American History

Bacons Rebellion is a popular revolt that took place in 1676 in colonial Virginia and which was led by Nathaniel bacon. This rebellion is attributed to several causes which led to disagreements in the Virginia colony. The causes include economic problems such as moribund tobacco prices, high taxes, high prices of English manufactured goods, rising commercial competition from the Carolinas as well as Maryland, and the English market which was becoming increasingly restricted. The colonists also resented the special treatment those close to the governor, Berkeley were being given. They also resented the restrictions on their rights to vote and the fact that they were being forced to remain subordinate to an aristocratic (noble) minority. They also felt that the governor was not adequately protecting them from attacks by Native Americans (Indians).  The fact that Berkley had been unable to defend the frontier against Indians was what actually precipitated the rebellion.  The colonists actually sought a scapegoat whom they could blame their problems on and found it in the Indians. The colonists felt that Indians had to either be killed or expelled from their land whether they were friendly or not. The fact that Berkley protected those Indians who were loyal to the British and was not reluctant in attacking and displacing them caused a disagreement between him and the colonists who sought to occupy more lands that at the time belonged to the Indians. It was this disagreement that escalated to the rebellion.

Small planters as well as indentured servants (blacks as well as whites) participated in the rebellion fighting for a cause that caused the Great Planters who were the ruling class to be alarmed. The rebellion marked a turning point in the regions ideas of race resulting to the birth of black slavery.  In their reaction, the Great Planters got alarmed and started treating the Small Planters and white indentured servants in a way that was better and different from the way the black servants were treated. Of course there were distinctions between blacks and whites before the rebellion and attitudes on the parts whites and may be blacks which made them differentiate themselves and think that they were superior to the other race. However, at this time, some black people owned land and property, had servants and were connected to the legal system as well as churches. At the time, servants, whether black or white were treated the same way. Badly, just like slaves. All this however changed after the rebellion as people of African origin were distinguished from those of European descent. Racial lines related to slavery hardened in attempts to control some of the poor people. Laws were enacted which made black people hereditary slaves. Bacons Rebellion caused the Great Planters of Virginia to change their views on freedmen, slaves, and racial difference.
Body

Why the Great Planters switched to Slaves
    There are several reasons as to why the Great Planters switched to using slaves as their main source of labor. It is worth to note that the main reason as to why the British migrated North America was in search of greener pastures as the economy in Britain was at that time very poor. Most of them would migrant as laborers for those who had already established themselves as planters and work for a certain period of time after which they were freed to start their own lives. With time however, the British economy improved and there was no need for people to migrate in search of better economic opportunities. In addition to this, the many wars had left Britain in ruins calling the need for laborers to rebuild it. There were now more job opportunities and chances to improve ones economic status in Britain. The number of people seeking to migrate to North America greatly reduced consequently reducing the number of available servants. In reaction to this, the planters turned to slavery as it was the only source of labor available to them. 

    The opportunities for freed men in colonial Virginia during the 1660s and 70s were also diminishing. The freedmen did not have as much freedom as the Great Planters. They did not for example have rights to vote and freely participate in the regions economy. They were treated more or less the same way the slaves were only that they were free. They were subordinate to a minority noble class which ruled them without their representation. They could also not freely participate in economic activities such as mercantilism which was increasingly becoming restricted. Lack of opportunities for this group of people discouraged more English people from migrating to North America in search of greater economic opportunities hence a decline in servants and laborers yet the need had increased due to the high demand of tobacco and later cotton. This forced the planters to use slavery as the main source of labor as it seemed to be the only available option.

The Advantages of Slavery
    Use of slaves as laborers had several advantages to the Great Planters. Once bought, slaves belonged to the masters until their death. Laws were enacted which made them hereditary slaves implying that even their children belonged to the master and had to work for them until they either died or were sold off. Unlike the white laborers who worked for an agreed upon time (contract) and who had to be paid freedom dues after the contract expired, slaves signed no contracts and could not be freed at any date in time. Neither were they paid any dues for their service. They had no rights whatsoever. Slavery was therefore a much cheaper and economically advantageous source of labor to the Great Planters. It was actually a long term investment for the Great Planters.

    The laws also stripped slaves of all their rights. Unlike freedmen who would own weapons upon their release from indenture servitude which made them a dangerous force, slaves were perceived to pose no danger to the planters as the laws forbade them from owning any arms. Disarming slaves was a way of preventing future rebellions against the Planters as had been experienced during Bacons Rebellion.

