constipation, testicular pain, epididymitis, unspecified swelling, memory loss, dizziness, inability to concentrate, choking sensation, depression, lightheadedness, hot and cold flashes, labored breathing, sneezing, sensitive teeth and other dental problems, neurological disorders, nasal congestion, bronchitis, leg cramps, twitching, hemorrhoids, thyroid problems, welts, rectal and vaginal bleeding, colon polyps, increased urination, a bulging disk in the neck, hypertension, blood in urine, insomnia, headaches, and a foot fungus that will not go away.

There have been more believable examples such as in the case of Michael Adcock. Adcock died in 1992 from lymphoma, which is cancer of the lymph glands, which then spread to the rest of his body. He thoroughly believed that he had contracted the lymphoma by being exposed by something in the war. His story was very believable, and the media attentively reported the story. But the Army Surgeon General reported that he had suffered from rectal bleeding, which is the first symptom of lymphoma, shortly after arriving to the war. And it is well known that lymphomas take as much as 10 or more years to develop. And Adcocks occurred in a ery short time.

But Adcock and his family still blamed it on the Gulf War. There have also been many reports of occurrences such as birth defects caused by Gulf War Syndrome. One of Nightlines reporters said In Waynesville, Mississippi, 13 of 15 babies born to returning members of a National Guard Unit were reported to have severe and often rare health problems. However, Nighline did not explain that the report was prepared by the parents of the babies. The Mississippi Department of Health did and investigation on the alleged cases of birth defects and found that the 54 major and minor birth defects to returning Gaurdsmen n the state were well within the predicted range.

There were also no more symptoms of low birth weight children than would be expected. Several miscarriage and birth defect investigations had searched for abnormal rates among the offspring of the veterans. They have found no evidence whatsoever. The children of Gulf war veterans and children of comparable soldiers have been analyzed, and they have the exact same percentage of birth defects. There have also been cases such as with Denise Nichols. She gave testimony before Congress that she had transmitted Gulf War Syndrome to one of her children. She laimed that her own daughter, had been diagnosed with congenital cataracts, after her return from the Gulf War.

But she did not understand that congenital means from or at birth. Basically her doctor had told her daughter had told her that her daughter did not receive her cataracts as a result of her mothers war duty. She was born with the problem. There have also been many claims of cancer among veterans. Such as Dick Fosters of the Rocky Mountain News. He claimed that William L. Marcuss congressional testimony in June 1996 had claimed that Gulf War veterans have a cancer rate of three to six times that of the normal civilian population. But the data Marcus had given were not for cancers as a whole, but for multiple myeloma. Which is a cancer of the bone marrow. Marcus had not given any overall figures on cancer.

CDC Director David Satcher later sent a letter with information explaining in detail why the data from Marcus was no adequate to sees whether service in the Gulf War resulted in increased risk for tumors or death from cancer. A representative of the VA testified that the data was too limited not only to say just how many Gulf War veterans had cancer, but also to determine what a normal rate of cancer would be. After this, Marcuss data was useless. Marcus is not an epidemiologist or statistician, he is an EPA toxicologist that did his own calculations. He did not author a study that has appeared in a peer reviewed journal, he has authored no study at all.

The only actual data found is that by the end of 1996, there were 52,000 veterans that had been medically evaluated, and only two had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Most of what pushes the Gulf War Syndromes myth is the very simple: if something happens after a given event, it must have been caused by the event. The Gulf War Syndrome fallacy is basically like this: the veterans were healthy wen they went to he war, but now they are sick. Therefore, it must have be ill because of something in the Gulf War. There have been many claims of different causes of the Gulf War Syndrome. Such as: experimental drugs, flies, vaccines, scud fuel, and Aflatoxin.

It is becoming very common for someone to say that one thing is definitely the cause, then later on to insist that something else is definitely the cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Nightline had a Gulf War Syndrome show which without a doubt showed that Gulf War Syndrome was real and that it was spreading. They first claimed that it was caused by nerve gas. Then they lamed the pyridostigmine bromide pills that the veterans had taken. Then later on they blamed it on the fumes from the oil wells. None of these could cause symptoms that are communicable. According to Rep. Evans, The commonality of experiences that (Gulf War veterans) have faced seem to be fairly convincing that they are suffering serious problems . . . But experts note that they have very little commonality at all.

Rather, the list of symptoms is both huge and diverse, quite the opposite of what one would expect if they had a single cause. Indeed, the net has been cast so wide as to include even medical problems of soldiers’ spouses. One soldier speaking at a congressional hearing described how his wife is beginning to suffer pains in her joints. But there are many who firmly believe that the nerve gas is the cause of Gulf War Syndrome. The firing of mustard gas and nerve gas was one of the biggest fears of many soldiers on the line. So many of the veterans seeking a cause for their symptoms decided that they must have been gassed. There are now some veterans who say that they remember being gassed, but none of them reported to clinics at the time.

And an IOM report states, there are no confirmed reports of clinical manifestations of acute never agent exposure. Then there was the news that sarin nerve gas weapons were blown up at Khamisiyah with U. S. troops three miles away. This gave new aid to the chemical weapons theory. Sarin gas is an organophosphate. A report on Possible Effects of Organophosphate Low Level Nerve Agent Exposure was later released. The report states, The concept of low agent exposure is not realistic. These are highly bolatile substances and disappear quickly, it is hard to imagine an open air situation in which low concentrations would not disappear to zero levels within moments.

The report also surveyed the scientific literature on nerve gas exposure. Among hese was a test on over 1,400 subjects, and the National Academy of Sciences panel concluded there were no long term effects. The subjects were exposed to a range of gas levels from low, symptomless doses too those that would cause acute illness. Also another report showed that on 297 cases of accidental exposure among workers manufacturing nerve agents found that about a fifth had symptoms, but all eventually returned to work fully functional. But all of this data has been virtually ignored by the media. I have come to the conclusion of why there are so many ill Gulf veterans.

It is very simple, because there are so many Gulf veterans. There are 697,000 veterans, plus their spouses and children. This equals well over a million people. With an amount of people this large, there is going to be basically every illness known. Persian Gulf veterans are not having any illnesses at an extraordinary rate. There are no more deaths, no more cancers, no more birth defects, and no more miscarriages than that of the public. The Gulf War veterans are having these problems because everyone has these problems. The only difference is that the media has convinced them that there neighbors illness is just an illness, but their illness is Gulf War Syndrome.

Andrew Jackson A Tyrant

This quote by Jackson underlies the fact the he was a selfish, tyrannical ruler. He did not make decisions based on the interests of the whole nation but on his own personal benefit, in search of self- achievement. Although he was portrayed or possibly manipulated the citizens to believe that he was a president for the common man, that was simply not the way he acted. As president, he purposely ignored the power of the Judicial branch to judge laws, and strengthened the power of the Executive branch above the limits in the Constitution.

He was also said to be rude and uneducated, which might have led to the reasons why he was such a power hungry tyrant; but before one makes this harsh judgment they must first realize the type of life that Andrew Jackson lived. It almost certainly was the main reason why his thought process was so different from the regular wealthy, educated earlier presidents. The third child of Irish immigrants, he joined the Army when he was only thirteen years old. Although he was young he had already developed hatred towards the British, because his oldest brother was killed fighting in the Revolution.

Even though Jackson was an exceptional soldier, both him and his middle brother were captured by British troops. After their mother pleaded for their release, the boys were set free, but due to the poor living conditions of the army camp, Jackson’s family was overcome by the smallpox disease. Leaving him all alone in life. This traumatic time in his life could have been the start of all his psychological problems. It seems that trouble almost always found Jackson. After being a lawyer for only a few years, an argument with another lawyer in the town led to an insult. Eventually Jackson challenged the man to a duel.

Things did not look good for Jackson’s opponent because Jackson was a notoriously good shot, but at the last minute Jackson offered his enemy some bacon and a joke, and they laughed together. This shows Jackson had the power to manipulate people. In just a few years of law Jackson, now eighteen met his soon to be wife, Rachel Robards. There was a small problem thoughRachel was married. But Jackson being the terrifying man that he was, played with a huge knife during the divorce trial; this petrified her first husband, and after a short trail the case was thrown out and Rachel was divorced.

Jackson and Rachel were married in August of 1791; this brought his spirits up very much. Proof of this is in how he says, “Heaven will be no heaven to me if I do not meet my wife there. ” Even though Andrew Jackson had matured a lot by the early eighteen hundreds, his temper was still blazing. In October 1803, He came across a Tennessee’s governor, whom happened to be an old rival; reportedly the governor said something about Rachel Jackson. Without delay Jackson challenged the governor to a duel, he refused and Jackson put an announcement in a local paper, calling the man a coward.

The humiliated governor then persuaded a young marksman named Charles Dickinson to offend Rachel and challenge her husband to a duel. Jackson then met Dickinson in a Kentucky meadow at dawn. Dickinson being a faster draw, fired first. He hit Jackson in the chest, a bad wound; but Jackson’s soon retaliated with a shot to the stomach that instantly killed his opponent. Dickinson’s bullet was too close to Jackson’s heart to be removed by the surgeons back then, and it stayed there for the rest of his life.

Jackson, getting bored with the farm life and politics decided he wanted to command an army once again; he led a small volunteer group south down the Mississippi River. But when the government got wind of this they sent him back to Nashville, where Jackson promptly got in another brawl with a rival. This one exploded into a shoot-out among quite a few men, and Jackson took a bullet to the shoulder. Doctors recommended it be amputated, but Jackson refused; this bullet, too, remained in him.

These are just a few examples of how Jackson’s past may have contributed greatly to his presidency; he had hatred towards many rivals and not to mention the British. Another soon to be rival on Jackson’s list was John Quincy Adams; this was because in the election of 1824, Adams and Henry Clay made what Jackson called “a corrupt bargain” And this caused Jackson to lose the 1824 election which he believed he had rightfully earned. But the election of 1828 was much different; from the beginning it was personal.

Jackson was convinced that he was the winning candidate for president, and Adams’ backers were horrified at the thought of a vulgar frontiersman in the White House. The year 1828 brought a complete and everlasting change to the way presidential elections were done. This was an extremely offensive election in which Adams’ followers took the name National Republicans. They published in papers across the country this filthy and hateful report: General Jackson’s mother was a COMMON PROSTITUTE brought to this country by British soldiers!

She afterward married a MULATTO MAN, with whom she had several children, of which number General Jackson IS ONE!! Although Adams and his supporters tried there hardest to corrupt Jackson’s chances at becoming president, Jackson received three times the amount of electoral votes that Adams did, thus making him the President of the United States. Once in office Jackson immediately showed signs of bad leadership by using the Spoils System, which is where his put his friends into his Cabinet.

In his 1st Inaugural Address he says, In the performance of a task thus generally delineated I shall endeavor to select men whose diligence and talents will insure in their respective stations able and faithful cooperation. ” This shows that right from the start Jackson was perhaps lying, this is to be believed because Jackson put his friends in office to override the Democrats rather than to equal the two parties out. Then the next big issue, the Bank War came. In which he destroyed the national bank, and again due to much evidence, Andrew Jackson’s actions as president were mainly based on his personal feelings.

Jackson already hated the national bank before his presidency. As a former, wealthy land entrepreneur, he had lost huge amounts of money because of the national bank in the 1790’s. As a result, he refused to recharter the bank when Henry Clay proposed it in 1832. Even though it was passed through Congress, Jackson vetoed it claiming that it was unconstitutional when it had already been declared constitutional by the Marshall in 1819 during the McCulloch vs. Maryland case. This was one of many vetoes made by Jackson under the executive branch.

