American History

Average box office genre in 2008.
One segment in the comedy that has grown significantly in the past decades is situation comedy or sitcom. Concerning the issue, this paper will elaborate several points on American popular culture, humor, sitcom etc.

Aims and ObjectivesConcerning the analytical review over the development of American popular culture, this paper will discuss three aims and objectives as following. This paper intends to discuss about American popular culture History and Humor. Using the non-participant observation method, collecting data and analyzing qualitative information from journal, books, magazine and other online materials, this paper aims at elaborating the series of sitcom episodes that relate to patterns of change and comedy in 20th Century America. In addition, the paper aims at highlighting the history and development of American humor.

Research Questions
The development of comedy program especially situation comedy is increasing due to the acceptance of audiences and popularity of this type of comedy shows. Concerning the situation, the research question for this paper is. As situation comedy (sitcom) program in the televisionmovie continues in number and the program itself, what characterize the development of situation comedy (sitcom) program.
  
I choose this research statement or question since it may be different from others who only focus on discussing the historical issues of situation comedy (sitcom) programs. Instead of discussing the partial discussion on sitcom issues, I decide to discuss the characteristics of situation comedy (sitcom) or by any means the values that underlie the development of sitcom within the past several decades.

Literature Review
Basically, a sitcom refers to a genre in comedy showprogram, which historically originates from the radio program. However, nowadays, the sitcoms are exclusively available as television program as one form of dominant narrative appearance.
The key characteristics that differentiate sitcom from different type of humor or comedy program is that situation comedy usually consisting of recurring characters in a general places such as home or at a workplace and it may involve the laugh tracks or present several audiences in the studio.

History of American humor
Humor becomes a concern in the development of American culture as program that considered as humorous are varied from one country to another. Usually the humor depends on several absolute and relative. The various factors suggest that people in different placescountries ill find different things that make them laugh or something funny. This condition also suggests that cultural diversity may cause the humor in the American television to be not considered funny in other places. To be specific, the type of humor in the American program is something vulgar and strange.

Type of Humor
Moreover, the history notes that American humor can be further elaborated into some common type of humor, for example, more slapstick and physical comedy. By observation, it is found that American humor tends to be less emphasis on understatement that causes it to be more open. In addition, American humor also appears to be not satirizing the social system through exaggeration, as it appears to present more.

Program
In addition to type of humor, there are interested parts that some programs appear to originate from the same geographic locations that characterize the type of humor presented in the sitcom. Figure 2 shows the typical sitcom by geographic origins.

Sitcom by geographic origins
Creating a sitcom
In the creation of 22-minute situation comedy (sitcom) program in the 30-minuts slot, the sitcom is developed in the following structure.

Sitcom plot
Beginning stage it composes of 1-3 minutes in the program where it exhibits the setting that the characters in their normal state of existence. For example, in The Simpsons,the beginning usually start with the cast in the living room while watching television or having breakfast in the kitchen. This setting refers to incentive moment.

Mounting conflict. These shows usually take in the 4-18 minutes where the disruption or complication evolves into rising action. In addition, in this stage, the characters are fighting to solve the problems
The ending that usually appears in the 19-22 minutes exhibits the shows that quickly delivered to avoid the losing interest from audiences.

Limitation
The method does not involve direct interviews, which will slightly reduce objectivity and the accuracy of information. In order to alleviate this drawback, we are retrieving reliable data from experts analysis, journals and various publications from available media. Using the data resources above, we hope to present an independent and objective analysis toward the contemporary issue.

Slave power can be defined as the great social, economic and political influence that the slaveholders wielded. The slaveholders who lived in the South had far-reaching influence that affected all aspects of life. Their influence was not only over their slaves, but over society in general. Certainly, those who were slaveholders had considerably more influence than those who were not slaveholders.

Slave power had control even of the government. Slaveholders were in virtually all the offices of the government. In the federal government, the slaveholders were well-entrenched in the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The hold that the slaveholders had on political power was all-encompassing.

The slaveholders represented only a minority of the people. But their domination was a total one. In the words of Foner in Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War, Slave power consisted of the 350,000 or so slaveholders of the South  about one percent of the nations population and five percent of the Souths. These few meant to stay in power and keep slavery as long as they could.

African-American is a term that has been used to refer to Americans who owe their roots to Sub-Saharan Africa. They have, in the course of history, involved themselves in activities that are in the in their interest as a group. Such activities included pride, defiance, and fighting for human rights. The governments during these periods did not seem to be comfortable with the activities of the African Americans. Their struggle dates back to the nineteenth century in the form of political movements and deliberations. They were initially slave but when slavery was abolished in 1865, they were given every right as their white counterparts. They could vote and even occupy public offices.

The freedom struggle
The blacks, as they were called, mounted resistance against discrimination which was widespread at the time. Their struggle led to the development of the civil rights lobby group which later paved way to the second reconstruction between the 1950s and the 1960s. The struggle form civil rights led to the reformation of some legal aspects concerning the blacks but it did little in the way of addressing their poverty. The blacks formed a lobby group that was named Black Power to fill the gaps that still existed socially.
   
Blacks staged streets protests in a bid to realize social changes. The methods they mostly employed were non violent. Grassroots groups such as Montgomery Improvement Association organized freedom rides, boycotts, voter education, and sit-ins as some of the strategies of fighting towards their goals. In 1954, the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation, especially as far as public schools are concerned. Black students were victims of frequent attacks by their white counterparts, this was both verbally a number of cases of physical attack. Even after the formulation of the policy on desegregation, some schools chose to close rather than accommodate even a single black student. In some schools the few black student had to be assigned security as their lives were in danger all the time and they were left out by fellow students in almost all the things they were doing. Activists who were black were very keen on ensuring that such changes were not just limited to school but they went ahead cover all the other spheres of life. Attaining equality regardless of race was not going to be an easy thing to achieve and being a very sensitive issue its complete enforcement would require some time.
   
During this period, the blacks were not allowed to live in some places as they were designated whites only zones. The African Americans who were living in the north were subjected to much harsh conditions compared to those who lived in the south. At the beginning of 1960, President Kennedy tried to address the civil rights issues that faced the blacks though he was very reluctant in his moves. Southern democrat leader President Johnson went a long way in trying to fight for the rights of the blacks after realizing that there was a great deal of inaction. He supported demonstrations that were in protest to discrimination. By 1960 many African Americans had the power to vote.

This period of the second reconstruction, led to the changing of legal aspects that allowed discrimination as far as, voting, employment, housing, and other social vices are concerned. They managed to set up confirmatory action programs that mainly touched on employment and higher learning institutions. Activism of the blacks coupled with presidential actions went a long way in changing some of the legal aspects. The whites were not quiet pleased by the progress that the blacks made between 1950 and 1960, they did not have much to do because of the activism of the blacks and support from some of the leaders.

The great depression and the new deal
Before the beginning of the Great Depression, a booming period, known as the roaring twenties, was witnessed. In the course of the 1920s, business was booming and people worked in industries and businesses. This was just the period immediately after the First World War. Americans abandoned their farming ways and most of them opted to go to the cities. Americans earned a lot of money than they had done before. Companies increased their output as the consumption was high leading to the creation of more opportunities for employment. Many people bought cars and therefore other industries that were directly related to this business benefited. There was also a boom in the housing sector.
 
The Great Depression
Herbert Hoover took over the leadership of the United States in 1929 from President Warren Herding. Hoover was very thorough in his leadership that he tried to address various problems that Americans were facing at a go. Agriculture was one area that required urgent intervention more than any other sector of that economy. While some government agencies offered to buy the farm produce and selling them abroad on behalf of the farmers, the President did not agree to thus and instead he decided to allow the farmers market their produce themselves. Farmers were given loans by various boards and cooperatives but their condition only appeared to deteriorate. This is the same period when the stock market crashed. Consequences of the First World were also not yet adequately resolved. The government was indebted and it conveyed the same to the citizen in the form of taxes. The farmers purchasing power went low. Banks that had secured loans using mortgages were at a loss. People changed their consumption habits and limited themselves only to necessary items. Production decreased and as a result many people lost their jobs. People were left homeless.

The New Deal
Franklin Roosevelt took over the presidency in 1932. He came up with the New Deal whose objective was to aid faster recovery from the depression, provide relief assistance, and change the economic organization. He sought the assistance of businesses and banks. People wanted to withdraw their money from banks but this would lead to their collapse. The President in his wisdom closed every bank. He reassured the people that their money was safe. This marked the beginning of the recovery of the banks. He offered the youth casual jobs. He was reelected because of his work.
   