How the Virginia Assembly Separated Races
    In the years that followed the Bacons Rebellion, racism reached its peak in Colonial Virginia. The Virginia Assembly enacted a myriad of laws that that distinguished and separated the various races in the colony. In 1705 for example, the assembly passed a law whose aim was to sort out the confusion that surrounded the various forms of servitude in the colony. It stated that all servants brought into the colony and who were not Christians in their native countries were regarded as slaves. As slaves, they had no rights whatsoever. The law makers tried to use religion to justify their enslaving of fellow humans but for common people, the meaning of the law was clear that any African brought to the colony was a slave and not a servant. This is because Africa was the only region in which Christianity was not the form of religion. Christians or rather Englishmen were not permanent servants or slaves who were inheritable, they were only held to temporary servitude after which they were paid their freedom dues and allowed to go.  The powers of free blacks were also trimmed in that they were barred from testifying in courts and denied the right to vote. Black servants as well as free men could also be subjected to a range of punishments that were regarded inappropriate for the whites. Interracial marriage was also criminalized to prevent the rise of mulattos.

    Although Bacons Rebellion did not directly cause the switch from servants to slaves, it did inadvertently trigger the falling dominos to slavery. The rebellion caused the Great Planters to fear the Small planters who initially were servants before their freedom. After the rebellion, Great Planters concentrated on differentiating between races and treat white servants differently from the blacks to prevent such unity and recurrence of such a rebellion in future. The rebellion caused the poorer people (smaller planters, white servants and blacks) to realize that it was possible to win over the ruling class if they united. In order to avoid future insurgents, The Great Planters concentrated on frustrating the poor people so as to weaken them. Black servants were the target of this plan which resulted to the birth of their slavery. While Bacons rebellion is not directly responsible for the switch from use of servants to slaves, it triggered the process as the participation of black people in the rebellion raised an alarm among the planters causing them to divide the races and strip blacks of all their rights and subjecting them to slavery.

American Revolution for us in the annals of history will be the first war for liberating America from the colonial aggressions. For the Americans, this victory will be a divine blessing as now we will be achieving something very great and heavenly  It is in wake of this spirit, we the people of America must raise to create a space for free America-free from the Britains subjugated policies and controls. Supporters of King III want to amend the laws in conjunction with the British rulers but we the people of America want complete Independence, because the cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind and the fate of America will become the fate of humanity of large.    
Social, political and economic conditions of colonies are appalling and the atmosphere is full of tension. The undue restrictions have jeopardized our lives. The various acts Sugar Act, Currency Act, Stamp Act, Townshend Acts, Tea Act and above all these Coercive or Intolerable Acts have become now intolerable. We cannot hold town meetings they have closed the port of Boston to injure its trade annulled the Massachusetts Charter and instituted government by men appointed from England provided for the trial in England of men accused of treason and erected a new province of Quebec that robbed all the colonies the lands west of Alleghenies whose value they had just come to realize.  They want us to submit to the English Laws. After open conflict in Lexington and Concord and Massachusetts shooting incident, still our leaders thought that King George III can meet our grievances. They forwarded the proposal to the King to repeal these Intolerable Acts and to form mutually beneficial relationship in future. But look what happened, King George III declared that colonists were in open rebellion against the King and England and sent troops to suppress it. This is not the time to reconcile and avoid confrontation rather it is the time to FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE.

Some may argue that America has prospered under British Empire and should remain bound to her but it doesnt mean if a baby has grown on milk can never eat meat or that the first twenty years of life are to become the precedent for the next twenty.  Moreover, the colonies state of affairs would have been much better if these European countries had not influenced their power over them. England is enforcing its laws too far and if we will not take any action now, then the King will have full control of our colonies and we will be virtually left with no way to start the revolution. If the King desire is to have the control of all the American colonies, he should have given equal treatment to his people and the colonists but the treatment of colonies and its people by King George III has broken all the natural rights of the people. Man is born equal and it is unnatural to differentiate between a King and his subjects.

            British Monarchy is only responsible for our sufferings. History is evident of the fact that only Kings PRIDE has been responsible for all civil and foreign wars. I claim that the practice of monarchy lineage originates from sin and even God and Bible condemn it. Some may claim that hereditary succession diminishes the chances of civil wars but I refute this claim as there had been at least eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions in the history of Britain.  The practice of hereditary succession is contemptible as along with it is associated not only the evils of civil war, but also corruption and legacy of incompetent kings.