The National Republicans, who were now called the Whigs, thought they could use the issue of vetoes against Jackson in the election of 1832, but their plan backfired and Jackson won the election by a huge margin. In his 2nd Inaugural Address, Jackson states, “So many events have occurred within the last four years which have necessarily called forth- sometimes under circumstances the most delicate and painful- my views of the principles and policy which ought to be pursued by the General Government that I need on this occasion but allude to a few leading considerations connected with some of them.

This again shows that he feels he has the ability to overpower the rest of the United States Government. In his second term Jackson faced many issues such as the Tariff of Abominations and nullification acts, which he forced Congress to pass acts, again proving he felt he had a higher power over the rest of the government, and abusing his power by forcing Congress to pass acts. But by far the main issue during Jackson’s second term was the Indian issue, in which Jackson used his power to support the removal of the Cherokee Indians.

This was a foolish move on Jackson’s part because his reputation rested upon his cold-blooded slaughter of Native Americans at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, where Jackson’s militia killed over 800 Creeks, shooting them down “like dogs,” in the Creek War of 1814. Many Americans started to believe that Jackson was prejudice. Even before the removal issue, there was already much conflict between Americans and the Indians. As America was expanding and settlers were moving west, they were intruding the Indians’ land.

Before these invasions; however, treaties were made not permitting anyone to push the Indians out of their land in Georgia. Jackson completely agreed with the treaties but when Georgia disobeyed the government and invaded the Indians, he denied and ignored what was taking place. The Indians who had been guaranteed land by the United States even appealed in court. And even though the ruling was in favor of the Indians, Georgia continued to defy the ruling. But Jackson did not put in an effort to mend this dilemma.

In fact Georgia and Jackson even ignored the Supreme Court ruling, Jackson made the United States army gather roughly 15,000 soldiers and forced the Cherokee Indians to move westward. This lengthy and horrific journey was what the Cherokees called the Trail of Tears. During this about one out of every four Indians died due to disease or lack of food. Another thing that outraged the Indians were that the American government, mainly Jackson promised the Indians nine million dollars for their relocation, but after the torturous journey was completed Jackson and his government took six million dollars out for the relocation costs.

Jackson abused his power as president by exceeding his limits and allowing his personal happiness and emotions influence his decisions that may have affected him positively but affected the rest of the United States in a negative way; which was unbelievably selfish. He left the nation with confusion and failures instead of contributing to it, achievements. Jackson once said, “I know what I am fit for. I can command a body of men in a rough way; but I am not fit to be President. “

Constitutional Democracy Essay

The basic premise of a constitutional democracy is that government has rules and all of the people have voices. Through free and fair elections we elect candidates to represent us. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to do this, and to live democratically.

The framers attacked tyrannical government and advanced the following ideas: that government comes from below, not from above, and that it derives its powers from the consent of the governed; that men have certain natural, inalienable rights; that it is wise and feasible to distribute and balance powers within government, iving local powers to local governments, and general powers to the national government; that men are born equal and should be treated as equal before the law. The framers of the U. S. Constitution sought to make these ideas the governing principles of a nation. Constitutional democracy has three basic elements.

Those being interacting values, interrelated political processes and interdependent political structures. The first idea of interacting values is popular consent. Popular consent means that government must obtain consent for its actions from the people it governs. It is similar to majority rule, a political process, in that the most popular acts or ideas of the people will be adopted by our government. There must be an allowance or willingness on behalf of the unpopular group to lose. Popular consent may provide a means for judging parental consent laws for minors seeking abortion.

Since minors are not legally allowed to be competent to engage in sex, to enter into contracts, or to form sufficient “informed consent” to agree to their own medical treatment, it is incredible that they would be regarded as competent to make a life and death decision about omething that later in life they might themselves regard as a real person, with individual rights Drawing on several major contributions of the enlightenment, including the political theory of John Locke and the economic ideas of Adam Smith, individualism posts the individual human being as the basic unit out of which all larger social groups are constructed and grants priority to his or her rights and interests over those of the state or social group.

Individualism in its original form means looking at people as discrete but whole units, without all the impressions of his social standing, the make of is car or his postal code. It is a way of deliberation, to tune out the clink of money in the background when you talk to somebody, so that you can concentrate on that person’s message and judge it on its own merits. It means looking at someone and not saying to yourself, “That’s my aunt” or “That’s my boss,” but rather, that is someone with his or her own inclinations and desires, in other words, a true Individual who incidentally happens to have this relation to me, as a relative or a superior. On a grander scale, individualism is putting the individual above the state and country.

In those countries that have always been proud of their traditional values of emphasis on the family or the country above self they see Individualism as a direct attack on these values. However, we live in a democratic country and we believe in individualism and equal opportunity for all persons. Equal opportunity for everyone is idealistic. Roosevelt outlined a second bill of rights which the book states answers the question, “what kind of equality? ” This second bill of rights was four freedoms. They were freedom from want, freedom from fear, freedom of speech & expression and freedom of worship. There are laws and acts to guarantee equal opportunity.

For example, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 which requires equal pay for equal work and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving Federal funds. But on a more personal level, we don’t all start at the same line. What about children beared with AIDS, or children born to the poor? Is it believable that they have the same opportunities as a child born to middle class parents who are still married? While every American can be denied almost nothing because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or isability, a lot of Americans aren’t in the position to be discriminated against. This means that many Americans do not have the opportunity to fully exercise their liberty. Personal liberty is freedom.

It means all persons must be given the opportunity to realize their own goals. It translates to self- determination. The Constitution states all people have the right to life, liberty and freedom. This is a bit idealistic because one person’s liberty may infringe upon another person’s freedom. Take abortion for example. Although it is legal and feminists consider it liberty, it takes away another persons freedom to life. The Constitution did not provide protection of rights to the unborn. Another issue, if a person has a right to life and self-determination, do they have a right to end their life if they are in severe pain and suffrage? Dr. Jack Kevorkian provides assisted suicide, but it is not legal.

Why is it deemed legal to kill an innocent child on a whim or for any reason, but illegal to kill yourself if you are in constant turmoil? There are conflicts that will not be resolved for a long time, but one political process which is not in controversy is the right to vote in free and fair elections. They are held with the premise that opposition will be loyal. The winning party will not interfere with the defeater’s attempts to regroup for next election and vice versa. Election officials shoulder the great responsibility of making sure that the election process is conducted under free and fair conditions without any regard to the influence of individuals, factions and groups.

The elections for the legislative body in any country are considered crucial for laying the foundation of a genuine democracy. In any country, if the credibility of elections becomes suspect, the entire political abric of that country will break down. Free and fair elections are the only means to maintain and enhance the credit and prestige of the country’s prevailing system — not the victory of this or that faction or group. The electorate with the most votes wins the election. This process is known as majority rule, but it is not a clear-cut process. Some would say majority is 50 + one, but votes can be so staggered that the winner may not have had 50% of the votes, but only the highest percentage.

The framers took care to foresee that some groups may take advantage of the plurality rule and have their way. When there is an issue, it is debated, compromised and then a decision is made after the majority and minority have spoken. In order for people to become educated to cast their votes they must have access to information about and from the candidates. A good deal of this information is obtained from the media. The media must exist without government regulations to be unbiased. To achieve that, freedom of expression must exist. It is one of the most fundamental of our freedoms summarized by the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.

Freedom of expression includes everything listed in the First Amendment – freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of petition and freedom of assembly. Unfortunately the founding fathers couldn’t see into the future, and so omitted an equally important aspect of freedom of expression: freedom of communication in any form, including broadcast and electronic. On February 8, President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Reform Bill which took away our basic rights to free speech and freedom of expression on the Internet. Our E-mail letters are now wide open for the U. S. Government to read and they will imprison us if the content is deemed “indecent.

While child pornography and national security interests should be subject to censorship, our correspondence should not. The Internet has always enjoyed the freedom of democracy. This may be another issue that we will have to fight for to be regarded as an unalienable right. If we gathered and fought for this right, we would be exercising our right to assemble and protest. A recent occurrence was in April, in Los Angeles where there were two reactions to the beating of several undocumented immigrants by Riverside County sheriffs. On the city’s west side 200 middle-aged and older hite people gathered in front of the Westwood Federal Building to cheer in support of the police and opposition to immigration.

Simultaneously, downtown, more than 6,000 marchers — mostly Latinos, with Black and Asian contingents, chanted through the streets of City Hall. So, even within our rights we exhibit opposing views. The right to assemble & protest can conflict with individualism. We live in a constitutional democracy and we believe in individualism. Every person has the right to assemble and protest, but what if they are interfering or disrupting the lives of other individuals? Whose right comes first? The protester or the burdened? The U. S. Constitution leaves that decision to the states. Beyond our values and process, political structures exist. Among these structures is federalism. The framers of the U. S.

Constitution were strongly influenced by the advantages of separation of powers and of checks and balances. These theories had been in practice in the governments of the American colonies, and they underlie the fundamental laws of the United States. The Constitution distinctly separates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The doctrine of the separation of powers means that in a free society, the liberty of citizens is secured by separating Parliament’s power to make laws, from the Executive’s power to administer laws, and from the Judiciary’s power to hear and determine disputes according to the law. It is crucial that Judges know they can apply the law without political intimidation.

The creation of three separate branches within the federal structure, each in numerous ways dependent upon the others for its healthy functioning, afforded another way to ensure that federal power would not be used ndiscriminately. The extensive powers of the president likewise were proscribed in a number of places by designated responsibilities. The judicial power was to be wielded by judges. Explicit jurisdiction of the courts was subject to congressional definition. Checks and balances are the constitutional controls whereby separate branches of government have limiting powers over each other so that no branch will become supreme. Perhaps the best known system of checks and balances operates in the U. S. overnment under provisions of the federal constitution.

The operation of checks and balances in the federal government is spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States has afforded us many rights. At times, those rights are in contention. At others, we would be in anarchy without them. Constitutional democracy is a beautiful thing. Although we may not all have the same amount of wealth, we have the liberty to. We have the right to be heard. And how is this right anymore exemplified than voting? Our representatives will do what we want, and if they don’t give us a couple of years and we’ll find someone else who will promise to. AMEN.

The American Constitution

The basis of all law in the United States is the Constitution. This Constitution is a document written by “outcasts” of England. The Constitution of the United States sets forth the nation’s fundamental laws. It establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights and liberties of the American people. It also lists the aims of the government and the methods of achieving them.

The Constitution was written to organize a strong national government for the American states. Previously, the nation’s leaders had established a national government under the Articles of Confederation. But the Articles granted independence to each state. They lacked the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems.

After the states won independence in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), they faced the problems of peacetime government. The states had to enforce law and order, collect taxes, pay a large public debt, and regulate trade among themselves. They also had to deal with Indian tribes and negotiate with other governments. Leading statesmen, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, began to discuss the creation of a strong national government under a new constitution.

The United States is a republic that operates under a federalist system. The national government had specific enumerated powers, and the fifty states retain substantial endowment over their citizens and their residents. Both the national government and the state government are divided into three different branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. Written constitutions, both federal and state, form a system of separated powers.

Amendment, in legislation, is a change in a law, or in a bill before it becomes a law. Bills often have amendments attached before a legislature votes on them.

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States may be proposed in two ways:

(1) If two-thirds of both houses approve, Congress may propose an amendment. The amendment becomes a law when ratified either by legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. (2) If the legislatures of two-thirds of the states ask for an amendment, Congress must call a convention to propose it. The amendment becomes a law when ratified either by the legislatures or by conventions in three fourths of the states. This method has never been used.

The Federal Government is comprised of three branches: Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.