He advocated for the passing of the Act of Emergency Banking that ensured that private bankers could have access to federal loans. This was also the same time when the Economy Act which was which was concerned with the balancing of the budget by the government. This move went a long way in addressing the serious financial difficulties that the citizens were experiencing. He was also able to come up with Securities together with the act that was concerned with securities Exchange. These acts went a long way in regulating stock market which was at the brinks of collapse. To oversee all these amendments he came up with a commission that was in charge of securities together with exchange. To assist people who were loosing their homes, he came up with a corporation that was aimed at financing home owners so that their houses could not be taken but instead they would be able to repay the loan at a later date.

The works of President Roosevelt went a long way in rescuing America from the brinks of collapse. The people were very bitter with their leaders but he managed to bridge the gap and restoring the confidence of the people. This was a very trying period for Americans as more than a quarter of the population was out of employment. People who had borrowed loans from banks ended up losing their property.

The origins of the cold war
After the Second World War, two main power blocs seemed to exist. One of them was dominated by the United States of America and other Western allies who adopted capitalism while the other included the Soviet Union which preferred communism. These world powers did not engage each other in any direct confrontation instead, they adopted some way of fighting that became known as the cold war. This war was mainly through financial, martial and ideological opposition. This war lasted for almost a half a century.

Origin of the cold war
Prior to the Second World War, tension had been mounting between the Eastern bloc dominated by the Soviet Union and the Western bloc dominated by America. All these world powers had ambitions of extending their influence in as many countries as possible. The tension was worsened by the occurrences in the Second World War. The beginning of Cold War can be linked to the Russian Revolution which took place in 1917. This was a very serious civil war and the intervention of the Western powers could not do much to calm the situation. An association, known as Comintern, whose mandate was to spread communism was formed. There was suspicion and panic between Western powers and Russia. In the course of 1918 to around 1935, the United States committed itself to isolationism policy while the leader of Russia, President Stalin was mainly concerned with their internal affairs. After 1935 Stalin decided to form alliances with some Western powers to oppose the Nazi regime. This was mainly because of mainly because he feared fascism.
   
Such alliances did not seem to work to his advantage and instead he chose to sign a Nazi-Soviet deal with Hitler. This move did little in terms of pleasing the Western powers though they did not engage in any form of combat. Germany invaded France and later Soviet Union in 1941. This forced the Soviet Union to unite with Western powers that were against Hitler. This move weakened the Western Europe to the advantage of Russia and the United States who remained as the superpowers. They were together but each of them was obsessed by the thought of what they would like to be after the war. Russia, which had taken over Eastern Europe, wanted to impose their form of government and come up with soviet protectorate states. This was to secure itself from capitalist western powers. Russia assured such states, a fair election, a promise it was not able to achieve.
   
In 1945 after the Second World War, United States and its allies were pro capitalism and did not want communism to dominate. Exactly opposite was the ambition of Russia and the Eastern bloc. It was feared that the Soviet Union would attack the west. Russia feared the American atomic bomb. The Soviet Union feared that Germany would reorganize themselves and engage them in an armed conflict. America formulated a policy that was named containment. This policy was basically meant to contain communism and the Soviet Union. They wanted to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union Empire and also isolate the empire that was already in existence. In 1948 Europe had been equally divided into communism and capitalism. Germany was still a contested zone and it was divided into four portions under the occupation of the French, Americans, Russians and British. The war spread outside Europe as China adopted communism. The United States was quick to salvage Korea together with Vietnam. The superpowers did not engage each other as they were both going to suffer great damages if such a thing took place. The cold war ended in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The causes of the cold were can be linked to American dread of attack by communists. The Russians were afraid of the atomic bomb and thus could not engage America in an armed conflict. Capitalism was not fancied by Russia. Some of the activities carried out by Russians in their territory in Germany did not please the Western powers. America was very keen not to let out their secrets concerning nuclear weapons. Russia had an ambition of increasing communism in the world. Russia had no option but to ensure the security of their western boarder. Russia was expanding their territory to Eastern Europe while they had not achieved their election promises. Russia feared being attacked by America. These are some of the reasons that led to the cold war.

America, the First World War, and the Versailles peace conference   
The First World War was an armed conflict that involved the world greatest powers. These forces grouped themselves into two main groups. They were the allies and the central powers. The war started after the murder of Archduke Ferdinand, who was an heir of the Austria-Hungary throne, in 1914. He was killed by Serbians. While this might have been cited as the reason, there are a number of long term differences which ensured that the war continued. Since most of these powers had colonies, the war spread to other parts of the world. The central force was mainly composed of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empire. The allied powers consisted of Russia, Serbia, France Japan and other countries. This period was also characterized by imperialism whereby stronger nations took over the relatively weaker states.

America in the First World War
Germans were destroying the ships that belonged to Britain. They also did the same to American vessels. Each of these sides wanted America to join their side. They were employing a number of strategies which even included propaganda. The main reasons that lured America into joining the war included the habit of Germans destroying British vessels and in a number of occasions they accidentally attacked American ships that had American civilians. A German known as Zimmerman telegrammed Mexico advising them to attack the Germans. Germans had declared the ocean around Britain their zone and promised to attack any foreign vessels. The worst incidence was when the sunk a ship known as Listuania which led to the death of 128 American nationals.
   
American President Woodrow Wilson was enraged by this action and for the first time America stated their stand of fighting the Central Powers. In 1917, the congress opposed the idea of engaging into an armed conflict. The United States decided to engage in armed conflict regardless of the view of the congress. They strengthened the allied powers and thus they played a very pivotal role in terms of changing the fate of the almost losing allied powers to winning. They applied biological and also chemical warfare in the course of their struggle. They used new weapons, such as tanks and the use of air fighters. They also applied the strategy of trench warfare. Woodrow Wilson was keen on opening the League of Nations that would be charged with the mandate of settling international disputes. The war ended in 1919 when the allied powers won. Most of the solders who lost their lives in the course of the war were Russians. This is also the time that the United States emerged as the world superpower. The currency of Germany lost their value so much that they were nearly worthless. Germany was forced to pay for the destructions they caused on the allied forces.
   
The Versailles treaty is a pact which was signed to signify the end of the First World War. Its negotiations took place in the Peace Conference held in Versailles, Paris. The negotiations begun in January, 1919. The agreements concerning the treaty were reached in June, 1919.  The agreement was to be between Germany and members of the allied powers. Germans did not attend the signing. The League of Nations had the mandate of executing the agreements of the treaties that were signed after the First World War. Germany was required to reduce its army to less than one hundred thousand. It was also required to leave all its territories along River Rhine. It was not allowed to engage itself in any buying, selling or producing weapons. Its navy was only allowed to have a maximum of 24 ships. Germany was forced to pay for all the damage that resulted as a result of the war.
   
Germany went out of cash and sunk into debts. It even had to give natural resources and their trains to pay the debts. The citizens lived in very deplorable conditions. This was later to pave way to the rise of the Nazi regime. The treaty led tom the establishment of nine countries. It also led to the revision of many boundaries.
   
This period led to the establishment of the League of Nations which was able to help resolve most of the international conflicts. The charges placed on Germany were very harsh. The treaty was not followed for a very long time as some of the nations no longer regarded it in their activities. Peace was not brought to the Germans neither did they feel any impacts of reconciliation. Germans were not happy because they were being disarmed and forced to buy war ships to the allied forces that in the process were being rearmed. They were not very weak and these are the factors that directly led to the Second World War.

This paper shall attempt to address the issue of gender as it has been portrayed and reflected upon in the Beat generation and its literature. By doing so, the paper shall attempt to achieve its purpose of identifying the contribution that the Beat culture has made to the evolution of the American society and in bringing it to its current standing.

With regard to the commonly considered perspective that questions that Beat attitudes toward gender and seeks to identify whether they differ from those of American society in general at the time, it is apparent that the beat attitude towards gender differs greatly from that which prevails in the modern day American society and is one in that seems to be in adherence to the perceptions of the American woman during the Beat days (Campbell). Women in the Beats generations literature continue to appear in what can best be referred to as infrequent supporting roles to men. The literature is dominated by men and their hip style. The suaveness appears to be restricted to men and women only come in as an element of decoration, an instrument used to entice, a sideshow meant to serve to the main plot the same purpose that the comic relief serves to the stage.

Furthermore, with regard to the Beat culture as it existed in adherence to or in compliance with the common social ideas of that era, the beat generation and the beat literature did anything but express common social ideas of the era. In fact, they chose to go in opposition to the passive silence of the nineties. There was hardly any momentum left for an aggressive addressing of social norms after the Second World War and that is exactly what the Beat generation and its literature provided to the
American society (Johnson and Grace).

If one was to consider whether or not Beat writings prepared the way for new approaches and attitudes to gender, then judging by the literature and the rebellion that it holds, it would be fair to consider that while the role of the women in Beat literature was what can be classified as passive aggressive, it was undoubtedly one that served to shape the frame of mind for future generations regarding gender issues. This is because of the fact that the Beat generation and literature did not simply come forth as a rebellion to traditional and social norms, but as a question against them (Johnson and Grace). A question that demanded answers and induced the positional needed to bring about a change.