I have to painfully add here that Britain has never watched the interests of colonies as claimed by many rather its sole motive has always been to secure her economically. Therefore they do not deserve our loyalty. It is the governments responsibility to protect the life, freedom and property of people and we should judge it only on the basis if it has been able to accomplish its goal but British Government has failed in its purpose. The system of Britain government is complex and full of contradictions and monarchy has been awarded with all the authoritative power. To rule people of a country, continental form of government is essentially required and British are incapable to provide it. Democratic form of government is the best form of government where each and every colony will be given equal representation. Once independence is achieved, we need to opt for this form of government which will eventually give our true freedom to us. 

I declare that we have it in our power to begin the world over.  I am confident that our country has the capability and capacity to free itself from Britishs oppression and become a prosperous country. We are ready for war and ready to become a separate and liberated country as the day of independent manhood is at hand-we feel our strength.  This is an ideal time for the colonies to form their own governments as they are young because youth is the seed time of good habits, as well in nations as in individuals.  The British Parliament wants the colonies not to build any relations with each other and if they want, it should happen through Britain. If anyhow colonies wish to remain with England, the problems which had occurred in the past will definitely reemerge in future also. Moreover its pointless for a country to rule another land which is thousands of miles away across the ocean. So it has become inevitable to attain our independence.

I would like to emphasize here that not in numbers, but in unity, that our great strength lies.  Time hath come to achieve independence as colonies are small and cohesive. After a certain period of time, colonies will grow and there will be less cohesiveness and will not be able to come together for freedom. The unanimity among us and all colonies has all the strength to challenge the mighty power of the King. Let us show to the world when all the young colonies get united then we have the power to defeat the most powerful country of the world.

O Fellow Men Dont Worry Our land is rich in resources and we can support ourselves. We are debt free and of course there will be a cost of war but it is worth a sacrifice if in return our motives of fight are accomplished OUR FREEDOM AND OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

We are well suited to build a compatible army as that of Britain. The total cost of building will be 3,500,000  and we are inherently capable to raise a fleet as timber, iron, tar, and cordage are our natural products. We dont have to buy products from other countries and moreover it can become a great product of commerce. Spaniards and Portuguese hire ships of war so we can sell to them as, A navy when finished is worth more than it cost And is that nice point in national policy, in which commerce and protection are united. Let us build if we want them not, we can sell and by that means replace our paper currency with ready gold and silver. 

We have all the capability and the resources to establish a prosperous system of trade and fair and just government. America will in time excel the whole world.  Dont forget if a small country like England can reign over the whole world, then even America can. I am emphasizing that even America can become a super power but first she has to liberate herself from the clutches of British Empire.
SO What are you waiting for This is a call for all AMERICANS to come out of their shells of British subjugation and FIGHT FOR INDEPENDENCE.

Most people would agree that the American Revolution was a turning point in American history.  Commonly taught as a war to gain independence from the rule of the English, many would not look further, but the reality is that the Revolution was a war, but was not as life-changing as many assume.  In articles by William Nelson and Roy Lokken, the real views of the revolution seem to come forward through their analysis of the events and the works of historians.  Looking beneath the obvious and comparing the thoughts of past and current historians, both articles show a new way of looking and understanding the American Revolution.  While they agree that the underlying revolt was less a revolt and more a separation, they take different views as to the political ideology of the time and the political theories and leaders that evolved before, during and after the revolution.  The fact is that the revolution really was about separation from England, but it was not about changing government.  The colonists had their own way of doing things and they wanted to keep their ways rather than have Parliament have sovereignty.  This was the basis for the American Revolution and this is where the historians need to first look and then decided how and why the time was ripe for the revolution.

William Nelson in his Revolutionary Character of the American Revolution uses the past and present historians to really distinguish the political thoughts or lack thereof in relation to the American Revolution.  His belief is that the leaders really did not have political theories that were different from those in England other than the liberty of the individual.  The institutions, such as the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government coincided with the parliament, King, and House of Commons in England.  The Constitution was set up in the same way as the English, but with more checks and balances and an elected president rather than a King.  Nelson goes on to say that some theorists believe that the political theories changed between 1765 and 1776, but in reality there was no change.  The individualism and the rule of the citizens were the only differences, and the reasons these ideas held was because that was the way the colonies governments were already established.  The only thing the Constitution did was provide checks and balances between the federal and state government.  In essence, Nelson states that there was not any real major change in political ideology and institutions other than giving the people more power to elect their officials rather than have the officials on a hereditary basis.