The executive branch includes the President the vice President, the cabinet and all federal departments, and most governmental agencies. All executive power is vested in the President [US Const. Art. II, sec 1, cl. 1], currently Bill Clinton, who serves a four-year term. The President is the commander in Chief of the military [US Const. Art. II, sec 2, cl. 1], and has primary authority over foreign affairs. The President has the power to make treaties, but only with two-thirds of the US senate [US Const. Art. II, sec 2, cl. 2]. The President of the US has the power to nominate all Supreme Court Justices, all other federal juries, ambassadors, and all other officers of the United States. The President had the jurisdiction to veto legislation. The vice President is the President of the Senate. The Vice President serves the same four year term as the President.

The heads of each department form the cabinet, which is the highest advisory group to the President. The executive branch also includes dozens of government agencies. There is a difference between departments and agencies. Agencies have a very specific purpose while the departments are more broad. Heads of any governmental agencies are not members of the cabinet.

All federal legislative powers are vested in the Congress of the United States, which contain two chambers, a Senate and a House of Representatives [US Const. Art. I, sec 1,]. There are one hundred Senators, two from each of the fifty states. Senators serve six-year terms [US Const. Art. I, sec 3, cl. 1]. The House of Representatives has 435 members, the population of each state determines this number. Each state is granted minimum of one representative. Each representative serves a two-year term.

The powers of Congress are specifically enumerated in the Constitution and include, among other things, the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, and tariffs. Congress also has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among several states, and with Indian tribes.

To pass a law, a bill must be passed by both the House and the Senate, and signed by the President. The President has the option of vetoing the legislation, but the Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote of both chambers.

The Congress also has substantial powers in overseeing the activities of the executive branch. The House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach the President and other officers, and the Senate the sole power to try impeachment. U.S. Congressional committees may demand disclosure of information and require agency officials to testify before them. The Congress has also established the General Accounting Office (GAO), which evaluates executive branch activities and reports back to the Congress. Most GAO reports are public documents, which can be viewed upon request.

Much of Congress’ work is done by Congressional committees. The number and scope of Congressional committees can change, particularly when political control of the chamber changes parties and when the jurisdiction of committees overlaps, as is often the case.

Practically all the elections in the United States are the same, except the presidential election, which happens every four years. All political elections are based on two major parties, the democrats, and the republicans. Both parties have different beliefs and usually stick to them.

For the majority the popular vote wins, and determines the victor. Two or more candidates for the office desired ,”run”, and try to convince the voters that they are the best person for the job. While at the same time try to ruin each others. It takes one more than half the votes, to declare a triumphant party.

Presidential elections however are quite different. Two candidates, or more, run for the office of president. Along with the presidential office is the vice presidential office. The Presidential candidates chooses a running mate (the vice president hopeful). All parties, weather an independent or a popular party, have what they call a “platform”.

This “platform” is made up of many “planks”, which are what each party/person/group believes in and stands for. When it comes time for the legal citizens to vote upon an official, they go into voting areas and vote for each president. However, the citizens do not vote for the president directly. They vote for his electors, which are regular people chosen by each candidate to vote fore the president. Then the electors vote for the president. Each state has a different number of electors equal to the number of representatives.

EXAMPLE: Two candidates, A and B. Three States, 1, 2 and, 3. State 1 has a population of 100 people, and 2 representatives. State 2, 200, and 3 representatives. Lastly state three has 500 people, and 6 representatives.

Candidate A gets 30 votes of state 1, candidate B gets the remaining 70. Thus, candidate B receives the two electoral votes. State 2 is split 60 (A) and 140 (B), candidate B, again, receives the electoral votes. Now as it stands A, zero; and B, 5. The last state is a landslide for A. He gets 130 votes. He gets the 6 electoral votes. Candidate A wins the election. Even though that B had 280 votes from the citizens, he lost the election, because it is not the number of the popular votes that counts. It is the number of the electoral votes. Though it usually work hand in hand, popular and electoral, it sometimes does not.

The word citizen comes from the Latin word civitas, which in ancient times meant membership in a city. Today, citizenship refers mainly to membership in a nation.

What it means to be a citizen The rights of citizens differ from nation to nation. The Constitution of the United States provides the basic rights of American citizens, and laws passed by Congress give additional rights. These rights are called civil rights. They include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly (the right to gather peacefully for political or other purposes). American citizens have the right to vote for the President and members of Congress and to run for government office themselves. U.S. citizens have the right to travel throughout the United States. American citizens, unlike those of some countries, cannot be forced to leave their homeland. American citizenship cannot be taken away, except for certain serious actions.

Aliens and non-citizen nationals share many of the rights of U.S. citizens. But they cannot vote, hold public office, or do certain other things that citizens can do.

The rights of citizens have certain limits. For example, U.S. citizens must be at least 18 years old to vote. States also can limit voting rights to people who have registered to vote. Freedom of speech does not allow a person to tell lies that damage someone’s reputation. Many other civil rights also have limits.

The duties of citizens, like citizens’ rights, differ from nation to nation. Most governments demand that citizens pay taxes, defend their country, and obey its laws. Some governments require certain citizens to serve on juries.

Many people believe that citizens also have duties not demanded by law, such as voting, learning about public problems, and trying to help other people. Many of these duties go along with rights. For example, the duty to vote comes with the right to vote. The duty to learn about public problems comes with freedom of speech and of the press, which protect the open discussion of public events and the exchange of ideas.

Aliens must obey the laws of the country in which they are traveling or living, except for those that bind only citizens. In addition, aliens must obey some of the laws of their homeland. For example, some foreigners who work in the United States must pay taxes both to the U.S. government and to the government of their own country. Travelers who break the laws of a country they are visiting may be put on trial and fined or imprisoned. Many nations grant diplomatic immunity to aliens who represent foreign governments. Diplomatic immunity is a set of special rights granted to the representatives of foreign governments and to the representatives’ families and staffs. In many countries, these rights include freedom from arrest, search, and taxation.

Ways of becoming a citizen Nations have various laws that govern the granting of citizenship. People become citizens in two ways: (1) by birth and (2) by naturalization.

Birth. Most people become citizens of a country simply by being born there. The right to citizenship in the country of one’s birth is called jus soli (pronounced juhs SOH ly), a Latin phrase that means right of soil. The laws of most nations, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, grant citizenship based on jus soli. Some nations limit jus soli to children whose parents already have citizenship in that nation. Some nations also deny jus soli to certain groups of persons. Such persons include children who are born in a country where their parents are serving as diplomatic representatives. Persons denied jus soli also include babies born to refugees (persons who have been forced from their homeland by war or some other difficulty).

Some countries use another rule of citizenship instead of jus soli–or in addition to it. This rule provides that the citizenship of children is determined by the nationality of their parents, no matter where the children are born. The right to citizenship in the country of one’s parents is called jus sanguinis (pronounced juhs SANG wuh nuhs). This phrase is a Latin term that means right of blood. Canada, France, the United States, and a number of other nations grant jus sanguinis to children born abroad if one or both parents are citizens.

Naturalization is the legal process by which foreigners become citizens of a country they have adopted. Each nation sets requirements that aliens must meet to become naturalized. For example, aliens cannot undergo naturalization in Canada or the United States unless they have lived in their new country for a number of years. On the other hand, Israel allows Jewish immigrants to become Israeli citizens the day they arrive under a rule called the Law of Return. Many nations naturalize only people who understand the rights and duties of citizenship and can use the national language. The United States and certain other countries require aliens to give up citizenship in their homelands to become naturalized.

Naturalization usually takes place in a ceremony in which qualified aliens promise loyalty to their new country. In the United States, many naturalization ceremonies take place on Citizenship Day, September 17.

Treaties or the passage of special laws may naturalize groups of people without the usual naturalization process. For example, an act of Congress naturalized the people of Puerto Rico in 1917. The United States had taken over Puerto Rico through the treaty that ended the Spanish-American War in 1898.

Criminal courts decide the legal guilt or innocence of people accused of violating the law. The courts also determine the punishment for those who are convicted.

Pretrial procedures. In most cases, the suspect is brought to court for a hearing within 24 hours after being arrested. At this hearing, called arraignment, a judge reads the charges against the defendant. The judge also reads the person his or her rights concerning a fair trial. The most important right of any defendant is the right to be considered innocent until proved guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If the defendant pleads guilty to the charges, the judge may sentence the person immediately. If the individual pleads not guilty, the case goes to trial. The judge appoints a defense attorney to handle the defendant’s case if the accused person cannot afford a lawyer.

The judge decides whether to keep the defendant in jail until the trial or to release the person on bail. The defendant or another person puts up bail to guarantee that the accused will return to the court to stand trial. A defendant who cannot put up bail must stay in jail until the trial. The courts cannot require bail so high that no one can furnish it. But the judge may deny bail to a person considered likely not to return for trial. Some states also prohibit bail for individuals who are accused of such serious crimes as espionage and murder.

Cases involving less serious crimes, such as disorderly conduct or driving without a license, may be completed in a single court session. In these cases, the judge hears the testimony, decides the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and sentences the guilty.

Cases of murder, kidnapping, or other especially serious crimes may be presented to a grand jury. This panel, which consists of 16 to 23 citizens in most states, decides if the evidence against the defendant justifies bringing the case to trial. The purpose of the grand jury is to protect the defendant from being accused of a crime with insufficient evidence.

Many cases are settled by plea bargaining. In this procedure, the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for being charged with a less serious crime or being promised a shorter prison sentence. About 90 per cent of all defendants plead guilty, most of them through plea bargaining.

The trial. When a criminal case goes to trial, the defendant chooses to have it heard either by a jury or by the judge alone. In most states, a trial jury consists of 12 citizens. However, the juries in some states may have as few as 6 members. The jury or judge hears the evidence for and against the defendant and then reaches a verdict. If the individual is found guilty, the judge pronounces sentence. If the defendant is found not guilty, he or she is released.

In most cases, the judge determines the sentence for a defendant convicted of a crime. The judge imposes punishment that he or she feels will best serve both the offender and society. Laws may provide a maximum and a minimum sentence according to the crime involved. In some cases, the recommendation of the jury determines the sentence that may be given to the offender.

The judge may put a convicted offender on probation to protect the individual from the harmful effects of being imprisoned with experienced criminals. A lawbreaker who is on probation remains free but must follow certain rules. A probation officer assigned by the court supervises the individual’s conduct. A probationer who violates any of the rules of his or her probation may be sent to prison. Some judges require offenders to repay their victims, either with money or by working for them without pay.

Saddam Hussein: The U.S Portrayal of Evil Encarnate

When Iraq invaded and occupied the country of Kuwait in August 1990, the Bush administration was faced with several dilemmas. From a foreign policy point of view, this action could greatly destabilize the balance of power in a part of the world that was vital to U. S. interests. The United States was dependant on a continuous flow of oil to drive its economic machine, which Kuwait supplied greatly. In addition, this move would put more power into the hands of a government that was not only unfriendly to the U. S. , but a sworn enemy of the state of Israel, a strong U. S. lly.

In addition to, the fall of communism had created what George Bush had described as, “A new world order,” and would become the first major test of how the U. S. would handle its role as the sole remaining super power in this “new world order. ” There were many challenges facing the Bush administration as to the manner in which they would handle this first major international crisis. The Bush administration had to develop a consensus of the major remaining powers, and appear not acting alone in its response to President Saddam Husseins actions of invading Kuwait.

They also yearned to keep Israel from being involved so as not to alienate the remaining Middle Eastern nations. Lastly, they faced a domestic dilemma, in that much of the American public had significant reservations about involving U. S. troops involved in a foreign conflict. There remained a bad taste of Vietnam among the American public, and there were very mixed responses to American involvement in Somalia, Nicaragua, and Grenada. For the Bush administration, Hussein was not a merchant who could be bargained with, but rather an outlaw who would have to be defeated by force.