However, it is imperative to note that this attribute is one that applies to nothing more than the presence of women in Beat literature. The role of women, on the other hand, is one that is undeniably significant. The position of women in beat literature is one that serves to provide the essential element of revolt and rebellion (Stephenson). Therefore, it would be fair to surmise that the beat record on gender roles is fundamentally one that is aims to set women free in society. Liberty and the right to a chosen lifestyle became symbolic demands for women under the Beat generation.

However, there is no doubt a definite confusion in the Beat generation. The most prominent and clear example of this confusion can be found in the works of Judith Butler and Betty Friedan, both of which presented concepts of gender roles that were in stark opposition to one another (Johnson and Grace).
It can be surmised from the above discussion that the Beat generation and its literature did indeed serve to bring about a considerable change in the commonly prevalent and accepted norms of the American society following the late fifties. The changes in the perception of gender roles that took place in the American society can be justly accredited to the Beat generation and the literature that came forth as a product of the rebellious and questioning culture that it constituted.

The Vietnam crisis had been gathering momentum since the early 1950s and American involvement had started in the 1940s and kept on increasing over the years. By 1965, the war escalated as President Johnson began a massive bombing campaign against North Vietnam. At this time, the antiwar movement established its roots as more groups who were opposed to the war became more vocal. The American vocabulary saw the emergence of such terms like counter culture,  establishment, nonviolence,  pacification, free love, Kent state and Woodstock which were associated with the antiwar movement. This was the beginning of the hippie age group, sexual upheaval and the drug culture. The countrys youth who were the major casualties in the war began to demand explanation for American involvement in the war. They demanded to know why peace talks were not succeeding and what they were fighting for.

The antiwar movement comprised independent groups who were only united by the opposition to the war. The introduction of the draft led to student protest on college and university campuses all over the country. Teach-ins and student movements like the students for a Democratic Society (SDS) organized rallies and marches to protest against the war as from 1965. Before 1964, the SDS was mainly concerned about domestic issues affecting the American youth and even actively supported the Johnson administration. At the beginning of the Johnson administration, they avoided any antiwar rhetoric to avoid alienating the president and put the Great Society programs in jeopardy.
   
By the end of 1965, the antiwar movement had gathered on campuses but just lacked a catalyst to bring wider public participation. The opportunity was provided by the escalation of the war in 1965 as the air strikes against North Vietnam were initiated. This increased the pace and scope of the protest as from February 1965.  For the next couple of years, the antiwar movement snowballed as more and more people opposed the war including celebrities, activists and musicians. The students formed the Inter-university Committee for public hearing on Vietnam which organized teach-in demonstrations which were widely aired around the country. This helped to publicize the antiwar ideas and reduce the support to the war. The antiwar demonstrations by students were instrumental in influencing the governments decision to withdraw from the war. Although the protest sometimes turned tragic, they helped to bring out the opinions of the youth in the American society.

War Effects
As the antiwar movement ideals spread across the society, doubts about the continued escalation of the war also began to emerge in the administration itself. Several high ranking officials who were opposed to the war were fired including the Defense Secretary McNamara who had expressed reservations about the moral basis of the war. The opposition within the administration had increased within the administration and the presidents party. This was exacerbated by the 1968 presidential election as several candidates emerged to oppose the president within his party. When the president realized that his close advisors opposed the war, he withdrew from the Democratic nomination.  In the subsequent election, the republicans emerged victorious through Richard Nixon who had promised a secret plan to end the war.
   
Vietnam War led to the development of the counterculture among the American youths. This was an alternative society founded on peace, love and freedom. The adherents of this culture opposed violence and the war and was symbolized by sex, drugs and the protestations. The group was known as the hippies and was mainly young people who condemned greed, convention and authority. They mainly listened to rock music, maintained long hair and took to drugs and sex. The peak of the counterculture was the Woodstock Festival when people gathered to celebrate peace and love. The counterculture was mainly an alternative to the American traditional society. The war also impacted on the general society as people lost the family members who were killed in the war. The war also adversely affected the poor members who were prone to conscription as the middle class society was exempted.

The progress of Negroe freedom in America since the end of revolution to the early nineteenth century owe a lot to the entire works of U.S president Thomas Jefferson. Over time, Jeffersons commitment to end slavery in America has received mixed reactions among various people across the globe. Some have adored his commitment to end slavery while others have criticized this commitment terming it as mere hypocrisy given that some aspects of his life proved otherwise. Since the 1700s, Jefferson writings have solely been the basis for all issues involving slavery and Negroes freedom in America until the nineteenth century. From policy formulation, to scholarly work, to human rights organizations work regarding slavery, Jeffersons only book Notes on the state of Virginia and his other writings have been the reference point, assuming a great influence as people read and react to the ideologies he put forward. His work came at a time when the slavery business had proved promising to the American salve traders and that the institution was lawfully supported. Being a states man, Jefferson succeeded in giving an in-depth insight to the ideologies seeking to condemn attitudes towards slavery and these ideologies have been of paramount importance in the study of slavery in America.

The issue of racial discrimination has been as scary as very in America. Since time immemorial, Americans have always held the opinion that Negroes are and will in no way be equal to the Whites. In the 1600s for instance slave trade was at its peak and the government then did all it could to separate the Negroes from the Whites. Negroes have ever been discriminated at all circles despite the efforts of human rights groups to stop the trend. Even in the midst of the influential works of Thomas Jefferson, negative racial ethnicity has been a subject that seems far from being resolved in America. In South America for instance there was intense Negros discrimination at the time of World War I. In a September 8th 1858 speech, President Lincoln, asserted that Negroes were in no manner and will never be equal to the whites and put it that he was not intending to install the slightest equality between the whites and Negroes saying that there existed an enormous physical difference between the two races which forbid their interaction. Lincoln though indicated that Whites superiority should not deny the Negroes everything and by this he said that, it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slave or wives of Negroes.
   
In an 1862 response to Greely, Lincoln stated his stand concerning slavery which brewed controversy among the proponents of emancipation. Though he stated his constitutional obligation to maintain equality, an assessment of his performance in office by Greely indicated that he never kept to the obligation he had stated in his editorial. His stand on slavery though was evident from his view, If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it. The question of racial inferiority of the Negroes has been furthered by almost very literary work in the U.S with many basing on certain natural factors to justify this claim. In Of National Characters, David Hume associates the climatic conditions and the location of the Negroes origin Africa, to be the cause of physical and mental inferiority of the Negroes. He goes ahead to support these claims by saying unlike other barbarous white communities such the early Germans, Negroes lack any eminent thing associated with them in history not education, not arts, nor even civilization. He admits though to the fact that Negros easily distinguishes themselves in any venture they get in.

A 1798 Negros entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica describes Negroes as a distinct race not in any close to other races. This article describes ugliness and irregularity of shape as a feature of Negroes and associates them with every vice on planet earth and argues that Negroes lack a conscience. This is just an evidence of whites perception of the Negroes which has been the basis for utter discrimination of Blacks by the white community. It has been worrying to find the work of the elite of the white community enhance racial discrimination by their rather offensive characterization of the blacks. As Jefferson noted, this perception has been inherited by generations ever and thus have made racism to be persistence. Actions by most elite such s the Governor William Harrison have furthered racism as is evident from an 1803 letter he wrote explaining how he would do very thing even if it meant repressing the Indians to maintain the unity of the whites states.
                         
Jefferson stood his ground amidst the then America culture and his work has contributed to culture change and is considered as a voice that instilled an important turn of events in the cultural arena of America even though some people have criticized his conclusions. He wrote that even though there may be physical differences between the whites and the Negroes they ought to be allowed to have their freedom as they are not under any ones obligation. Jefferson regarded the slavery as abominable and an immoral practice that is incompliant to the natural rights of individuals. He perceived slavery as denying the Negroes their natural rights to pursue happiness, liberty and life. He asserted his perception and abhorrence for slavery in the only book he published Notes on Virginia and other private and public writings in which he refers to slavery as a great moral and political evil.  He once wrote in an encyclopedia entry for The United States that humans are the most incomprehensible and stupendous in a bid to express his loathsomeness for slavery. He severally referred to the law and will of God as condemning slavery. Regarding the unjust association between slaves and their master, he writes in his Notes on Virginia as,

A perpetual exercise of the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it for man is an imitative animal. . . . The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to his worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals underrated by such circumstances Jefferson could not demonstrate his condemnation for slavery any better than seeking to form and enforce policy that would see the emancipation of slaves. In his works, he based his argument on the fact that very one was born free and he worked tirelessly to get this message across to his peers in congress. 