Roy Lokkens article The Political Theory of the American Revolution Changing Interpretations focuses on the fact that the political ideologies and theories changed before, during and after the American Revolution.  Lokken agrees that the Constitution and political institutions were very similar to England he expresses a more revolutionary feel to the separation.  While the revolution was conservative in respect to revolutions in Europe, the basic concept was that the colonists did not want to have the British parliament making them pay taxes.  They believed the parliament could control commerce, but that they were not the sovereign and would not rule the colonies.  At this point, during the revolution, the colonists looked at the collective and the public rather than the individual.  This focus lasted until the Declaration of Independence was written.  By 1776, the belief system had changed from the collective to the individual.  So instead of worrying about the community and state first, the citizens began to think of themselves first and then the state.  Lokken explains that this concept changed when the people decided that a centralized church was not what they wanted and therefore the views changed to be more individual and secular than religious and collective.  He believed there were definite changes in the ideologies and the revolutionary character of the American Revolution.

While Nelson believes that the American Revolution was only a momentary stand off based on the fact, that the colonists did not want to be ruled by the Parliament, but by the government established in the colonies that was based on the governmental structure of the English government (1003).  Lokken, however, believes that the concepts of the government changed at the time of the Revolution as well as in the present as historians compare the revolution to the situations of the present day (95).  In truth, both give only an abstract idea as to possibilities of the reasons for and the reactions to the American Revolution.  Their strengths are in the use of the histories from the time of the revolution through the present.  Unfortunately, they use many of the same sources and yet come up with different theories about the revolution and what it really meant to the colonists.  Based on the reading, Nelson provides a sounder evidentiary article even though he uses the many of the same sources.  He explains why he believes in the idea that the revolution was just a reaction and need to be separated from England.  Lokken does not give as much in the way of evidence.  He tends to jump around more and is less analytical and logical in his writing. The fact that Nelson is more logical in his evidence leads me to prefer his theory to Lokken.

    The firebombing of Germany and Japan during World War Two still stir controversy to this day. As historians attempt to put these events into perspective a single prevailing view about the bombings and their motivations has taken form. Individual perspectives on the reasons for the bombings in Japan vary however.

    Historians have used the firebombing of Tokyo in March, 1945 to establish a sort of dividing line. Civilians were now explicit targets of Allied bombing. Many historians see this as a point in which Allied policy changed, ultimately leading to the nuclear bombing of Japan later that year. Author Thomas R. Searle in It Made a Lot of Sense to Kill Skilled Workers The Firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945, takes a contrarian view.

    The bombings and the events that led up to them, in fact, did not represent a major change in Allied policy. It is only the spectacular nature of the bombings success that made them appear any different than the coinciding precision bombing campaign. This article appears in the January 2002 edition of The Journal of Military History.
Synopsis

    Searle begins a chronological and thematic analysis with the United States entry into the war in 1941. He refers briefly to planning made during the pre-war years, but his analysis is largely confined to the years 1941-45. The author discusses planning, execution and results of bombing in both Germany and Japan. Within this context the development of what would become the United States Air Force is outlined. A discussion of the B-29 bomber project and its effects on operations and policy is also presented.

    The authors two part thesis is clearly presented. In the first part he argues that most historians are misrepresenting the firebombing of Tokyo as being indicative of a major shift in U.S. within that framework he offers a secondary and more provocative point - The massive civilians casualties suffered from the firebombing were far from being collateral damage. Searle claims that civilian casualties were not accidental or incidental, but an explicit goal of the incendiary raids on Japanese cities 1

    The death of civilians and the destruction of industry were primary goals of the attacks. This was well-known, assessed and planned for years earlier by the military. Therefore, the targeting of civilians was not a major shift in policy. The author also attempts to debunk many historians notion that the primary reason for the firebombing was the destruction of Japanese morale. The author cites more tactically-related goals as motivation for the firebombing of heavily populated areas.

    The topic is primarily discussed from a military perspective. Political, social and moral aspects are mentioned, but only in the context of the progress of the military campaign. Much of the authors research comes from internal military sources and documents.