The Bush administration was faced with a task of developing (more or less) overwhelming support from the U. S. people to take any action in Kuwait, which was accomplished by a dramatic public relations move to demonize Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the American people. The task of the United States demonizing Saddam Hussein was facilitated by many factors, both real and imaginary; a mixture of true facts and public relations image making.

On the fact side, Saddam Hussein was indeed a dictator, and responsible for some true atrocities. Hussein ruled with an iron fist. Most accounts of political analysts looking at Iraq agree that his rein was one characterized by fear of the state. In her book, The Outlaw State, Elaine Sciolino describes Hussein as “a man who used a combination of terror and reward to break the spirit of his people. ” Through the use of secret police, the Baath Party and the army, Saddam controlled every aspect of Iraqi life.

As one American reporter quoted as driving through Iraq, “From the Saddam International Airport, heading down the Saddam Freeway, past Saddam City and the Saddam Water Purification Plant, we sped by Saddam institutes, Saddam housing estates, Saddam boys clubs, Saddam sports arenas, Saddam hospitals, Saddam cafes, and, of course, dozens of Saddam billboards, statues, mosaic walls, and monster outdoor portraits. ” Any opposition to his political views was irraticated. For example, membership in the opposition party ShiaDawa was punishable by death.

One of its leaders, IyatollahBaqr al-Sadr, was executed, along with members of his family, by orders from Saddam Hussein. There is significant evidence indicating that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran during their 8-year war, which is condemned universally by the international community. Hussein is quoted as saying in an interview with Spanish television, “America used nuclear weapons against Japan. Isreal possesses nuclear weapons- you and the whole world know about this. Iraq, therefore, has the right to possess the weapons which its enemy has…

America moreover, used chemical weapons against the people of Vietnam. The USSR also used chemical weapons against the people of Afghanistan. So talk about Iraqi use of chemical weapons is insincere and hypocritical. ” Most accounts of Saddams rise to power in his tenure as leader of Iraq indicate that he constantly used murder, torture, lies, and terror to achieve his goals. In addition to these hard facts, his physical characteristics, mannerisms, and someway naive attempts at portraying himself as a great hero and leader (even God-like) made him more susceptible to criticism and contempt by the American people.

The dark moustache, the heavy eyebrows and swarthy appearance made it….. easy for the media to find photographs projecting images of evil and maleficence. The fact that Hussein always wore military garb, that he portrayed himself as a warrior (when, in fact, he was never in the military) also played to the U. S. public fears. Quotes by Hussein comparing himself to Nebuchadnezzar gave credence to claims of messianic delusions and mental instability by the United States. The Bush administration engaged in a unprecedented campaign to frighten the American people as to the threat that Saddam Hussein posed.

Were dealing with Hitler revisited, a totalitarianism and brutality that is naked and unprecedented in modern times,” Bush is quoted as stating at a campaign rally in 1990. Opinion polls during this period of the crisis showed that the American public did not place very much importance on the charges that Iraq was an aggressor or that its chemical and biological capabilities posed a serious threat to the United States. But the American public did take seriously the charge (which Bush played up on frequently) that Iraq would soon develop a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Bush also played up the fact that Hussein was intractable- that the U. S. onsistently tried peaceful negations with Hussein, but that he was focused on aggression. When Bush was asked by a reporter if war might have been avoided if the U. S. had been tougher with Saddam Hussein, Bush replied, “Well, we tried the peaceful route; we tried working with him and changing [him] through contact… The lesson is clear in this case that that didnt work. ” The Bush administration turned to supposedly objective experts for support of the argument that Saddam was a dangerous man who needed to be stopped. Quoting Jerrold Post, a former psychiatrist at George Washington University, who had analyzed Saddams actions for the U. S. Government, “Saddam is not crazy.

[But] he has the most dangerous personality configuration, which we call malignant narcissism. Such extreme self-absorption. He has no concern for the pain or suffering of other. [He has] a paranoid outlook [with] messianic dreams. ” Quotes such as these coupled with ongoing reports with how close the Iraqis were to developing nuclear capabilities developed the kind of support that the Bush administration was looking for in order to send troops to fight in the war with the backup of the American public.

Saddam Hussein miscalculated and showed a level of naivete when attempting to manipulate his media image. On numerous occasions, he would have what was obviously staged events with his supporters chanting and dancing around him, firing weapons into the air, etc. One of the most obvious events involved Saddam Husseins “human shields. On August 23, 1990, 5-year old Stuart Lockwood was seen on television shying away from the uninvited attentions of Saddam Hussein.

Stuart snubbed Hussein, and ruined the dictators attempt to turn a group of British hostages he was holding into a propaganda sideshow. Stuart and his family had been imprisoned as a part of the “human shield” policy designed to prevent a United Nations task force from liberating Kuwait. Stuarts mother, Glenda Lockwood, recalls the incident in her diary-made-book very clearly: “Today, my five-year old son became the tiny “British Bulldog” who apparently defied the most ruthless, murderous dictator of the 1990s and was witnessed doing so by television viewers all over the world.

Because he was literally standing on the wrong spot at the wrong time, he has had to endure the sort of media pressure and hype that can make even toughened film stars crack under the strain…. “. Events such as this not only outraged the American public, it confirmed everything that the Bush administration had been pushing to them. Of course, this played into the hands of the Bush administration, and they used all of their manipulative powers in the medias to make as much possible out of these events.

All in all, the Bush administrations actions during the Gulf War crisis were considered to be very successful. There were those, of course, who criticized Bush for U. S. troops having to die for “oil money. ” However, the largest criticism over time was that Bush didnt “finish the job,” by assuring that Hussein was out of power and/or assassinating him. The fact that this was the largest criticism of Bush speaks to the effectiveness to Bushs campaign and shows how demonizing Saddam Hussein truly was the best way to earn support from the American people.

Revolutionary War Heroes

There were many great men in the past who have contributed greatly to the growth prosperity and independence to this country. These historical figures include such men as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. These men served their country as revolutionary war leaders and helped American to become the free and just country it is Benjamin Franklin, born January 17, 1706, was the 10th son, and 15th child, of 17 children in the Josiah Franklin family. Josiah was a soap and candlemaker, who lived in Boston, Massachusetts with his second wife, Abiah Folger.

Although Franklin learned to ead at an early age, he only attended grammar school for two years. By the time he was 10 years old, Franklin was working for his father. However, he didn’t enjoy the candlemaking profession, and two years later, Franklin was apprenticed to his brother For five years, Franklin sought to master the printers’ trade. During this time, he also strove to improve his education. Franklin read numerous classic novels and perfected his writing style. One night, Franklin slipped a letter, signed “Silence Dogood,” under the door of his brother’s newspaper, the New England Courant.

That letter and the next 13 written by Franklin were published anonymously. The essays were widely read and In 1723, at age 17, Franklin left for Philadelphia. He got employed at a printing job in London, learning many important skills. He came back to Pennsylvania and had by 1730 become owner of a printing business. This is where Franklin published his first official literary work, The Pennsylvania Gazette. In 1731, Franklin founded what is considered the first public library.

During the next several years, Franklin was responsible for establishing the first fire department, a olice force, and the Academy of Philadelphia, which became the University of In 1732, Franklin began compiling and publishing the annual Poor Richard’s Almanac. With its homely virtues, it attracted a large amount of people interested in his work and made Franklin’s name a household word. Franklin had gotten involved in politics and represented Pennsylvania at the Albany Congress in 1754, called in response to the French and Indian Wars.

In 1757, Franklin was sent to England to petition the king for the right to levy taxes. He remained n England for the next five years, and in that time he obtained permission for Pennsylvania to tax the estates of its proprietors, successfully repealed the Stamp Act, and represented the voice of several colonies. He befriended powerful British political leaders and wrote political satires and pamphlets on public affairs, helping keep the colonies During the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Franklin spoke on the problems of society, “I cannot but lament… he impending calamities Britain and her colonies are about to suffer, from great Imprudencies on both sides- Passion governs, and he never governs wisely- Anxiety begins to disturb my rest… ” Benjamin Franklin- In 1776, Franklin went to France, as one of three commissioners, to help negotiate The Treaty of Commerce and alliance, which was signed with Franklin’s help, in 1778. He then helped negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain, signed in Paris in 1783, known as the Treaty of Paris. He remained in France for nine years, working on trade treaties.

Franklin became a hero to the French, and his company was sought by diplomats and nobility. He was honored by Louis XVI, and his portrait was placed on everything Returning to the U. S. in 1785, Franklin served as a member at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 for 2 years. In 1787, he was elected the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery cause. Franklin was bedridden during the final year of his life and died on April 17, 1790. As one of his final public acts, he signed a petition to the U. S. Congress urging the abolition of slavery, just two months before his death at the age of 84 in 1790.

Thomas Jefferson was born on April 13, 1743, in Shadwell, Virginia. His father, Peter Jefferson, was a surveyor who built a substantial estate; he died in 1757 leaving Jefferson and his family a very wealthy will. His mother, the former Jane Randolph, was a member of one of Virginia’s most wealthy and respected families. Jefferson was the oldest of two sons; he also had six sisters. In 1760, Jefferson entered the College of William & Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. He studied law with the state’s leading legal scholar, George Wythe from 1762 to 1767. Jefferson then began practicing his law, mostly handling cases involving land claims.

He practiced until 1774 when the American Revolution closed the courts. In 1768 , he won a seat in the Virginia legislature, then called the House of In the years leading up to the American Revolution, Jefferson was a powerful and well known voice in the growing opposition within Virginia to the British Parliament’s taxation policies and Britain’s general control over the American colonies. In a book entitled A Summary View of the Rights of British America (published without his permission in 1774), Jefferson argued that America’s bonds to Britain and King George III were voluntary and Parliament has no authority in the Colonies.

The colonies were taxed internally and externally; their essential interests sacrificed to individuals in Great Britain; their legislatures suspended; charters annulled; trials by jurors taken away; their persons subjected to transportation across the Atlantic, and to trial by foreign judicatories; their supplications for redress thought beneath answer, themselves published as cowards in the councils of their mother country, and courts of Europe; armed troops sent amongst them, to enforce submission to these violences; and ctual hostilities commenced against them.

No alternative was presented, but resistance or unconditional submision. Between these there could be no hesitation. They closed in In the spring of 1775, Jefferson was appointed as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A shy and quiet man, he was regarded as a superior writer and was named to a five-person committee (also including Benjamin Franklin) in charge of drafting a formal statement of the reasons for the colonies’ potential break with Britain. In just a few days, Jefferson wrote the first draft of he document that became known as the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence listed the grievances against George III and offered statements of Inspired by writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson returned to Virginia in October 1776 and began his efforts to reform the state’s legal code in order to bring it more in line with the revolutionary principles of equality, especially in the areas of distribution of property and education. Jefferson also caused controversy with his strong proclamations of religious freedom and the separation between church and state.

As the Revolutionary War drew to a close, Jefferson was called upon to serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress in December 1782, during which he drafted the policy regarding the entrance of the Western territories into the new United States, which became known as the Northwest Territory. Soon after, he agreed to succeed Benjamin Franklin as the American minister to France, moving to Paris in 1784. Jefferson was fortunate enough to leave France in late 1789, just before Paris erupted into mob violence.

Upon his return to America, he took office as the first ecretary of state under George Washington, the heroic Revolutionary general and newly elected president of the United States. As secretary of state, Jefferson was largely responsible for the new nation’s foreign policy; he took a pro-French viewpoint in the conflict between Britain and France. Jefferson was extremely vocal in the debate surrounding the new Constitution—his greatest concern about the important document was that it made the federal government too powerful because it lacked a bill of rights to protect the rights of states and individuals from federal overpowerment.