Jefferson works came at a time when everything possible had been done specifically by the government to legalize and promote slave trade. In 1962 for instance, the government ha passed a law that distinguished a slave and a free man based on mothers race. Also in 1723, a law was enforced that denied any master the right to free a slave even through a last testament or will. Jefferson then perceived slavery as a failure to observe Gods will of liberty and freedom and asserted this believe when he wrote in his Notes on Virginia that, with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of god That they are not to be violated but with his wrath Indeed I tremble for my country when reflect that God is just that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest

Through varied works, Jefferson has been credited with all the enviable developments that have to date continued to ensure the provision of freedom to the Negroes. He set the stage for emancipation of slaves in 1769 when as a member of the Burgesses Virginia House, was involved in the formation of the Manumission by deed which sought to denounce the 1723 slavery law. The bill which he singed into law gave slave masters the authority to free slaves through a last will in which a master could transfer property interest in a slave through deed back to the slave and thus emancipating himher. While practicing law, he asserted for the freedom of slaves by indicating that all people were born free. Such as in the case of Netherlands Howel V. He was instrumental in drafting the two constitutions that sought to eliminate slavery in America. The 1776 draft went No person hereafter coming into this county shall be held within the same in slavery under any pretext whatever. Like the 1776 draft, the 1783 draft further asserted this decision to stop slave trade. In the later draft he wrote,

The General assembly shall not have to power to ... permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be living on the 31st day of December 1800 all persons born after that day being hereby declared free.  
In the federal congress, he wrote the report on the western Territories government which stated that after the Christian era of 1800, no one would be enslaved in the entire United States unless following punishment for which one was convicted guilty of an offense. Jefferson lamented over the deletion of the slavery abolition bill following a one vote defeat.

Written in 1781, Notes on Virginia is the voice of Jefferson which has continued to condemn slavery among the world community. Driven by neutrality, Jefferson wrote it while still governor to assert equality among different races. He advocated for the rights of the Negroes slaves who were highly discriminated at the time. John Adams confirmed this in his works on slavery by referring to Jefferson works as worth more than diamonds and that it had an immense impact than books written by other mere philosophers. The post revolutionary period witnessed enormous changes regarding the attitudes held by Americans on slavery. With time, a number of Americans began to see the reality that Negroes as well could excel in any venture just like the Americans did. This change of attitude could not have possibly occurred had Jefferson not assumed the responsibility of condemning slave trade which before then did not seem by abominable. Jeffersons ideology and attitude has influenced and revoked many human rights movements and debates at both government and civilian levels that have since then been instrumental in establishing equality among the American communities. Jordans analysis of Jeffersons work creates the notion that slavery in America could only be solved not by policy but by individual commitment. Jeffersons work though, sparks controversy with some claiming that he lived a lie given that he owned slaves himself leave alone fathering a son with a slave girl. According to Jordan, Jefferson was in part voicing what had already been proposed by some other people such as John Loche who had outlined the need for freedom a century earlier. Jordan provides a clear picture that the status of slavery in America could have been effectively solved had Jefferson done more to avoid flaws and compromises. For instance he instituted some harsh codes on slavery that contrasted his call for life and liberty of the slaves. Jefferson relationship with Sally Hemming has received much criticism by those who are skeptical of his works and who feel that Jefferson was living a lie. To some extent he failed to set the right momentum for abolition in that having succeeded in passing the manumission laws, he failed to take advantage of them as he freed only seven out of close to forty slaves he owned as adult.

The situation of slavery in America is thus seen to be a question of action and not just policy formulation. Jefferson succeed in passing the slave abolition laws but was not instrumental enough in enforcing them thus explaining  the reason why even after the manumission law was passed most slaves still had no liberty. Frederick Douglas writes of July Four as a mere illusion to the Negroes as they still had not realized this liberty and life Jefferson brought forward in his drafts.

Despite criticisms, Jefferson remains to be one single person who has contributed a lot to the foundation of the institution of racial rights in America. Later works of other American presidents show that the institution of slavery was still not completely abolished as for example the America went ahead to colonize the African states in the 20th century. The influence that Jefferson impacted is a clear indication the he was the single person through the equality principle in the Declaration for Independence to have devotedly sought to abolish the institution of slavery. Its hard to figure out how slavery and racism would be like in America today had Jefferson not set ablaze the fire of liberty.

The deaths of the popular American gay writers William S. Burroughs, Herbert Huncke and Allen Ginsberg cannot be deemed as the end of the Beat Generation which is considered as the most influential literary movements in the history of the country as such their influence is still very evident in todays poetry.
    Beat Generation is a group of American writers who came to prominence during the 1950s which basically tackles issues about experimentation with drugs, sexuality and other social implications which are less given importance by some of the conservative writers of the said generation (Campbell 2001).
    One of the classic examples of the works of the Beat Generation is the poem Howl by Allen Ginsberg which is best considered as the poem of mental hospitals, jails, secret and overt gay sex, drug taking and transcontinental Bohemian fervor for it opened the mind of the people to these pressing issues in the American society during his time (Ginsberg 1959). 
    The poem tackles human discontent, despair, morality and social ills. Ginsberg perfectly discusses in his poem the freedom from sexual repression and traditional behavior, recreational use of drug, rejection of authority and censorship. In his poem, he persuaded the mind of the people by using irony in his statement that he saw the best mind of his generation. However, the people that the author is referring to as the best mind are the people who have rotten minds and mad consciousness whom he met along his journey in the jail, mental hospital and streets.
    During Ginsbergs time, issues on homosexuality, drug addiction and censorship were kept secret by every people for these are not discussed openly in the public. The society reserved to be traditional and conservative with these issues. However, nowadays, censorship is evident in the society people are not allowed to talk against the government. Moreover, people cannot discuss concerns that are against the moral standard of the society. Through the publication of Ginsbergs poem, nevertheless, people came out of their closet and had the courage to talk about these sensitive issues as the poem opened their minds about the realities in life. Ginsberg successfully educated them through his poem that homosexuality, drug addiction and censorship are parts of human existence. Through the poem, facts about these issues were revealed and brought into realization.
    Furthermore, Ginsbergs Howl is considered as a perfect manifestation that Beat Generation is still evident in the works of the other writers after the prominence pf the Beat Generations poets. Many writers were being influenced to write about sensitive issues like homosexuality, insanity and drug abuse. One of the typical examples of a writer during the 1980s who was influenced by the Beat Generation is Robert Duncan who wrote the poems Poems from the Margins of Thom Gunns Moly, These Past Years Passages 10, My Mother Would Be a Falconress and The Torso, Passages 18.
    These poems of Duncan are only some of the poems that emerged right after the writers of the Beat Generation broke the conservativeness of the American literature. Duncans poems are indeed a great parallelism of Ginsbergs Howl as such the Duncans poems also tackle about homosexuality. All of these literary pieces had successfully revealed the creativity of the writers in bringing the issue of homosexuality to the people without the hesitations of being tagged as malicious and immoral.
    And through the courage of these writers from the birth of the Beat Generation up to the present time, many writers have realized that the issue on homosexuality an drugs can be also used creatively and freely through the intricate and beautiful language of poetry. The footprints of the Beat Generation will remain an indelible etch in the American history up to the present time for its poetry does not only reveal gay writers emotions but it also tackles social and political implications of America. 

The Sixties was marked of massive unemployment and poverty. The people of America are demanding for economic justice. Americans are calling for social change.
People are caught up in the culture of protest  against poverty, unemployment, racial injustice, and against the Vietnam War. 1968 was described as a tumultuous year for America. Is it because of the rallies, picket, strikes, and sit-ins emerging around America These are the succeeding events that left scar to America.
January 31 The Tet Offensive. During the Vietnamese Lunar New Year celebration, the North Vietnamese troops launched a massive surprise attack throughout South Vietnam. Tet marked a major turning point in every American citizens perception of the war and how it is being fought. The majority of Americans has trouble believing that the war was being won.
March 31 President Lyndon B. Johnsons announced that he will not be a candidate to the presidential race. His popularity kept dropping as the Vietnam War continued.
April 4 Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down. Martin Luther King Jr. has led the civil rights movement with peaceful methods. But his death precipitated a new wave of violence. Soldiers crushed the riots in Washington D.C. and other cities. Hundreds of people were killed or injured.
June 5 Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated after winning the Democratic primary election in California.
Directo 2
August 26-29  The Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The Democrats were the Party in power. The Vietnam War was the major issue. Protests against the war in Vietnam were aimed at them. Thousands of anti-war demonstrators gathered in the city of Chicago during the political convention. The delegates attending the convention were divided over the Vietnam War and other issues. The debacle in Chicago had three consequences  the prospect for victory was damaged and the democrats were more divided than ever.  The Convention was notable for its bloody riot. Police arrested over 500 demonstrators and injured more than 100 demonstrators. Eight people were indicted for violating the Anti-Riot Act of 1968.
Nov 5 Presidential Election Richard Nixon won.
These events in 1968 were described to be chaotic  riots are everywhere in America, disturbing the peace and order. But these events should be contextualized to the social illness gripping America in 1968. 
What happened in 1968 was a rising social unrest  broader in scope, larger in size and greater in frequency compared to the demonstrations in previous years. Growing public discontent grips the American people.
1968 was the height of social unrest. Millions of Americans sympathized and participated in these protests because they were aware of the social ills in their society, aware of their rights, and critical to the foreign policy of America.  They demanded for economic justice and social change. But their demands was not heard, thousands of American people were harassed, injured, prosecuted and killed fighting for their beliefs and fighting for their rights.