The B-29 and the Development of the United States Air Force
    World War One had seen the early emergence of military air power. In the Second World War, the potential of air power was being fulfilled. At the time air power assets were under the command and control of the United States Army air commanders were growing restless under that control. A growing number felt that an autonomous Air Force was both justified and necessary. Establishment of a new military branch would not be easy. An act of Congress and a separate funding stream would be required. During the war air Generals were eager to provide justification for such an expansion. Bombing was one way in which this could be done. Searle writes If USAAF strategic bombing could make a major contribution to the war effort it would provide a powerful argument for the service autonomy U.S. airmen had sought for decades 2

    The determination of how to judge success in bombing was still a work in progress for the USAAF at this stage. A targeted bombing of a factory in Essen, for example, may or may not be successful in furthering strategic goals. Was the factory taken out completely Was it a redundant facility Was there a cost in terms of Allied men or materiel These were all questions commanders had to answer during the heat of war. Answering them often involved getting accurate intelligence from the theater.

    In Germany precision bombing campaigns had been combined with incendiary area bombing to maximize effects. During that campaign it was apparent that precision bombing of industry was not always as effective as was hoped. The results of incendiary bombing were quite obvious as entire German cities burned to the ground. An incendiary campaign within a larger strategic bombing plan for Japan had been in the works for quite some time. Urban incendiary bombing was not LeMays idea or even his primary goal, he just made it work spectacularly well. 3

    The B-29 project was a major undertaking for the United States military which cost more than the Manhattan Project or any other military aircraft to date. According to Searle, the massive investment in the B-29 cast its own shadow on U.S. policy and operations. The author unfolds his thesis within this backdrop.

    The B-29 project represented more than just the building of a new aircraft for the United States military. In certain ways the project was so massive as to shape U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) policy and the ways it was carried out. Searle cites USAAF documents that refer to the project as the three billion dollar gamble. 4 Unlike its predecessors, the plane go straight from the production line into combat without substantial testing. The potential advantages of the plane included pressurized cockpits, increased payloads and increased range. The latter was particularly important because Allied bases were located far from mainland targets.

    Searle ties the fate of the B-29 into his thesis by stepping back and looking at the larger picture. The USAAF was trying to establish itself as an autonomous branch of the military. In the eyes of USAAF officials, Searle contends, the success of this budget-busting project was essential to proving the viability of the air forces.

    The precision bombing campaign in Japan had been sluggishly moving along without demonstrable success. An incendiary campaign flown by the B-29s would be the quickest way to generate headline-grabbing success. incendiary area bombing had already been done in Germany and its potential effects in Japan had been well-researched.

    When the B-29 came on-line the USAAF wanted complete autonomy on how to use it. Searle describes the creation of the Twentieth Air Force as a direct offshoot of the B-29 project. The Twentieth Air Force reported directly to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. In other words, the highest levels of the U.S. government were aware of incendiary bombing plans as early as 1943.

    The replacement of Gen. Hansell with Gen Curtis LeMay before the firebombing is often cited by historians as evidence of a major policy shift. Searle argues that Hansell was replaced because of competency issues, not policy disputes between pro and anti-bombing factions. Furthermore, Searle presents evidence that contradicts morale bombing as a primary focus of the March 1945 attacks. He cites a report to the Joint Chiefs of staff in 1944 that did not specifically mention Japanese morale as a target of firebombing. 5

    The author criticizes prevailing historical points of view in general. Only one specific historian is singled out. Searle cites author Michael S. Sherry. According to Sherry the incremental way by which new assumptions crept into planning obscured the shift in target priority toward urban areas. 6 Searle does not disagree with the first part of Sherrys thesis. He does not believe that there was there was a demonstrable shift in targeting policy however. For reasons both tactical and self-serving the USAAF had long planned to do this type of bombing.

Analysis and Conclusion
    Searle makes a strong case that the firebombing of Tokyo and the de facto targeting of civilians was simply a continuation of USAAF policy and not a radical shift. His sources include many USAAF documents from the period, post-war military reviews and books written by the actual participants in the events he describes.

    Most of the sources for the article are primary. Since the article focuses on a historical event, sources from the time period are appropriate. Any potential biases come from over-usage of internal military sources. The article tends to take a somewhat narrow military perspective.
In two areas the author could have fleshed out his thesis more. First, an important part of his original thesis is his contention that historians have fundamentally misinterpreted the firebombing of Tokyo. At one point he complains that. these historical works need to be revised or abandoned entirely. 7 A list of books is provided in the footnotes but precious few specific references are made to where the other historians are going wrong.

    In this case a more substantial literature review may be called for. This could also have provided a wider social, ethical and political perspective on the events. Secondly, the conclusion is very short. There are several disparate parts of the information that could have been tied together more effectively.

    The article is targeted toward military and historical scholars. Its readability would also make it of interest to a  more general audience interested in history. It is clearly written and not difficult to read.