In 1793, Jefferson stepped down from the office of secretary of state and returned Three years later, he finished second in the race for the presidency against John Adams, all the while denying publicly that he was even a candidate. As the runner-up, Jefferson became Adams’ vice president. In that office he continued opposing the emphasis on a strong federal government, such men as Washington, Adams, and Alexander Hamilton supported. These men had then become known as Federalists.

By the mid-1790s, two distinct parties had emerged: the Federalists and the Republicans, led by Jefferson and James Madison, which represented America’s first opposition party. During this period, his critics labeled Jefferson a traitor and hypocrite, pointing out that even as he denounced divisions as destructive to government, he himself started a The presidential election of 1800 was a very close and heated debate. Jefferson and his chosen vice presidential candidate Aaron Burr tied for the most votes. The election was then thrown into the House of Representatives, where Jefferson proved victorious after several weeks of debate.

As president, Jefferson voiced his desire to return to the principles of the Revolution and of the Declaration of Independence and spoke his faith in the power of human reason as the guiding principle of self-government. His ideas were based on the limited central authority and protection of individual rights. The major accomplishment of Jefferson’s first term undoubtedly came in 1803, when France sold the United States the entire Louisiana region—land stretching from the Mississippi Valley to the Rocky Mountains—for $15 million.

The Louisiana Purchase, along with the journey throughout the new territory led by Jefferson’s private secretary Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, expanded America’s knowledge of the western Jefferson was reelected by a landslide in 1804, but nonetheless faced attacks on his administration from the small but vocal groups of Federalist opponents that remained. His second term was hurt by the highly unpopular Embargo Act in 1807 which prohibited U. S. exports in order to protest British and French violations of American neutrality following the renewal of the Napoleonic Wars.

The embargo stunted the younger nation’s economy and had little effect on France or Britain. Another unpleasant happening during Jefferson’s second term was the trial for treason of ex-Vice President Aaron Burr after Burr arranged a suspicious expedition into areas of the American Southwest in order to detach that region from the U. S. An angry Jefferson demanded Burr’s conviction, but Burr was eventually acquitted by Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court in a Jefferson declined to seek a third term in 1808, retiring to his home in Virginia.

Jefferson’s passionate love for architecture, philosophy, and education came together in the founding of the University of Virginia (UVA) at Charlottesville, in 1819. He had great influence on the school, as he designed the buildings, planned the curriculum, and selected the faculty. At the time of its opening in 1825, UVA was unique among American universities because it had no religious affiliation or requirements and no president or administration, except for a self-enforced honor system.

Jefferson died at his home on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In his chosen epitaph, Jefferson made no mention of his eight years as America’s president, leaving behind a vision the way he himself wanted to e remembered: “Thomas Jefferson: Author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the These two men were very important role models in shaping our countries history.

They supplied our country with a great deal of knowledge and commitment, and fought for the freedom of all who inhabited this country. They set up the basic structure of our nation, with right to freedom. Without these men, their ideas, and their determination, our country would not be as it is today.

Andrew Jackson – the authors words, was “mild, polite, polished, benevolent, and democratic”

Andrew Jackson, in the authors words, was “mild, polite, polished, benevolent, and democratic. ” It would not be in anyones favor to question the validity of the his words, but to understand them with unrestrained faith in those words will help to insure complete insight into the book. Moreover, this book stresses the immortal fact that Jacksons private life had as much irony and agony as his political/outside life did. With those factors understood, Jacksons life and the times he lived in, will become clear to all.

The important point to understand about most things in this world is the nature of their origins, Andrew Jackson is no different. Born with no idea as to what his father looks like, Andrew Jackson Jr. , third son from Elizabeth and Andrew Jackson Sr. , will be raised at the home of Elizabeths sister and brother-in-law, the Crawfords in the state of South Carolina. Andrew Jackson Sr. descended from a long line Ulster families that were thrown out of Ireland, seeking refuge in the United States, made their home in South Carolina.

Jackson Sr. ying suddenly before his sons birth, left Andrew to grow up without a male parental figure. Living in the Crawfords gave young Andrew little rewards; he was given very little schooling of basic reading, writing, and figuring. So, how, in fact, does a man that receives less education than the average American at that time, not to mention the likes of John Adams or Thomas Jefferson, be, in the many historians minds, greater than Adams or Jefferson? The long answer to that question will start when “Andy” as the young, and slim Jackson is called, attains to the age of 13.

The year was 1780, British troops had taken South Carolina, Andys oldest brother had joined the American regiment fighting in their home town, but died due to heat exhaustion in battle. At the sight of his deceased brother Hugh, Jackson joins the army as a mounted messenger. After the fighting halted, both Andrew Jackson and his brother Robert (who had also joined the American army by now) went back home to the Crawfords. Even though official battles had been temporarily stopped, the “civil war” raged on as Patriots fought Tories in the towns of South Carolina, catching young Andrew Jackson in the midst of the fight.

In one bloody encounter, Jackson and his brother were taken prisoner by British dragoons. A British officer ordered Andrew to clean his boots. The boy refused, claiming his right as a prisoner of war not to be treated like a servant. The furious officer whipped out his sword and slashed at the boys head. Luckily for Jackson, his stealth saved him from certain death, but leaving him with scars on his left hand and head which he carried with him his whole life, along with a hatred for the British.

Thrown into prison camp, Elizabeth Jackson would not let her sons rot in British cells, and making deals for exchange of prisoners, got her sons in the trade. Alas, Robert died during the trip home, and Elizabeth was barely able to save Andrew. Being the courageous woman that she was, Elizabeth Jackson made a journey to Charlestown Harbor, where she intended to help American soldiers sick in British prison ships, but while nursing the plague-ridden men, she caught cholera herself and died. Andrew Jacksons response, “I felt utterly alone”, was all that needed to conclude his feelings about events at that time.

The following years after that, until he ventured into politics, included going from city to city in South Carolina seeking the horse-race and drinking his heart out. Uncontrolled and unrestrained by anyone or anything besides money, Andrew would come to see and do almost everything imaginable at that time in the United States. He had also gone into various professions, from teaching to law. It was at law where he began his rise to politics. On the road to becoming a lawyer, Jacksons first stop was be apprentice to Spruce MaCay, in North Carolina.

But simply being apprentice wasnt enough, Jackson left MaCay after two years, and when he finally got admitted to the state bar, he began drifting about the local courts, taking a case here and there. It wasnt until an old friend made him the public prosecutor of the new Western District of North Carolina that he got his first major break as a lawyer. Now in his twenties, Jackson finally gains wealth and becomes a indispensable lawyer to the speculators in Nashville, N. Carolina. It was also during this time, that Andrew Jackson takes a wife.

He had an intimate relationship with the landladys daughter Rachel that he lived with during his time in Nashville but could not move in on her because she was married. Her husband left her, and by the fall of 1790, rumor had spread that he was ready for divorce. Andrew and Rachel then got married, but this event became an issue because of the fact that Rachels husbands divorce was only a rumor, where, in later years, in the great game of politics, the issue would be brought up over and over again that Andrew Jackson committed ungentlemen-like bigamy. Marriage had brought Jackson a few miles ahead in the road through politics.

Being the very influential family that Rachel Donelson was from, she helped provide Jackson with enough political and economic boost to become one of the richest men on the Western Frontier. Due to his vast holdings, and his leadership on this new state called “Tennessee”, Andrew Jackson landed a seat in the U. S. Senate. Showing very little political ambition, and not accomplishing a whole lot, Jackson soon resigns his seat. It was after his senate resigning that Jackson would become major general of the militia of Tennessee and where his great accomplishments in the battle field start.

During the War of 1812, General Jackson, with his troop of 2,500 men, was to march to Natchez, at the tip of the Mississippi, to prepare strikes on either Pensacola, Mobile, or New Orleans. But unfortunately the War Department in Congress recalled his troops, and along the hardship-filled way back (through Indian territory, without pay, transportation, or medicine) to Nashville, Jackson received the nickname that would cling to him forever-Old Hickory-because of his willingness to walk alongside his troops in support, comforted the sick, encouraged the weary, and doled out rations.

Shortly after he had received the Old Hickory name came Jacksons greatest victory courtesy of the battle of New Orleans which ended the War of 1812. The time was following Napoleon Bonapartes defeat in France, Great Britain had now assembled a troop of 14,000 men to attack the U. S. in three directions: top from Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay in the middle, and New Orleans in the south. The Lake Champlain and Chesapeake Bay campaigns were easy victories for Britain, but the most important battle rested in New Orleans, even with their victories, the tide can turn with a win by General Jackson in New Orleans against the British.

Recruiting two regiments of African Americans, dastardly employing pirates, it is still known as a miracle today that he pulls off this great win considering that the odds of 7:3 against the Americans which make this battle even more memorable. “New Years Day, 1815, General Edward Pakenham of Great Britain commands his (7,000) troops to begin a heavy bombardment of the American positions. In two hours of steady fire, the British were outgunned; they failed to breach the American line. Pakenham then came up with an unworkable plan.

He would hurl all his power straight ahead through the Americans well-prepared fortifications. It meant committing thousands of his redcoats to a frontal assault in the hop that their superior numbers would shatter the American resistance. Fighting starts at dawn on the eighth of January, the files of soldiers made two direct attacks in the face of deadly rifle and artillery fire. All the Americans had to do was shoot them down as them came. The British broke completely and fled the field. ”

Some years after that great victory in Orleans, once he regains his health in his Hermitage, Jackson enters politics in the form of assuming the newest state (Florida) to enter the Unions governorship. And after a few years of that, at the age of 55, but, “looking 65”, he is once again elected into the U. S. Senate. The interesting event that occurs during his third stint on the Senate is that now, the idea of Andrew Jackson as the next president of the United States has suddenly crept into everyones mind. The stage was now set for the greatest election the world has known in that time.

Jacksons candidacy had come from state legislatures due to the collapse of the party caucus system. Backed by one of the best politician in the U. S. at that time (William B. Lewis) and one of the wealthiest men (John Overton), his campaign was destined to be a success. His opponents were John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts, who was the Secretary of State; Henry Clay of Kentucky, majority leader of the House of Representatives; Secretary of War from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, and William Crawford of Georgia, the Secretary of the Treasury.

Due to lack of support for himself, and the apparent overwhelming support for Jackson, Calhoun withdrew from the race and joined Andrew Jacksons forces as the vice-presidential candidate. As the campaign went on, Jacksons men had to sway voters by saying one thing in one state, while his men in another state would contradict that same statement, making him seem like a vote-monger in the eyes of many people and to which his opponents used as a weapon against him. But, alas, Jackson was not to be denied votes since he stood so firmly on the issue of slavery.

Defending slavery caused him to finish with the most popular votes overall, but did not get enough votes to win the electoral college. Upon which case, the irony of this election started. It so happened that Henry Clay wound up as the last of the candidates to have a chance at the presidency, and since Jackson, Adams, and Crawford now needed to win by vote in the House of Representatives, Clay, being Speaker of the House, struck a deal with his least hated person out of the three, which was Adams. So therefore, Adams getting the support of the leader of the House, wins the election of 1824, much to the dismay of Jackson.

At this point in time, angry Old Hickory makes plans to usurp and defeat Adams in 1828 following the possible “corrupt bargain” that was struck between Clay and Adams. Andrew Jackson and his followers now formed the Democratic Party. With men such as Martin Van Buren and John C. Calhoun campaigning and propagandizing on his behalf, he found Campaign 28 to be an easy victory, despite vast accusations about his personal life from opponents that led to the saddest day in Andrew Jacksons life when Rachel, reacting to pamphlets about her alleged affair with Andrew, and other assorted gossip, grows ill and dies.