One major similarity between the 1920s and the 1980s was the turmoil coming out from the previous decade. People living in the 1920s came out of World War I (1914-1918) and while those in the Eighties were coming out of Watergate (1974), a nationwide gas shortage (several years) and the Iran Hostage Crisis (1979). People wondered what the next ten years would bring.
    Having ideological troubles abroad continued through both decades. During the 1920s, Germany and its allies were defeated but not broken. It would take another decade before the Germans would pose a bigger threat, but nobody rigorously oversaw the country after the peace treaty from the First World War was signed.
President Ronald Reagan had related problems with the Soviet Union decades later. Both sides demonstrated their nuclear abilities to the other during the 80s. Reagan bankrupted his nemesis by outspending the Soviet Union in building weapons. When the Soviet government realized it could not keep pace, they brokered peace.
Another point between these decades was scandals. The Savings and Loan controversy of the late 1980s led to the downfall of several banks, the life savings of its investors, and the arrests of many executives. Purchases were status symbols and proof of ones worthand that led to false security.
Good TimesBad Times 2
    Just like the 1980s, people in the 1920s spent without consequence. Scandal in businesses led to a fake hopeand a massive punishment for the country. People like Joseph Kennedy, Al Capone and J.P. Morgan made huge profits for themselves by deceiving its shareholders and customers. While it was not against the law at the time, it was considered poor business practice.
    The result of these businessmen doing an end-around the rules led to the collapse of the American economy at the end of both decades. The Great Depression lasted for several years with the lasting images of long bread lines and longer lines for jobs. Hebert Hoover, who was elected president in 1928 as the economy was turning sour, was replaced after one term by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932.
Another similarity George H.W. Bush was replaced by Bill Clinton after one term in 1992. Bush was famous for his, Read my lips no new taxes pledge that he reneged on, but he also oversaw the economy go into a freefall once Regan left office. The economy went into recession, unemployment soared and people who purchased everything in the 1980s either sold it back at reduced prices or gave them up altogether.
Not only were the outgoing presidents gone after four years, but Hoover and Bush were also Republicans. They believed that businesses should attempt to make as much moneyprofit as they could with little or no regulation from the government. Both men failed because the companies got rich off the backs of everyone else. When the bubble burst, everyone had to bear the burden of putting the countryand the economy in particularback together. (Pohnpei)
  Good TimesBad Times 3
One other lighter note was the issue of dating. People looked at the way the opposite sex viewed each other differently. In the 1920s, there were group dancing parties and the opportunity to meet people and see who might be available. The invention of the automobile made it easier for two people to get to know each other more intimately.
Decades later, it would be considered to be less of a challenge meeting someone. There were not a set of rules andor chaperones present to set up guidelines and ensure that they were followed by both parties. Because of the presence of contraception, it make the possibility of pre-marital sex likely than in decades past. That is not saying it was encouraged or condoned, just more of an option. (1999)
For the most part, the 1980s and 1920s saw good years in the beginning of the respective decades that turned nightmarish as the years ended. Prosperity and a sense of good would eventually turn into a bubble-bursting reality check for everyone.
Right now, the country is going through a recession after the housing market crashed and Wall Street saw executives accept large bonus checks while their employees were left without a pension, retirement or even a job. How the economy bounces back will determine whether the 2000s will be remembered as the two decades in question are.

 The Vietnam War was one of the debacle  militarily and politically for the USAs policy in Asia. The collapse of South Vietnam, the US ally against the aggressive and disciplined North was possibly inevitable as the counter insurgency strategy of the US miserably failed. Former President Richard M. Nixon argued that the US was winning the war in Vietnam but we lost the war politically in the United States.  Such argument was perhaps a sort of face saving statement from politicians such Pres. Nixon.  Event in Vietnam however showed a different picture. In a report of General Westmoreland to CINCPAC dated June 13, 1965, he asserted that there is no doubt whatsoever that the insurgency in South Vietnam must eventually be defeated among the people in the hamlets and towns.  This a clear indication that the Vietnam war was a non-conventional war and that the US was engaged in two fronts.  One defending the border against a frontal assault from the North and the second which was more difficult, defending the South Vietnamese government from its people (Gettleman).
General Wetmoreland, further clarified in the report that security from the guerilla, the assassin, the terrorist and the informer could only be possible if the South Vietnam government could make real progress and succeed in securing against the identified internal threat. Further the general was cognizant that the conflict in South Vietnam is essentially a civil war within the country (Gettlemann). 
From the same report, it was apparent that the US presence has no clear mandate. Unlike in Europe where there was a clear cut military, security and political agreements for mutual protection, the US commitment in Vietnam and he noted that the US have never had a treaty commitment obliging us to the South Vietnamese people or to a South Vietnamese government. The General also noted that the North Vietnamese forces are then maneuvering large forces to provide support for its regiments complete with heavy weapons. Apparently as early as 1965, the American involvement in Vietnam was already a lost cost. The Tet Offensive, a series of surprise attacks launched in January, 1968 and coordinated by North Vietnam, though a military failure had exposed that the optimistic projections of the hawks in Washington was essentially a myth and that the South Vietnamese could never by itself be able to defend against the onslaughts from within and from without. General Westmorelands assessment after the Tet Offensive that to defeat the hostile forces of the North and its insurgency forces in the South would require an additional 200,000 American soldiers and activation of its reserve forces, the public opinion in the US homeland swayed passionately against the US presence in Vietnam (Tet Offensive).
    History thus have shown that the Vietnam War was in reality an unjustified engagement based on weak premises of preventing the spread of communism in Asia.  It cost the lives of thousands young Americans in a battlefield which they never did understood and pitted an enemy unrecognizable from the people they were told to protect. Subsequent withdrawal of forces and letting South Vietnam handle its security arrangements after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords were signed had in effect sealed the fate of Vietnam  to eventual reunification under the North (The Vietnam War).
    While engagements in a foreign soil may have been justified under a condition wherein national security of the US is for example compromised and that real threat exist, the case of American presence in Vietnam had no real justification. The justification of saving people from a perceived evil threat such as communism would ultimately crumble given the reality that the Vietnams history was muddled in the history of colonialism, first the French then the entry of the USA.
    While the strong anti-war sentiment in the US was indeed a factor in national and foreign policy of the US, it was not the main factor of the American Vietnam debacle.  The major factor remained with the disposition of the Vietnamese people and the resolution of that countrys political affairs would ultimately be decided according to internal factors.  Even the might of the American military and its political clout would have no real influenced if its used is misplace and not founded on real and valid reasons.

In his book, Toward and American Revolution, Jerry Fresia gives a thought-provoking account of one particular event in Americas political history   the framing and ratification of the Constitution.  Fresias approach differs from other authors in the sense that he sees the making of the Constitution from a different perspective.  Fresia sees something wrong about America based on what happened in 1787.  He views it as the creation of an elite plutocracy rather than a real democracy which is popular in nature. At the end of book, he calls for a  need for revolutionaries  to continue the struggle for real and genuine democracy in the United States.
    Upon closer examination of the Founding Fathers who drafted and signed the Constitution, they were all elites in society whether they were  old money  like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or the self-made ones like Roger Sherman of Connecticut.  Other accounts considered them as  demigods  because of their stature not only based on their socio-economic background but also by the reputation they built during the American Revolution. They came together in Philadelphia in response to a brewing crisis that threatened to undermine the stability of the fledgling United States of America.  Realizing that the Confederation Congress was not strong enough to promote stability, they decided to create a new government that would be strong and centralized to ensure the survival of the nation.  They decided to create a (federal) republican form of government rather than create their own monarchy.
    However, Fresia saw it differently.  When provisions for the Constitution were proposed and drafted, he noticed that these provisions did not intend to serve the majority but to protect the interests of the framers and their ilk. These educated and enlightened men feared granting too much power to the less educated and less privileged majority. They saw them as a threat who would use their power to promote an egalitarian society. This means that by creating equality, they might take away all their privileges and patrimony that they had built up through the years. In addition, despite breaking away from the British monarchy, most of them admired the system and liked the functions which they wanted to adopt in the new government they created, stopping short however of creating a new monarchy and instead giving the leader (President) limited powers as part of the separation of powers stipulated in the provisions of the Constitution. Furthermore, the framers made sure that the powers of the majority are limited to electing only their representatives to Congress and stopped short in giving them the right to elect senators and a President which was back then reserved to an Electoral College .
    Apparently, what Fresia saw was the same as some of the framers noticed like Benjamin Franklin and George Mason to name a few. In the case of Franklin, he had reservations in signing this  imperfect  document, yet he bowed to the will of the majority and expediency and signed it. As for Mason, he too noticed this and threatened to boycott the signing unless a Bill of Rights was added.  Despite what came out of the Convention, the Founding Fathers (at least some of them) were hoping that the American people would eventually mature and use their newly-bestowed powers judiciously. In one anecdote, Franklin was asked by a passerby what government did they give them and he answered wittily,  a Republic, if you can keep it  Franklins point was the responsibility for having a true democratic government rests with the people if they would be involved and not merely leave politics at the hands of politicians. This is how democracy is supposed to work and to a certain extent, it has and will continue to do so in the years to come.