    A chilling  implication of the authors thesis is that Japanese civilians were always a target of U.S. bombing plans. A deputy to U.S. General Hap Arnold said that It made a lot of sense to kill skilled workers by burning whole areas. 8  In fact a large part of the reason for bombing industrial centers was to eliminate skilled workers. Allied Generals knew that industrial plants were more easily replaceable than were the skilled workers who ran them. This is one of the many terrible calculations made during a World War. From that perspective it is terrible but entirely logical that the USAAF would plan to firebomb civilians for strategic, not morale, reasons.

    The assumption that civilian bombings were conducted to destroy the morale of the Japanese people has always been questionable. The Japanese, having already been at war with China, were war-hardened and indoctrinated by the Emperor to self-sacrifice for the greater cause. The USAAF was well aware of all this. They would have not have been foolish enough to make morale a primary target of firebombing.

    Searle uses the B-29 project and the development of the U.S. Air Force obliquely to support his thesis. How these led directly to the firebombing of civilians is somewhat murky. Did the USAAF need some spectacular success with the B-29 to establish itself as an independent force By that time it was clear to most that air power was the wave of the future. Tactics and equipment were evolving rapidly. In 1945 it was highly likely that an independent Air Force would be necessary in the near future.

America has come a long way in trying to establish the real meaning of freedom it has struggled a lot in defending what it believed to be freedom. It is from these clashing definitions that the country was able to establish its place in the world. The United States has come out victorious in many of the struggles with other states that it has considered to pose a threat to its freedom or liberty. A good example is the war with Spain. The United States was also involved in the struggle to restrain the campaign for independence in the Philippines. Both of these conflicts show that the country was struggling to take its place among the global powers. Whatever the reason, it is clear that America has come to dominance in the world. The exact nature of the influence has become a matter of dispute with various definitions. As the 21st century dawned, without doubt, the United States was the global greatest military, economic and cultural power. The institutions, processes, interests and principles that shaped the history of the United States came up as a result of global processes. In the past these processes did not make sense to people. The most recent works concerning the history of the United States have shown the development of complex understanding of Americas interaction with the rest of the world.

It is evident from the history that the United States military power, products and culture have had an impact on the rest of the world. This is the result of the freedom of the market. There has also been free movement of political ideas and concepts to the rest of the world. In achieving all this, the United States had been struggling with the idea of freedom.

There is no idea that is more basic to the unlighted states sense of being like freedom. The idea of freedom otherwise known as liberty has been associated with the history and the every day talks in the United States. It is through liberty or freedom that the United States has reached its present position. The declaration of independence in America lists freedom as the inalienable human rights. The constitution of the United States declares as its aim to protect the libertys blessings.  Examining the history of the idea of liberty in the United States, it is evident that it is a story of debates, disagreement and conflicts instead of a constant concept. Foner argues that the definition of freedom has been shaped and reshaped by social and political conflicts within America. There have been battles like the termination of slavery, women rights, trade unions, and freedom of expression among others.

The interaction of the United States with the rest of the world has had a powerful effect on the idea of freedom in that country. The same as it is the case with all other political elements liberty has been defined and redefined in relation to its supposed opposite, slavery. This is the bleak homegrown illustration of the lack of freedom that assisted in shaping the United States concept of liberty during the colonial period and all the way into the 19th century. In the past, the labor movement campaigns against wage slavery and campaigns for women rights, the state of the black Americans had an effect on how free United States natives understood their own status.

    Americans have often related threats in their own country to freedom. These include slavery, comfort and an far too powerful government. They have also looked outside their country to spot dangers to their freedom. The American Revolution, for instance, was sparked by the belief that Britain was planning to eliminate freedom in the Northern America.
The 20th century saw colossal conflicts between the free-world, centered in America and its opponents. Examples of these crises are the Nazis in the Second World War, the communists during the Cold War and the most recent terrorist activities.

The association between the United States freedom and the rest of the world operate both ways. The United States, as myth and reality has had a profound effect on the way societies around the world think of themselves. America has been regularly seen from abroad as the personification of one or another kind of freedom. In the 19th century the European Labor Organization recognized the United States as a place where the working class enjoys freedoms that were not there in the Old World. In the 20th century, the younger generation globally, selectively appropriated relics of the United States popular culture for actions of cultural rebellion. The gaining of independence by the United States from its colonies, showed the rights of freeborn Englishmen as irrelevant to the United States. The fight for independence made the idea of the United States freedom universal. During that period, the idea of freedom was unknown in Asia and Africa. It was only America that was preaching the gospel of her being a country of free men.