This event shocked and made Jackson utter the words, “I feel utterly alone” once again in his life: but he strives on, being the Old Hickory that he is, and inaugurates as the 7th President of the United States of America. One of the most memorable items during Jacksons terms was his “Kitchen Cabinet”, which consisted of Francis P. Blair, Amos Kendall, Isaac Hill and William Lewis; all of whom are newspaper editors with the exception of Lewis. The four men would assist in close matters with Jackson, who does not really trust the competence of his Congressional Cabinet.

These mens ideas helped shape Jacksons administrative policy, but in no way did they dictate what Jackson said or did, because he was “master in his own White House”. That label would soon come to bestow upon him the honor of being one of the most “king-like” presidents in history, due to his over-excessive use of the veto power. Andrew Jacksons greatest battle in the political ground also resulted in his re-election when he started his War against the Bank (of the United States).

The Banks story begins with Alexander Hamilton, who made Congress pass the Banks charter in 1791, it was meant to stabilize the governments finances and establish its credit. Partly private, partly government-financed and -controlled, it became the cornerstone of the American economy by providing a safe place to deposit the governments funds, lend the government money when needed, regulate state banks lending, issue bank notes, and collect taxes. The Banks charter had ended in 1811, but in 1816, President Madison rechartered the Bank for twenty years.

By the Panic of 1819, when (land) speculative fever pushed people to the brink of bankruptcy and failure, state and local banks also arrived at that point because they made loans that they did not have equal amounts in gold or silver to back up. Distrust everywhere, by mostly everyone in the system of the Bank had arrived at an all time high. But a resurgence by the bank in the 1820s, led by its young, handsome, and energetic president, Nicholas Biddle, allowed it to survive. Biddle continues to do well until the early 1830s, when he tries to recharter the bank. He tried to appeal to Jackson for recharter.

It is interesting to see that what fueled Jacksons anger towards the Bank of the United States was his own misfortune at the hands of it: during a time where he had planned to open a merchandise store, but a land-speculating deal gone awry, mainly because of Bank of the United State bank notes, forced him to forfeit his plans on the merchandise store, and left him in poverty for a time. And so with that hatred, Jackson makes this great fight against the bank, charging that the bank was the beneficiary of special privilege, granted a monopoly of the governments business by charter.

That monopoly worked for the aristocrats, and hurt the common man. Not only was the bank evil, but it was also unconstitutional. With that said, President Jackson rallied the people behind him in the stand on the Bank of the U. S. So in the election of 1832, Henry Clay, the opponent of Jackson, supports the Banks recharter, and therefore loses the election. With his last breadth at a time of his greatest power, Clay gathers enough votes in Congress to pass a recharter of the Bank; but Jackson vetoes it, and that ended the life of the first Bank of the United States.

With that beening his greatest use of the veto power, President Andrew Jackson becomes “King Andrew I” that so many people portrayed him to be. In the totally contradicting statement, he cannot be that because him and his followers started the democratic party, which was essentially the party for the people! Ending, it is interesting to see how his early childhood and wife shaped him, from being juvenile teenager, to the Old Hickory millions have come to praise. Knowledge/Insights The new knowledge that Ive gained from this book complements the ones Ive received reading Hofstadter.

Where Hofstadter tells me mainly of the political side into the life of Jackson, this book gave me feelings and emotions towards Jacksons life. In a sense, Hofstadter has a touch of “coldness” about his works, whereas the author of this book gives Andrew Jackson a heart. Also, I see the great detail implemented in this book, or lack thereof from our text books which causes me to wonder about the quality of our textbooks, and that maybe I should always read a biography of a character in American History every time someone famous is mentioned in the textbooks.

My insight into this book is that as most biographies go, this one is truly exemplary. Not only does it tell of one of the most interesting men that ever graced this earth, it tells it in a melodramatic way, from the unparalleled reactions of Jacksons shooting of Charles Dickinson to Jackson hopeless mourning over the corpse of his dead wife, as he “(hopes) vainly for signs of returning life(in her)”. Jacksons pure energy, raw emotion, as shown in the Battle of new Orleans, where even sick, he can give orders to win the battle, is truly mind-boggling.

Also, being the first ever “self-made” man and president, he is truly a character that seems almost fictional in the way he can transcend from one thing to another. His survival at the hands of several duels, and to live to the incredible age of 78 with several bullets lodged in his chest from duels, truly shows how incredible a man Jackson had been. The statement that he was “born poor and died rich” fits Andrew Jackson perfectly. My most important insight into this book is that if you take away the politics and egotistical displays of power, and make the Battle of New Orleans the focus, Jackson would make a great hero for young kids.

Also, if you strip away his machinations with battle and fighting, you could make Jackson to be the true self-made man that Abraham Lincoln is, in the rise to politics. Relationship Between Book & 19th Century American History This books intricate relation to developments of the 19th century include the rights and questions of slavery, the American Frontier and its ideals of the “self-made” man, and questions about the rights of Indians to their lands. Regarding the slavery issue, the book tells clearly of Andrew Jacksons dealings as a “average” slave holding.

By “average”, I mean that he would probably not do anymore or less to hurt or command his slaves around than anyone else would in other plantations. To that end, what he cannot possibly condone was runaways; he would pay extra for slave catchers to have the runaways lashed in the effort to teach obedience. Andrew Jackson is a very commanding and forceful person by nature, and when slaves step out of line, he had the right to punish them, so he feels no sorrow for either peoples-black or red-only contempt.

In one time, during a raid on a Negro Fort before Florida had joined the Union, Jackson and his soldier massacred free blacks, just because of the “slave-holders desire to enslave or kill blacks enjoying their lives in freedom. ” Slave trading contributed to those ideas that regarded him as the first “self-made” man/president. Abraham Lincoln mightve been the best example of a “self-made” man, but Andrew Jackson was the forefather of that ideology. Having born into poverty, and struggled most of his life through poverty, he climbed the first step in the ladder of success by knowing that the step was in the practice of law.

After some years of practice, it paid off, eventually leading to his marriage into aristocracy to Rachel Donelson. Out of all three of these relationships into 19th century American History, Andrew Jacksons thoughts and acts towards the Native Americans is the most intensified subject. In this field, Jackson typified the “white man that would cheat the Indian out of land he did not own in the first place! ” President Jacksons greatest action towards Indian removal came in the form of the Trail of Tears.

This started in the state of Georgia, where the Cherokee nation was “catching” up to the white man, and as a measure of defense or out of fear, as Calhoun states, “The whole trouble with the Cherokees, , was precisely their progress in civilization. ” Jackson, whom sometime ago made treaties and talked of peace with the “5 civilized tribes” of the Southeast, is now driving the Cherokees out of land that the “white, middle-classed” man wants. And so, with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the Cherokee Indian population was forced to move from Georgia into what is now Oklahoma, losing about 1/4th of the total population along the way.

Merits and Assessment My assessment as to the merit of this book is that it is one of great moral and intellectual integrity. It cannot stress more on the moral side as it unbiasly tells the reader the whole truth about Andrew Jacksons love life, family life, war life, and political life. This book is intellectually stimulating, making you feel the urge to somehow, some way, relive the life of Jackson, but you know that is not possible, so you go and reread the book again. Andrew Jackson and His America clearly depicts emotions, and even though there is no open dialogue, you get a sense of what the characters feel during trying times.

Anti-Vietnam Movement In The U.S.

The antiwar movement against Vietnam in the US from 1965-1971 was the most significant movement of its kind in the nation’s history. The United States first became directly involved in Vietnam in 1950 when President Harry Truman started to underwrite the costs of France’s war against the Viet Minh. Later, the presidencies of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy increased the US’s political, economic, and military commitments steadily throughout the fifties and early sixties in the Indochina region.

Prominent senators had already begun criticizing American involvement in Vietnam during the summer of 964, which led to the mass antiwar movement that was to appear in the summer of 1965. This antiwar movement had a great impact on policy and practically forced the US out of Vietnam. Starting with teach-ins during the spring of 1965, the massive antiwar efforts centered on the colleges, with the students playing leading roles. These teach-ins were mass public demonstrations, usually held in the spring and fall seasons. By 1968, protesters numbered almost seven million with more than half being white youths in the college.

The teach-in movement was at first, a gentle approach to the antiwar activity. Although, it faded when the college students went home during the summer of 1965, other types of protest that grew through 1971 soon replaced it. All of these movements captured the attention of the White House, especially when 25,000 people marched on Washington Avenue. And at times these movements attracted the interest of all the big decision-makers and their advisors (Gettleman, 54). The teach-ins began at the University of Michigan on March 24, 1965, and spread to other campuses, including Wisconsin on April 1.

These protests at some of America’s finest universities captured public attention. The Demonstrations were one form of attempting to go beyond mere words and research and reason, and to put direct pressure on those who were conducting policy in apparent disdain for the will expressed by the voters (Spector, 30-31). Within the US government, some saw these teach-ins as an important development that might slow down on further escalation in Vietnam. Although several hundred colleges experienced teach-ins, most campuses were untouched by this circumstance.

Nevertheless, the teach-ins did concern the administration and contributed to President Johnson’s decision to present a major Vietnam ddress at Johns Hopkins University on April 7, 1965. The address tried to respond to the teach-ins campus protest activity. The Johns Hopkins speech was the first major example of the impact of antiwar. Johnson was trying to stabilize public opinion while the campuses were bothering the government. In 1965, the US started strategically bombing parts of Northern Vietnam, catalyzing the antiwar movement public opinion of what was going on in Indochina.

These bombings spawned the antiwar movement and sustained it, especially as the North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh refused to listen to American demands (VN History and Politics). The antiwar movement would have emerged alone by the bombings, and the growing cost of American lives coming home in body bags only intensified public opposition to the war (VN H. and P. ). This movement against the Northern bombings, and domestic critics in general, played a role in the decision to announce a bombing pause from May 12 to the 17, of 1965.

Antiwar activists carried on through the pause with their own programs, and the scattered teach-ins had become more of a problem for President Johnson when their organizers joined in an unofficial group, he Inter-University Committee for a Public Hearing on Vietnam. This new committee began planning a nationwide teach-in to be conducted on television and radio, of which would be a debate between protesters and administrators of the government. The antiwar movement, through the national teach-in, contributed to the resignations of many government officials, including the resignation of McGeorge Bundy in early 1966.

This well-publicized debate made the antiwar effort more respectable. As supporters of the war found themselves more popular, they were driven increasingly to rely on equating their position with support for our boys in Vietnam. ” (Brown, 34). The antiwar movement spread directly among the combat troops in Vietnam, who began to wear peace symbols and flash peace signs and movement salutes. Some units even organized their own demonstrations to link up with the movement at home (Schlight, 45). For example, to join the November 1969 antiwar Mobilization, a unit boycotted its Thanksgiving Day dinner (Schlight, 45).

One problem of the antiwar movement was the difficulty of finding ways to move beyond protest and symbolic acts to deeds that would actually impede the war. Unlike college students and other civilians, the troops in Vietnam had no such problem. Individual acts of rebellion, raging from desertion to killing officers who ordered search-and-destroy missions, merged into mutinies and large-scale resistance. (Sclight, 45). Between the late summer of 1965 and the fall of 1966, the American military effort in Vietnam accelerated from President Johnson’s decisions.

The number of air sorties over Northern Vietnam now increased again, from 25,000 in 1965 to 79,000 in 1966. The antiwar movement grew slowly during this period and so did the number f critics in Congress and the media. A ban on picketing the White House was recommended. Instead, President Johnson and later Nixon combated the picketers through a variety of legal and illegal harassment, including limiting their numbers in certain venues and demanding letter-perfect permits for every activity. (Gettleman, 67). The picketers were a constant battle, which the presidents could never claim total victory.