Winthrop Jordan explored the culprit behind rampant racism in the US. He not only investigates US, instead he goes back from the first contact of Europeans to the Africans. In the book, Jordan suggested that white men encountered black men and monkeys at the same time, they thought that there was a connection between them. He said that belief was not wide spread but was available as a theory for later use. Fast forwarding to America, Dr. Jordan cites the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who seemed conflicted knowing that black men were equal to white men, but doubting that black men were as intelligent as white men.
    This book by Jordan is valuable for its analysis of Jeffersons intellectual entanglement with slavery, but it does not delve into Jeffersons day-to-day relationship with slavery. This is important because Jeffersons practical involvement with the system of black bondage indicates that, while his racist beliefs were generally congruent with his actions, his libertarian views about slavery tended to be mere intellectual abstractions. This is particularly true for the years after 1785 and to a somewhat lesser degree, it holds true for the earlier period as well.
    Jordan dealt with this contradiction by citing Jefferson on his views on abolition and holding that the role of the latter role as an owner of men was entailed upon him. According to Jordan, being born into a slave system, he could not in good conscience abandon his black charges he made the best of a bad situation by behaving as a benevolent and indulgent master.
    Accepting the traditional creation that the Virginian was trapped by a system he abhorred, Jordan analyzed Jeffersons central dilemma as being that he hated slavery but thought Negroes inferior to white men. Taking note of Jeffersons daily personal involvement with the slave system, Jordan concluded his heartfelt hatred of slavery did not derive so much from this harassing personal entanglement in the practicalities of slavery as from the system of politics in which he was enmeshed mentally.(Jordan 1974126-127)
    He then treated the problem almost exclusively in terms of Jeffersons ideas and continued with his perceptive account describing the confusion that emerged from the clash of the contradictory tendencies within the Virginians thought. First, his belief in a single creation and in a universe governed by natural law led him inexorably toward the view that the concept of natural rights applied to Negroes by virtue of the fact that they were human beings too. Second, Jefferson also held an intuitive belief in the inferiority of the blacks, which he tried to cover up with an appeal to science, but which actually stemmed from the interaction between his own psychological makeup and the mores of the society that surrounded him. Jeffersons refusal to accept an environmentalist explanation for the apparent inferiority of the blacks led to confusion which Jordan termed monumental. For if the Negroes were innately inferior, then Jefferson must have suspected that the Creator might have in fact created men unequal and he could not say this without giving his assertion exactly the same logical force as his famous statement to the contrary.(130)
    Lastly, his strong doubt that the Negroes were innately inferior is probably of great significance in explaining his ability to ignore his own strictures about their rights. Thinking of them as lesser men, he was able to argue into himself that his behavior toward them was just and benevolent.

The making of wage labor regulation for the slave owners was the governments alternative solution to the demand of emancipation by the Black Americans.  Due to the westward expansion, capitalist had nothing to do but to follow this new law.  Otherwise, their businesses and the industry in general would surely drop.  On the other hand, anti-slavery organizations were making demands to abolish totally the slavery and slave labor.  However, Black Americans are still in need to have something to earn for their living.  Because their line of expertise came from the time when they were slave laborers to their masters even with no compensation at all, they were as much as thankful for the creation of wage labor regulation as they were certainly at peace and hopeful to be compensated for their hard labor appropriately.
    The height of Black Slavery period began facing its ending following the victory of American Revolution happened in the late years of eighteenth century.  Abolition of slavery started coming to the minds of those in the position which supported by different groups of activists rallying everywhere such as in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and in California where African-American population is enormous.  While talks and debates regarding the slavery abolition took place, the agricultural development and industrialization in the western part of the country was almost getting the remarkable expansion.  Slave masters then were fighting against the slavery abolition as they need their slaves so badly.  Some of them who happened to lose possession of their slaves really wanted to win them back.  With this, slave abolition talks between land owners and the government, who were on the side of Black Americans, set another debatable discussion, which emphasize on how and up to what extent that the land owners would take possess their slaves after having given to chance to get them back once more.  Wage labor began addressing in the context as an alternative solution of slave labor which perhaps the immediate answer to the demand of each side as it could be the best way to meet the interests of both parties halfway.  It could be a forceful action by the government though but the result that patronage of slave labor started declining was expected.  Therefore, slave owners, who were now addressed as capitalists as they are now paying their wage worker, were enforced to abide the new labor law and obliged to pay the wage worker according to the labor and time that they were consumed.
    In my own opinion, the only positive outcome of the wage labor implementation is that the morale of the former slaves are boosted by the creation of the new labor system knowing that they are now be called as wage laborers and not just mere slaves to their masters.  Other than that, there is no difference at all as they still had to experience hard labor and sometimes maltreatment from their masters.  However, I am still for the wage labor system and totally opposed to the old norm of slave labor.  It is clear to me that there were lots of support groups who were sympathizing African American citizens which perhaps urged the government so eagerly in making the said reformation of their lifestyles from slave workers to wage workers.  Finally, I understand that the shaping of our history did not formulate overnight and had to overcome situation such as this to attain liberation and equal opportunity for all as hat we have enjoyed up to this date.
Word Count 579

The 18th century came with the American Revolution which was the beginning of the manumission of the slaves. This was meant to be the beginning of a new life for the slaves though the process was gradual. In the Northern states, the slaves were given some rights for example in capital cases they had the right to trial by jury. Just after the Revolution, there came a trend of separation and segregation. The Americans became threatened by the free slaves more than the slaves themselves especially in the South. This is because with the Revolution, there hold or power over the black community was less (Winthrop 155).The segregation was deemed to be worse than the slavery because the free Negroes were more restricted. These restrictions included separation by race at places that were for social gatherings. Majority of the Americans could not vouch for equality with the black community without incorporating separation. Restraints on personal manumissions were the results of the hostility towards free slaves. The number of free slaves increased from 8 per cent to more than 13 per cent. Separation and segregation lead to the first Negro churches (Winthrop 158).
According to Winthrop D. Jordan in his book The White Mans Burden, after 1790, the free Negroes became a problem. There were more and more free slaves with every passing day. With attempts to deal with the situation, the attitude of Americans changed gradually thirty years after the Revolution. They needed clarity of the status of the free Negroes. In addition to the separation, many problems were attributed to the free slaves. They were said to harbor stolen goods, stolen by slaves. It was so serious that in Maryland there was a judge who accredited the art of theft and harboring of fugitives to the free Negroes (Winthrop 157).The freeing of slaves led to fewer blacks living with the white community. Around 1810 segregated institutions began because Negroes were not allowed as equals in the American churches. The Negroes in Philadelphia and other Northern states were among the first. Before the end of the war there were two self-determining congregations of Negroes. Absalom Jones and Richard Allen were the first Philadelphia blacks to start the congregations. They were backed up by influential white men and this was contrary to American behavior towards Negroes.
 They were the first group that worshipped at St. Georges Methodist Church. But they were still segregated because they were made to seat around the wall of the church. A group of the blacks walked out and on their own initiative formed another church known as Free African Society. In 1793, in the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas, there was a display of interracial harmony (Winthrop 159).The separation was an experience that gave the black community an identity. It pushed them to do things on their own initiative and this gave the white community clarity of the status of the free Negroes. But at the same time, the separation led to definition of people against racial lines and up to date people are still struggling with racial discrimination.