This sense of the United State distinctiveness was all-encompassing in the revolutionary period, in the similar way as the view of the revolution was not just an interior quarrel in the British Empire, but the entry to a new period of human history. The point was not to incite liberation protests in other countries around the world, but to show the supposed disparity between America and the rest of the human race. In confirming their uniqueness, Americans were obsessed with their reputation to the rest of the world. They, for example, felt that slavery weakened their purpose by revealing the nation to the hypocrisy from the opponents of freedom abroad.  

The Americans felt that a new nation would only be possible by a special destiny to ensure freedom and happiness of human beings. This was a view shared by David Ramsey in his book History of the American Revolution. The historians Walter Prescott, George Bancroft and Francis Parkman elaborated the views of David Ramsey. They argued that the seeds of freedom that were sowed in Puritan New England had flowered in the American Revolution.

The American expansion meant extending freedom. Therefore, those who stood in the way of this expansion were considered enemies of freedom. The ultimate territorial growth was associated with the dominance of the Anglo-Saxon race. The unique characteristics of this race made it more suitable to offer freedom to the country and the rest of the world. America was an empire of freedom as opposed to other empires like in Europe.

In the fight against slavery, the definition of freedom again brought in controversies. The abolition of slavery called for redefinition of freedom from another dimension. It necessitated the definition of freedom as a right to all human beings, not one where some categories of people could be legally excluded. Slavery was abolished in Britain before the United States revealing more genuine freedom than what was preached in the United States. The abolition of slavery enabled Britain to repossess its earlier sense as a model of liberty. After years of slavery debates, which had to some extent blemished the sense of the United States special purpose to uphold freedom, the Civil War and the Emancipation brought the reinforcement of America with the development of liberty associating the purpose like never before with the strength of the state.

The 20th century saw the United States emerge as a global actor on a global arena. The encounter with the world and other actors once again affected the meaning of freedom in America. One example of such an effect was the encounter with the Nazi Germany. This situation also brought a question concerning the division of the world into a free-world and an unfree world. Even before entering the Second World War, the mounting conflict with the Nazi Germany had broadened the awareness of civil freedoms as a basic element in the United States liberty.

For many years the social and legal systems of freedom of expression were so sensitive in America. It is in 1939 the Department of Justice created a Civil Liberties Unit. This was the first such move in the history of the United States. There were various explanations of this move. These reasons ranged from the severe suppression of the First World War to a fresh awareness in the 1930s. The introduction of the Bill of Rights a day before the United States entered the Second World War, owed a lot to the conflict of ideas against the Nazi and the appeal to freedom as a way of explaining the disparities between America and Germany from social and political perspectives.

Speeches on freedom in the United States during the war dominated the media. The then president of the United States, Roosevelt said the war was a titanic conflict between freedom and slavery. The United States had a dream of not only interfering into the freedom matters of other countries in time of crisis but getting involvement in unending affairs of other countries. At the end of the war America inherited a global responsibility. In fact the United States became hegemony. If the Second World War portended a change of American tradition with the other countries, it also reshaped its perception of the limits of liberty.  Finally, what set the United States apart from the rest of the world in the 1930s was its resolution that it would extend freedom to all regardless of race, religion or nations of origin. It was in the war period that American Creed of freedom, equality and religious brotherhood became the basis of national unity. Even today, freedom occupies a central place in the American vocabulary.

    It was out of all those conflicts clashing the meanings of freedom that the United States finally found the real meaning of freedom enabling reconstruction. Many endeavors in the United States to ensure peace and tranquility in the world are based on the current definition of freedom.
   
The United States has come a long way trying to establish the real meaning of freedom, but it seems that they are almost there finally. The quest for freedom has real transformed the United States through history. Its impact has also extended to the rest of the world. What is clear even today is that the battle to maintain its freedom is still on especially with the struggle against terrorism.

    The oldest and standing building in El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historic Monument is called Avila Adobe. It is located along the Olvera Street which is the oldest street in Los Angeles and is also part of the monument. The Spanish refers to the Olvera Street as La Placita Olvera. It started as a small lane with its original name as Wine Street. It was later renamed to Olvera Street in the 1870s to honor Agustin Olvera who was a well known judge in the town. The street is one of the original settlements for the Latinos in the18th and 19th century (Nelson, Para 1).