By 1967, US military authority was breaking apart. Not only was it the worst year for President Johnson’s term, but also one of the most turbulent years in all of American history. The war in Southeast Asia and the war at home in the streets and the campuses dominated the headlines and the attention of the White House. To make matters worse, 1967 witnessed more urban riots; the most deadly of which took place in Detroit. It was also the year of the hippies, the drugs, and a wholesale assault on morality and values; and all of these singular happenings were magnified by the media. VN H. and P. ).

The antiwar effort was crippling Johnson’s presidency and paralyzing the nation. Now the war was becoming more unpopular at home. By the middle f 1967, many Americans began telling that the original involvement in Vietnam had been a costly mistake. And for Johnson, only a little more than a quarter of the population approved of his handling the war in 1968. Many of those fed up at home were the hawks. The hawks were the group of people that supported the war. They wanted to remove the shackles from the generals and continue the bombings over Vietnam.

However, Johnson’s critics among the doves were far more troubling. The doves were usually blue-collar workers and wanted to end Vietnam immediately. In the first place, they were far more vocal and visible han the hawks, appearing at large, well-organized demonstrations. Even more disconcerting were the continuing defections from the media and the Democratic Party. The antiwar movement that began as a small trickle had now became a flood (Small, 101). The most important antiwar event of 1967 was the March on the Pentagon in October, which was turning point for the Johnson administration.

With public support for Johnson’s conduct of the war fading, the president fought back by overselling modest gains that his military commanders claimed to be making. This overselling of the war’s progress played a major role in reating the domestic crisis produced by the Tet Offensive in early 1968, sparked from the protesters’ actions. Although these marchers were unable to levitate the besieged Pentagon, their activities ultimately contributed to the redirection of the American policy in Vietnam by 1968-and the destruction of the presidency of Lyndon Johnson (VN H. and P. ).

Johnson finally realized-the energized antiwar forces spelled the beginning of the end for American involvement in the war. (VN H. and P. ). Thus, the administration dug in for a long and dramatic time of protests, uncivil disobedience, and numerous arrests. The size of these demonstration crowds often varied but there were no disagreements about the major events of protest. They began with peaceful series of speeches and musical presentations. Then many of the participants tried to march the various government grounds, most importantly taking place at the Lincoln Memorial.

For most Americans, the events were symbolized by television images of dirty-mouthed hippies taunting the brave, clean-cut American soldiers who confronted the unruly demonstrators (VN H. and P. ). Americans were soon shocked to learn about the communists’ assive Tet Offensive on January 31, 1968. The offensive demonstrated that Johnson had been making the progress in Vietnam seem much greater than it really was; the war was apparently endless. Critics of the administration policy on the campuses and Capitol Hill had been right after all.

For the first time, the state of public opinion was the crucial factor in decision making on the war. Johnson withdrew his candidacy for reelection in March of 1968, and he was offering the communists generous terms to open peace talks. In the meantime, as the war continued to take its bloody toll, he nation prepared to elect a new president. The antiwar movement had inadvertently helped Richard Nixon win the election. As Johnson’s unhappy term of office came to an end, antiwar critics and the Vietnamese people prepared to do battle with their new adversary (Small, 124).

The new president expressed more outward signs from hawks not the doves, now that Johnson now out of office. Like many of his advisors, Nixon was bothered with the antiwar movement since he was convinced that it prolonged the war. He could not understand how the current generation of young people could include both brave oung marines and hippies and draft-card burners (VN H. and P. ). Richard Nixon assumed the presidency with a secret plan to end the war. Although most doves did not believe in the new president to do so, they were prepared to give him time to execute the plan.

Nixon had a plan to end the war. He wanted to increase the pressure on the communists, issue then a deadline to be conciliatory, and to keep this entire secret from the American public (VN H. and P. ). Thus, the number of casualties increased in the late winter and spring as the bombings of Northern Vietnam continued once again. It did not take long for the antiwar critics and organization to take up where it had left off with Lyndon Johnson. They got ready for another campaign of petitioning and demonstrating with the center of it all involving the middle-class.

The deadline for the communists past, and the failure to follow with his strategy was the rejuvenation of the antiwar movement centered on the very successful demonstrations in October of 1969. Nixon now feared that the public, led by a confident antiwar movement, would demand a much quicker withdrawal from Vietnam than he had planned. With that deadline approached, Henry Kissinger, the most important Vietnam policymaker asked a group of Quakers to give Nixon six months, if the war is not over then, “You can come back and tear down the White House. ” (VN H. and P. ).

In May 1970, Nixon gambled that he could buy time for Vietnamization through an attack on Cambodian sanctuaries to destroy communist command-and-supply buildings, while containing the protest that he knew his action would provoke. His gamble failed, when poorly trained National Guardsmen killed four students at Kent State University, on May 4. This made the expected protests much worse than nyone in Washington could have foreseen. The wave of demonstrations on hundreds of college campuses paralyzed America’s higher-education system. The Kent State tragedy ignited a nationwide campus disaster.

Between May 4 and May 8, campuses experienced an average of 100 demonstrations a day, 350 campus strikes, 536 colleges shut down, and 73 colleges reported significant violence in their protests. On that weekend, 100,000 people gathered to protest in Washington. By May 12, over 150 colleges were on strike (VN H. and P. ) Many of Nixon’s activities during the second week of May evolved around the Kent State crisis. On May 6, he met with the delegation of the university. But with the storm of people on the outside of the White House, the government never completely stopped.

Despite Nixon’s claims that the media did not portray his serious intentions accurately, his own records reveal almost no discussion of Vietnam, Cambodia, or Kent State at the time. On December 15, Nixon announced his intention to withdraw an additional fifty thousand troops in 1970. Even the president’s faith in that position was shattered after the unprecedented nationwide protests against his nvasion of Cambodia in the spring of 1970. (Lewis, 83). As the Nixon administration tried to piece together in the weeks after the crisis, a dramatic decline in antiwar occurred once the colleges closed.

The nationwide response to the Cambodian invasion and the Kent State killings was the last movement by the people, which had such an impact like the summer of 1970. Nixon began to plan a new and even more vigorous offensive against the movement. However, Nixon and his aides still felt undersized during the summer of 1970-from the media, movement, and Congress. For whatever reasons, campus demonstrations and general antiwar activity declined after the spring of 1970. The number and size of marches and protests declined as reported by the mass media.

For Nixon, the nation was full with marches, strikes, boycotts, and other forms of activism during the last two years of his administration. Some protesting still lingered, and in the late summer on August 7, 1970, when a young researcher at the University of Wisconsin was killed when the building in which he was working was fire bombed. But the Dove rallies were poorly attended; the movement was winding down. It was not just that the movement was doing poorly, as Nixon himself was doing much better, becoming a popular Democratic spokesperson.

On September 16, he appeared to cheering crowds at Kansas State University. The antiwar movement figured indirectly in the outcome of Vietnam. After Saigon fell, the Watergate affair crippled Nixon’s presidency and dominated his political life until his resignation in August 1974. During this period, he was far too weak to contest with Congress over a renewal of American military involvement in Vietnam. As the crisis in Southern Vietnam now deepened in the middle of 1974, he new president, Gerald Ford, wanted to increase military aide to the faltering Saigon regime.

Congress refused his requests to what it saw as pouring more money and lives away. Continuing in 1974 to 1975, the public with the movement, led by Congress and the media, all influenced the arguments presented to more financial and military commitments in Vietnam. The struggle of the American minds was over, for there would be no more Vietnams in the near future. ( VN H. and P. ). Among the most convincing theories of the movement were that it exerted pressures directly on Johnson and Nixon it contributed to he end of their policies.

The movement exerted pressures indirectly by turning the public against the war. It encouraged the Northern Vietnamese to fight on long enough to the point that Americans demanded a withdrawal from Southeast Asia; it influenced American political and military strategy; and, slowed the growth of the hawks. It is now clear that the antiwar movement and antiwar criticism in the media and Congress had a significant impact on Vietnam. It’s key points being the mass demonstrations by the college students across the country and the general public opposition to the war effort in Vietnam.

At times, some of their activities, as displayed by the media, may have produced a patriotic backlash. (Gaullucci, 194). Overall, the movement eroded support for Johnson and Nixon, especially by the informed public. Through constant dissident, experts in the movement, the media, and the campuses helped to destroy the knee-jerk notion that “they in Washington have created. ” (Small 164 ). Thus, from the beginning of the US involvement in Indochina’s affairs, the antiwar movement in the US from 1965-1971 was the most significant movement of its kind in the nation’s history.

To What Extent Was Jacksonian Democracy Democratic

During the administration of Andrew Jackson, the United States was a nation of change both politically and socially. American society was a society of opportunity. Americans felt that, given a chance, they could make a better life for themselves. This was the era of the common people, the era of democracy. Andrew Jackson appealed to the American people because he stood for values many regarded with favor. However democratic Jackson may seem, he was more tyrant-like than any of his predecessors.

His major offerings to the nation included majority rule and a popular presidency, however offered no benefits to women, African Americans, nor Native Americans. Jacksonian Democracy was in no way democratic. Before Jackson’s time, voters expected public officials to use their own best judgment in electing. Under Jacksonian Democracy, the people came to believe that officials should act according to the demands of the people. To make government respond more directly to the popular will, state and local governments began to fill some positions such as judges, constables, and public surveyors by election rather than appointment.

The terms of office were also shortened so that popular opinion had a more direct effect on the actions of elected officials. Thus, the government under Jackson became the people’s government, although he retained a tight grasp, using his veto often. As new voters made demands on government, they learned the power of political organization. National issues became as much topics of conversation as local issues had always been. As national parties built stronger state and local ties, they began to rely upon a growing number of “professional politicians. ” These changes helped to initiate the spoils system.

This practice of appointing people to government positions based on party loyalty and party service was not an entirely new development, but Jackson was the first to oust large numbers of government employees in order to appoint his followers to office. He argued that there should be a rotation in office. Some believed that the spoils system set a poor precedent. Jackson amplified presidential power by using the veto more than all previous presidents. On the “Women’s Rights” issue, Jacksonian Democracy did nothing to further the female cause. Only in sparse states were women allowed to control property, and nowhere were they allowed to vote.

There were few schools for women and they were assumed subordinate to men. Whereas some women in some states made some strides under Jackson’s rule, Native Americans and African Americans did not. Jacksonian Democracy had nothing to offer these two minorities. Most Americans believed that the area between the Missouri River and the Rocky Mountains, “The Great American Desert,” would provide a permanent Native American reservation. Jackson often spoke about protecting the Native Americans from fraud and of how humane the government’s removal policy was, but the policy as carried out was cruel.

In Georgia, the Cherokee Indians had developed a lifestyle that included schools, mills, and turnpikes. In the 1820’s, under pressure from the state to give up their lands, they wrote a constitution, hired lawyers, and sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee against Georgia. However, Jackson refused to carry out the decision that ordered Georgia to return Cherokee lands. He is quoted as to have said, “Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it. ” When the Cherokee resisted the governments “generous” offer of lands farther west, Jackson sent in the army.

Forced from their homes to what is now Arkansas and Oklahoma, 4,000 Native Americans died of starvation, disease, or exposure on the march that the Cherokee called the “Trail of Tears. ” This is in no way democratic, but it seems very much like despotism. By 1840, the government had moved the entire Indian population still living east of the Mississippi to reservations. Although most citizens supported Jackson’s Native American removals, a few leaders, like Henry Clay, said that Jackson’s attitude stained the nation’s honor. Religious denominations, especially Methodists and Quakers, also denounced the harsh treatment of Native Americans.