 In his book,  White Mans Burden,  Winthrop Jordan explored how slavery started in America and stopping his narrative short before the start of the civil war.  It can be seen here that it was not merely an issue of slavery, but an issue of racism as well, an issue which would survive the civil war and be rooted in some, if not a lot of of Americans then and even today.
    Africans arrived in Americas shores as slaves, more often than not, against their will.  They were forcibly taken from their homes in raids and sold in trading posts established by whites in Africa.  Slavery was seen as lucrative business since it had a huge market, particularly in the colonies in the New World which was then agricultural and these Africans served in plantations or acted as indentured servants for these colonists.  It was from here that the colonists (as well as their descendants) would start developing this attitude that blacks were inferior to them. This would go on until the American Revolution and beyond.
    Men like Thomas Jefferson regarded slavery as immoral, tyrannical and inhuman since slaves were not treated like people but like commodities.  They realized that slaves were also human beings and they felt it was not right to treat them that way.  Yet, despite this attitude, even these opponents to slavery still harbored racist tendencies in the sense that they regard the blacks as inferior to them.  This was what made those in the South continue to assert slavery besides being essential to their economy.  When this issue was left alone in the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers thought this would keep the peace only to find out that the peace they bought by not resolving the issue was not enough and blood had to be paid in the civil war.
    All in all, slavery divided a young nation.  One side felt it was economically necessary and an assertion of their superiority while the other regarded it as morally wrong.  When the issue could not be resolved in a debate, war finally did.

The Civil War (1861-1865) was one of the phenomenal event in the history of America. The survival of todays most powerful country was an outcome of the nations ability to bring the ideals of liberty, human dignity, equality and justice during the reconstruction process. This reconstruction process was one of the most chaotic and divisive periods in Americas history. The reconstruction began when President Lincoln issued his proclamation more commonly known as the Ten Percent Plan. This plan was faced with the difficult task of reestablishing and developing the political, social and economic structures within the society including war-weakened economies and highly polarized political and social relations, regaining economic stability, and giving participation for the political groups that offered meaningful participation in various organizations. Consequently, the rebuilding of economic institutions, government institutions and the communities were the primary priorities of the said plan.
The transition from war to serenity posed great challenges for the economic targets, and the reforms were merely needed to enhance the economy and fuse peace and order in the society. Different economic efforts in cooperation with reconciliation and demilitarization reconstruction helped communities build strong and prosperous institutions. In addition, a plan for recovery and reconstruction focused both on short and long term development activities. The government gave people a reasonable access to basic needs like nutrition, education, health care and housing to meet the immediate needs for young children, pregnant women, elderly and handicapped individuals. Furthermore, to eradicate poverty, the government rehabilitated basic physical infrastructure including health and education services, water and sanitations system and other important facilities for the benefit of the poor sector of the society. Long-term development programs include the establishment of market institutions, equitable banking system, and the formalization of economic transactions in government. One of the fundamental requirements for this growth was a state capable of furnishing goods and legal framework for investment. This long term activities required the government to distribute property, enforce property rights and perform necessary economic tasks not fulfilled by markets to strengthen the economic activity.
Therefore, reconstruction understood in terms of capital accumulation is a crucial step on the way towards economic recovery. How reconstruction should be financed is the central theme of the document. Given that domestic savings are the most systematic determinant of investment, one of the priorities in post-conflict countries like what happened during the American civil war must be to rebuild their financial systems. Such a policy could encourage economic agents to save and invest in the domestic economy as political stability returns to the country. However, this process takes time. Regaining the lost confidence of local investors is a slow process and the speed of recovery depends on the nature of the signals sent by those tasked with the management of post-conflict transitions in the process of recovery.

With the end of the Civil War, the enmity between the North and the South ended. Confederate troops returned to the barracks many of them returned to farming or trading. Union troops were disbanded. The one-million strong Union army was severely reduced to 10, 000.  President Lincoln implemented a reconstruction program the purpose of which were as follows 1) rebuilding the economic infrastructure of the South, 2) abolishing the institution of slavery in the South, and 3) emphasizing industrialization in economic planning. The Reconstruction Program, in essence, destroyed the age-old cynicism between the North and the South. It was perhaps the genuine intent of the program (and its administrators) which caused this.
 After Union troops occupied the South, President Lincoln asked the war department to form regional military districts. The president intended the creation of military districts as the focal point of his reconstruction program. The 11 former Confederate states were divided into five military districts governed by Union generals. For a start, Lincoln asked Congress to amend some provisions in the Constitution. Congress unanimously passed the 13th Amendment (institutional abolition of slavery), the 14th Amendment (giving African-Americans full rights as citizens), and the 15th Amendment (giving black males the right to vote). These amendments resulted in the election of seven black representatives in the state legislature. There were, however, disagreements over the direction of the Reconstruction Program. Northern Republicans, or more commonly known as Radical Republicans, wanted to punish the South for fighting against the Union. The president, Andrew Johnson, opposed such stance. As a result, he was impeached. The Blacks though lost much of what they gained in the aftermath of the war. The Jim Crow laws were passed in the US Congress. Blacks were forbidden to carry firearms. They could not testify against whites in criminal proceedings. They could also be arrested for being unemployed. The Reconstruction did, indeed, heal the enmity between the North and the South in the long-run, the black community suffered from gross political negligence. 
    The Reconstruction Period may be viewed as the focal point of a beginning. There was a restoration of political unity between the North and the South. The economic infrastructure of war-torn areas was, essentially, rebuilt. Political rights were granted to former slaves, to blacks. Former Confederate states were allowed to keep a significant quantity of ammunitions, in case of invasion. There was, indeed, a feeling of warmth and appreciation from both the North and the South (hence, the term Brothers War). Behind this curtain of respect and adoration was reality. The blacks were never fully emancipated, having lost several rights in the process.