The inhumane and despicable treatment of the Native Americans who turned to the government for help were only further spurned by that same government. There are many documents supporting the belief that Jacksonian Democracy was hardly democratic, including Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, the South Carolinian Legislature’s “Address to the People of The United States,” Jackson’s own message vetoing the recharter of the Bank of the United States, and Edward Everett’s speech before congress regarding the inhumane removal policies of the United States.

All of these documents, as has been aforementioned above, show that Jacksonian democracy was in not democratic. His veto of the recharter of the bank of the United States was only denying the people of an efficient way to fund their living government and to keep their delegates incomes on record. It is apparent that Jackson had a problem with this. Maybe he did not want his spending to be monitored. He says, “It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Perhaps “King Andrew I” was not especially wealthy, but he did have power.

With this power he undermined the people and our nation to further his own selfish privileges. He should have followed his own advice. Jackson’s own vice-president, John C. Calhoun, proposed the Nullification issue. It seems that distrust of Jackson’s motives reached up into the lofty tiers of the government. Calhoun wanted to reassert the states rights over Jackson’s maniacal regime out of fear that “King Andrew I” might become a tyrant.

The legislature of Calhoun’s own South Carolina stated this desire quite clearly in the following quote. “We hold, then, that on their separation from the Crown of Great Britain, the several colonies became free and independent States, each enjoying the separate and independent right of self-government . . . ” Andrew Jackson even went against the decisions of the Supreme Court, thus violating the rock on which our government was built, the Constitution. He completely disregarded Marshall’s decree and sent the army in to force the Indians from their native homes in Georgia.

This disgusting display of the broad sword of government is a disgrace to our nation’s legacy. Tocqueville, a foreigner, came to the United States to study American prison reform, but was so disgusted with the way our society was and how our government functioned under Jackson that he changed the focus of his study to an analysis of democracy. He saw democracy by our example as “far from accomplishing all it projects with skill” and that “Democracy does not give people the most skillful government. Jackson’s example of democracy was horrible.

Jacksonian Democracy seems to be a zeugma, two contrasting things put together to make a comparison. Andrew Jackson never had any intention of broadening our democracy, only to make his ends meet. Through the way he treated Native Americans, African Americans, women, and many other minority groups, Jackson showed his ignorance in fulfilling one of the most pressing tasks of the president, to represent the people. To no extent was Jacksonian Democracy democratic.

President Woodrow Wilson

President Woodrow Wilson regarded himself as the personal representative of the people. “No one but the President,” he said, “seems to be expected … to look out for the general interests of the country”(Internet 1). He developed a program of progressive reform and asserted international leadership in building a new world order. In 1917 he proclaimed American’s entrance into World War I a crusade to make the world “safe for democracy. ” Wilson had seen the difficulties of war. He was born in Virginia in 1856.

The son of a Presbyterian minister who during the Civil War as a pastor in Augusta, Georgia, and during Reconstruction a professor in the charred city of Columbia, South Carolina. After graduation from Princeton (then the College of New Jersey) and the University of Virginia Law School, Wilson earned his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University and entered upon an academic career. In 1885 he married Ellen Louise Axson. Wilson advanced rapidly as a conservative young professor of political science and became president of Princeton in 1902. His growing national reputation led some conservative Democrats to consider him Presidential material.

First they persuaded him to run or Governor of New Jersey in 1910. In that campaign he asserted his independence of the conservatives and of the machine that had nominated him, endorsing a progressive platform, which he pursued as governor. He was nominated for President at the 1912 Democratic Convention and campaigned on a program called the New Freedom, which stressed individualism and states’ rights. In the three-way election he received only 42 percent of the popular vote but an overwhelming electoral vote. Wilson dealt with Congress very effectively in his presidency. On April 2,1917, he asked Congress for a declaration of war on

Germany. Massive American effort slowly tipped the balance in favor of the Allies. Wilson went before Congress in January 1918, to pronounce American war aims through a a series of ideas he had known as the Fourteen Points, this would establish a general association of nations indubitably guaranteeing political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. After the Germans signed the Armistice in November 1918, Wilson went to Paris to try to build an enduring peace. He later presented to the Senate the Versailles Treaty, containing the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The Versailles Treaty was seven votes shy of being ratifid by the senate. The President, against the warnings of his doctors, had made a national tour to mobilize public sentiment for the treaty. President Wilson had aswell have many interventions in countries such as: New Mexico, Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua Exhausted, he suffered a stroke and nearly died. Tenderly nursed by his second wife, Edith Bolling Galt, he lived until 1924. The League of Nations was a former international organization that was formed after WORLD WAR I to promote international peace and security.

The League of Nations was provided int he use of the Fourteen Points. The basis of the League, the Covenant, was written into the Treaty of Versailles and other peace treaties and provided for an assembly, a council, and a secretariat. A system of colonial mandates was also set up. The U. S. , which failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, never became a member. Based in Geneva, the League proved useful in settling minor international disputes, but was unable to stop aggression by major powers, Japan’s occupation of Manchuria (1931), Italy’s conquest of Ethiopia (1935-36), and Germany’s eizure of Austria (1938).

It collapsed early in World War II and dissolved itself in 1946. The League established the first pattern of permanent international organization and served as a model for its successor, the UNITED NATIONS. The Treaty of Versailles, signed on 1871 at the end of the Franco-Prussian War by Bismarck. France was forced to give up most of Alsace and Lorraine, pay a large indemnity, and accept a German army of occupation. The Versailles Treaty of 1919 is the most famous of the treaties because it was the chief one ending World War I.

The Big Four negotiating it were President WIlson, Premier Clemenceau, Prime Minister Llyod George, and Premier Oralndo. The treaty called for the creation of the League of Nations. It forced on Germany the burden of reperations and placed limits on German armed forces. It restored Alsace and Lorraine to France, gave Prussian Poland and most of West Prussia to Poland, made Danzig a free city, put Germany’s colonies under the League of Nations, placed the Saar under French administration, called for plebiscites in various territories newly freed from the Central Powers, mand called for the emilitarization of the Rhineland.

American opposition to the League of Nations resulted in the refusal of the U. S. Senate to ratify the treaty. In 1935, Adolf Hitler unilaterally abrogated most of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Paris was one of the most important treaties signed at or near Paris. The Treaty of 1763 was signed by Great Britain, France, and Spain. Together with the Treaty of Hubertusburg it ended the Seven Years War. “France lost Canada to Britain, Cuba and the Philippines were restored to Spain, and India in effect passed to Britain”(Internet 2).

From this treaty dated the colonial and maritime supremacy of Britain. In the Treaty of 1783 Great Britain formally acknowledged the independence of the Thirteen Colonies as the U. S. The treaty also fixed the boundaries of the new nation. In addition, the warring European powers-Britain against France and Spain, with the Dutch as armed neutrals-effected a large-scale peace settlement. Spain reacquired the Floridas and Minorca from Britain, and Britain relinquished its restrictions on the French port of Dunkirk. Otherwise, the territorial dispositions of the 1763 Treaty of Paris were reaffirmed.

The Treaty of 1814 was concluded between France on the one hand and Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia on the other after the first abdication of NApoleon I. Its provisions never went into effect owing to the return of Napoleon from Elba and the resumption of the war. The Treaty of 1815 was signed after Napoleon’s final surrender. Many provisions of the treaty of 1814 and the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna remained binding. France was reduced to its 1790 borders and was forced to pay 700 million francs in reparations plus the costs of an army of occupation for five years. After World

War I severeal treaties were signed (1919-20) in or near Paris, the most important of which was the Treaty of Versailles After World War II separate treaties were signed (1947) by the Allies at or near Paris with Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland. Woodrow Wilson had interventions with New Mexico. President Wilson had two fronts to worry about; Mexico and Europe. Below his country, the Mexican Revolution was in full swing. Wilson had made his moves in accordance to what he had felt was best for his country and its people. The same went for Europe. He was doing all he could do by just keeping the United States out of the war.

However, in relation to Europe and the World War, Wilson knew that the United States was not going to be able to stay out of the war forever. After all, the Germans were taking a greater toll on the merchant ships in the Atlantic. To truely see the situation, one must look back at the election of 1916. Presidents don’t win elections by telling the people what they don’t want to hear. Wilson was up for re-election that year. He had been campaigning on the platform of peace. His opponent, Charles Hughes, had favored teh idea of the United States getting involved into World War I. Wilson used every political tactic he knew to bring Hughes down.

Hughes was called the “war candidate”(Biography of Woodrow Wilson). Later, Wilson would even use the slogan “Wilson and Peace with Honor, or Hughes with Roosevelt and War? (Internet 1)” So Wilson did what he had to do in order to stay in office. By 1916, Wilson began to realize where his country stood in relation to those that were fighting. He had been paying attention to the press to see the results of the events that were unfolding. In particular, the Battle of the Somme struck President Wilson with deep concern. At this battle, the British were on the offensive against the Germans.

The British command called for a five day assualt with heavy cannon. After the shelling, the soldiers were expected to simply walk over claim the land. The offensive failed and as a result, the British suffered casualties near 70,000 in just a few days time. At that time, the United States military personel numbered less than 150,000. The United States, at that rate, would have only been able to last for a few days if they entered the war. This brings us to the main point of this article; Wilson had to et his armed forces up in numbers without breaking his campaign promise to his people. How was Wilson suppossed to do this?

The answer was Pancho Villa. Pancho Villa was a very predictable man. After the events down in Agua Prieta, Villa was on a one course action, death to all Americans. Villa made his first move in January of 1916. Engineers from El Paso were on their way to open up a mine down in Mexico. They had been given assurances that there was nothing to fear. While enroute by way of rail, the engineers were stopped and pulled off the train. All were put down on their knees and shot in the back of the head. Villa had begun to deliver his promise to the Americans. Wilson was aware of this. All he had to do was to wait for the right moment.

Wilson’s chance came in early March of 1916. Sometime around the 6th of March, U. S. intelligence began to send reports to Washington that Villa and his men had been seen along the border near Columbus. These reports would continue up until the 9th of March when Villa finally made his attack. Although history plays the attack as a suprise, events leading up to the attack suggest that the U. S. government knew of Villa’s location and intentions. Just prior to the attack, Lieutenant George Patton, who was being stationed at Columbus, was ordered, along with the remaining officers, to leave for a polo match near Deming, New Mexico.

Patton would later remark in his diary that he had never played the sport before. Also, when the attack did occur, the press made a big deal about the machine guns being still in their storage cases. Had Columbus known of Villa’s location, it would have been likely that the machine guns would probably had been readied. Throughout his presidency, Wilson showed a pattern of bullying and deception, and great desire o involve the American people in wars that they had no desire to get into. The first example is Mexico.

Wilson had an intense personal hatred of Mexico’s President, General Victotiano Huerta, because he had suppressed a left-wing revolution. This hatred led Wilson to try to provoke a war with Mexico. He got his chance when a small number of Americans where arrested in Mexican port of Tampico. Knowing that Wilson was looking for an exuse for war, Huerta immediately ordered the release of the Americans, and personally apologized to them for the incident. But Wilson would not let the situation end at that. He emanded more apologies, and even worse demanded that some of the Mexicans involved salute the American flag!

Imagine if you were a soldier in the American Army and were ordered by a foreign leader to salute a foreign flag. Of course the Mexicans refused, so Wilson got his chance to start a war, and launched a surprise attack on the barely defended Mexican city of Vera Cruz. Fortunately for the youth of both countries, Huerta was not as eager for war as Wilson. So he got several Latin American governments to intercede. Wilson demanded that any peace be on the condition of Huerta stepping down as president of Mexico.