1 Slavery was something that the North and South held in common before the American Revolution. Yet after the Revolutionary slavery became a polarizing sectional issue that drove the United States to Civil War. How do you explain this development
Introduction
Slavery was an important aspect of economic production before the American Revolution. In deed, both the South and the North benefited immensely from the services that were provided by the slaves. In particular, the South relied heavily on slave labor in its large scale plantation production. The North on the other hand utilized slaves for domestic production due to the fact that its climate was unfavorable for Agricultural production. However, this situation changed when the North assumed a different perception of slavery from the South. This was perpetuated by various factors that are intellectual, spiritual and ethical in nature. The emergent abolitionist movement shunned the practice and advocated for the release of the slaves. This threatened the wellbeing of the South and led to heightened tensions between the two blocks. Historical studies contend that the conflicting ideals and views regarding slavery contributed greatly to the American civil war.
It is against this background that this study seeks to provide an explicit analysis of the relationship between slavery and the civil war. To enhance effective coherence in the essay, it is organized in to two parts. The first section generates an intrinsic evaluation of the status of slavery before the American Revolution. The second section then provides an exhaustive analysis of how slavery contributed to the civil war.
Slavery before the Revolution
The shortage of laborers to work on the American farms prompted the need for slavery by both the North and South. Jones et al indicates that there were huge chunks of arable land with minimal population to work on the same (56). This acute shortage of labor prompted the need for compulsory labor. Since hiring persons of European origin was relatively expensive, most settlers opted for experienced African slaves. In order to secure this status, most colonies declared slavery lifetime servitude for both the slaves and their offspring. Generally, slaves were considered a valuable commodity that provided useful services in the home, ship building and in Agriculture. It is indicated that slaves were bought from New World colonies as direct importation from Africa was considered very dangerous and difficult. Buying slaves from the new world colonies was also advantageous as they were already familiar with the western habits of work and customs. Of great importance was their capacity to survive the long periods of winter as they had already survived one climate change. 
Comparatively, the North had fewer slaves than the South. This can be explained by the different economic activities that the two blocks engaged in. The south practiced large-scale Agricultural production and therefore, more slaves were needed to provide the labor. Douglass indicates that the situation in the north was different because of the harsh climate that undermined large-scale agricultural production (63). In particular, it had long winters that prevented viable agriculture. As such, sustaining slaves was considered expensive and a burden for most parts of the northern population. Most homes in the North owned a maximum of two slaves that were employed in domestic production. At this juncture, it should be acknowledged that slavery was considered prestigious and a refection of ones economic wellbeing. Additionally, Douglass ascertains that unlike the southern slavery that was largely plantation oriented, northern slavery was urban (67). Nevertheless, slavery played a central role in the economy of America, irrespective of the position that the slaves held. In this respect, the slaves that provided domestic services in the North were also important as they freed their masters and enabled them to pursue important careers in medicine, law, religion or civil service.
Slavery after the Revolution
In his review, McPherson indicates that the northern economy differed significantly from the south as the population assumed different modes of production (78). In particular, the north had a rapidly growing economy that was based on mining, family farms, commerce, industry and transportation. In addition, its population that comprised of the British, Irish, German and European immigrants was also increasing rapidly. This population was largely urban and slavery was not practiced outside the Border States. The south on the other hand was largely dominated by a plantation settlement system that relied heavily on slavery. It was characterized by few cities and minimal industrial activities, except outside the Border States. Jones et al indicates that the slave owners in the south entirely controlled the economy and politics of the region (62). Thus, the rapid increase of population and economic output in the North became a cause of concern for the southerners as it threatened their ability to continue influencing the national government. This was further compounded by the declining political activity in the region.
Previously, it is indicated that politicians from both blocks had engaged in various meetings in an effort to moderate slavery. Considering the sensitivity of the issue, it had resulted in to different compromises. These compromises were preferred by both parties for the sake of peaceful co existence in the region. However, Douglass points out that they were not sustainable as they did not resolve the sensitive underlying issue of slave power (71). The inherent hostility that stemmed from the differing ideologies regarding slave trade resulted in to the collapse of the second party system. Essentially, the northerners advocated for slave free labor and economic production while the southerners relied heavily on slave labor and therefore opposed this. The free labor ideology basically sought to enhance economic opportunity of all segments of the society. Southerners considered this a threat to their wellbeing and described it as filthy operation. Douglass shows that they strongly opposed the proposed homestead laws that advocated for providing the population in the West with free farms (71). This opposition was perpetuated by the fear that the small farmers would probably oppose and shun plantation slavery. Unlike the perception of the Northerners, Southerners considered slavery a positive good as it exposed the slaves to modern civilization that made them enhance their intellectual and moral wellbeing through education.
In addition, it is posited that the Northern political leaders considered slavery an evil that is immoral and therefore needed to be shunned. They also believed that the southerners that owned slaves and controlled the national government had an underlying intention of spreading the same to the north. This according to McPherson made it difficult for the politicians to arrive at an anticipated compromise (75).
Jones et al ascertains that the southern social structure that was stratified and patriarchal encouraged slavery (67). Thus despite the fact that only few southerners owned the slaves, the institution was defended by the entire population. Essentially, the individuals that had the biggest pieces of land owned more slaves than their counterparts. As such, they assumed a higher position in the social stratum. In addition, slavery was perpetuated by the racist attitude that the population assumed. The blacks were considered inferior to the whites and therefore, it was contended that their position in the social structure should remain as slaves. Further, social positions such as slave patrols increased racism and acted as unifying factor of the White southerners. Basically, they were an indication of power and honor and hence accorded the poor Whites authority over the black slaves. In particular, the position gave them the power to whip, maim, search and even kill the slaves (Jones et al 73).
 Coupled with the increased abolitionist movement in the North, the rise of literature shunning racial slavery increased the tensions between the south and the north. In particular, literary works such as Uncle Toms Cabin and The Liberator increased the tensions in the South as they directly attacked the practice of slavery. McPherson also cites that the economic rivalry between south and the north contributed to the civil war (79). In this regard, the north abolished slavery and introduced the industrial revolution that was characterized by increased urbanization, reform movements and high levels of education. This led to increased settlement of the immigrants in the north. In some cases, the parts of the southern population migrated and settled in the North. This further exacerbated the hostilities between the blocks that led to increased aggression and defensive attitude by the south. Further, it is worth noting that the south was relatively conservative and sought to further its cultural ideologies. As such, it resisted the revolution that was occurring in the North.
Promotion of the market ideology is also identified as a major cause of the tensions and hostilities between the south and the north. In this regard, McPherson postulates that as commercial activities increased in the north, the market economy began to influence the political power in the region (81). At this juncture, it should be appreciated that slavery in the South had initially been elemental in influencing the economic status of individuals. This shift in the ideologies made the southerners to be worried about their political positions in the national government.
The conflicting interpretation of biblical teachings regarding slavery also contributed significantly to the conflict between the North and South nations. Seemingly, the interpretations between the north and south were different. While the north considered slavery to be evil, the southern interpretation justified the same. Douglass ascertains that the protestant churches were unable to agree on the biblical interpretations of the institution of slavery (88). Arguments for and against slavery were also apparent within the political sphere. The abolitionists believed that the constitutional clause that extended slavery for twenty yeas was not democratic. Democracy in this respect was considered to be a demonstration of equity and liberty. Fundamentally, it was argued that all humans had equal rights and all activities needed to further the happiness of the same. As such slavery was considered a form of oppression that infringed upon the human rights of the slaves. On the contrary, the proponents of slavery based their assumption on the concept of race. In this respect, they argued that Whites and Blacks can never be equal and that the Blacks needed to be submissive to the white race that was conceivably superior.
With time, Jones et al notes that the south realized that it was loosing control over the government to the North (95). As such, they turned to the sates rights argument in order to continue protecting slavery. In this respect, southerners argued that the tenth amendment prohibited the federal government from infringing upon the rights of slave holders. In addition, they indicated that the federal government was not supposed to interfere with the status of slavery in the states that already practiced the same. Seemingly, they believed that the stringent interpretation of the constitution could protect them from the northern abolitionist movement. Adherents of this movement believed that slavery was not only a social evil but also an immoral act that needed to be addressed accordingly. They held different beliefs with the most radical calling for the immediate release of the slaves.  Others proposed a gradual emancipation while the liberal ones simply wanted to bring to an end the spread of slavery and its relative influence.
It is also contended that the tensions between the North and the south were heightened by the collapse of the national party system. This happened after the compromise of 1850. The two political parties of the nation that comprised of the Democrats and the Whigs fractured along regional lines. The Northern Whigs decided to blend in to a new republican party. This party was largely anti slavery and its mandate promised a bright future for Americans. In particular, great emphasis was laid on education, industrialization and homesteading. Although the north considered these ideals promising, the southerners perceived the party to be very indecisive and one that could contribute greatly to conflicts and war.
Douglass indicates that the election of 1860 also exacerbated the tension between the two blocks. It is posited that the election was characterized by apprehension and the lack of a candidate that had the confidence of the entire nation was a symbol of change. The north demonstrated more political power and Lincoln was elected as the president in the region. This election also gave the north complete control over the Free States and deprived the south of this privilege. The subsequent secession highly compromised the peaceful existence of the nation.
Conclusion
As it has come out from the review, slavery was considered an important factor in economic production before the American Revolution. Slaves provided vital services at all levels of production. It is also certain that it contributed significantly to the civil war in America. The conflicting perceptions of slavery by the two blocks increased the tensions between the South and North. It is also clear that other factors like culture, religion and differing economic ideals played augmenting roles in perpetuating the civil war. Of great significance in this regard however was the election of President Lincoln who was a proponent of antislavery. This led to the secession of the Southern states from the Union. Notably, it compromised the unity that the two blocks shared and further perpetuated the differences between the North and the South.

1.The Thinker is a sculpture of bronze and marble created by Auguste Rodin in 1902. Although it is independent and self-sufficient, the sculpture was designed as a part of The Gates of Hell, a portal that depicts the characters of  Dante Alighieris epic poem Divine Comedy. The Thinker represents the Poet, or Dante himself, sitting in front of the Gates of Hell and pondering poem. Auguste Rodin worked on The Gates of Hell for ten years total.
2.Reflection. The Thinker depicts a meditating man, whose mental concentration is greasy associated with considerable physical effort. His pose is closed, his lips are compressed and his eyes, although open, look somewhere inside his own soul, so the man doesnt seem to pay attention to what is happening around him. His muscles are so tense that it seems like the man is doing hard physical work. Therefore, every part of his body is taking part in the act of contemplation.
This work always attracted me. When I look at the Thinker, I feel we are similar in certain sense, as everyone has their small inner Thinker, a hard-working mechanism that ties together logic and intuition and produces great ideas. To me, the sculpture represents the height and depth of human thought, and it always reminds me  that in order to reflect upon and learn from each experience and  episode from my everyday life. This is the path of development.
3.The sculptors style greatly resembles the Ancient Greek and Renaissance tradition, as the thinking man is nude and beautiful in his natural nudity. The idea of physical perfection is close-knit with intelligence and excellence in mental abilities, as the depth of the mans thought is apparent. The idea of perfection is probably relevant to the Thinker, as each poet or philosopher seeks to create a work which would ideally express his thoughts and feelings. The sculpture represents not merely poets but creative profession in general and it is implied that such work requires self-denial and physical effort.
4.Evaluation and application to the historical context. The sculpture reflects the ideas of the nature of art and philosophy of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. In this sense, the nakedness of the man can be interpreted as the freedom of art and the urge to find or invent new forms and patterns. Contemporary authors also contended that the true writer or philosopher should experience solitude for deeper contemplation and be able to observe themselves and others. The logical continuation of observation is reflection, which can provide new ideas and allows drawing interesting conclusions. These ideas are further transformed into artworks, inventions or articles, which the author refines and improves through the act of contemplation which can also be understood as critical thinking.   Nowadays, these recommendations are also relevant and applicable. As the number of books published is growing and many of them are of controversial quality, it is important that todays writers keep in mind the idea that talented performance contains 20 percent of inborn gift and 80 percent of hard work.