    Avila Adobe was built in the years 1818 and it is believed that its looks today as it looked in the mid 19th century. The house was built by Senor Francisco Avila who was a member of a rich ranching family. Avila spent most of his time in his cattle ranches which was located in the modern day La Brea Tar Pits and come to reside at the Avila Adobe during the weekends where he used to meet friends, attend mass and conduct business.  The building is one of the three buildings which were constructed by the Spanish in the early 19th century. The other two buildings were swept away by Porciuncula River floods. Between mid 19th century and end of early 20th century, the buildings conditions deteriorated until it was refurbished by Sterling who lived in the house until 1968. The building was destroyed in 1971 by the Sylmar earthquake and it was closed to the public until it was renovated again in 1977. The house has six rooms and a courtyard which was used as a playing ground and as a kitchen (Nelson, Para 10).

General Grant and General Lee fought in the Wilderness Campaign in 1864, resulting to Lees surrender to Grant at Appomattox Court House in April 1865. The battle, lasting from May 1864 to April 1865, was part of the American Civil War that ran from 1861 to 1865. General Grant was part of the Union army, the side that favored the government of President Abraham Lincoln. On the other hand, General Lee was part of the Confederate union, which was established by eleven (11) US states that seceded from Lincolns government.

The formation of the Confederate army, composed mostly of black states, was considered as a rebellion towards the Lincoln government. The battle between Grant and Lee was actually raged by Grant to end Lees forces. This eventually culminated to the eradication of the division between the Union and Confederacy, uniting America as one country. One of the major issues for the division was the issue on black slavery. Both generals felt strongly against slavery but they had different views about the issue. General Lee wanted to totally abolish slavery and pursue the secession. General Grant thought slavery was wrong but it was morally necessary, and had to side with the government in fighting against the secession.

The battle fought between the two generals was a series of battles. Grants plan was to destroy Lees army entirely and has ordered the Union army to be where Lee would be to be able to enclose him and capture him.

Grants original plan of attacks was to assault Lee from North of Richmond, with specific location at the Cold Harbor. But after 30 days of strong firepower from the confederate union, Grant realized that he had to change tactics and left North Harbor to position at the south of Richmond specifically, at the south of James River. As Lee acted primarily on defense, Grant realized that they would face an almost impossible scenario to pursue with the original point of attack. He then changed directions- attacking instead from the south of Richmond across Petersburg.

Grants and Lees troops had their first encounter in a forest in Virginia called The Wilderness on the 5th of May. Lees troops and ammunition were inferior in number but this had little to bring Grant victory. In the battle in The Wilderness, it was Lee who launched attacks, disposing Grant to be on the defensive side. The natural features of the forest made it difficult for both troops to fight- the shells had set the forest trees into fire, producing thick smoke that suffocated and eventually killing the wounded. In this battle, Grant lost eighteen thousand men, which were more than Lee had lost. Lees troops fought profusely.

General Grant planned to get to Spotsylvania. Grants plan was to position his troops between Lee and Richmond, but Lee anticipated such move. When the Union Army arrived at Spotsylvania, Lees troops were already positioned there, fighting profusely and refused to surrender their fortress in the place. Realizing this, Grant decided to move his troops beyond the east flank of Lees troops, towards North of Anna River. Both Lees and Grants troops raced towards North Anna River. Lees army was in a very good position, while Grants troops suffered to vulnerability. The curvature form of the Anna River divided General Grants troop into three constituents.

The battle continued at the Cold Harbor, where Grant outraced Lee to the point. Due to exhaustion, however, Grant was not able to intensify his advantage. Lee anticipated Grants attack from the Cold Harbor so they were able to act in defensive, killing 65,000 from Grants troops. Realizing that Lee was on defensive, General Lee left Cold Harbor and started positioning his troops to rage a siege from south of James River.

This change in position proved to outsmart Lee as it was not until after three days that Lee realized Grant had his change in location. The battle in Petersburg lasted ten (10) months, causing Grant to lose 65, 000 men (double what Lee had lost numbering at 35,000). Petersburg eventually fell to the Union but Grant was determined to break Lees defenses and did not care about the city. This has prompted the Union troops to continually siege Lee and his army until the objective is realized. The fall of Petersburg opened the roads to Richmond.

Meanwhile, Lee was at Richmond, protecting it, and was taken by surprise of Grants tactical change in position from Cold Harbor to Petersburg. After the fall of Petersburg, Grant and his men built the longest bridge in history that enabled 150,000 men to cross towards Richmond. Lee, who was still in Richmond defending the fortress, was trapped.

The Battle of Antietam also referred to as the Battle of Sharpsburg was one of the major civil wars in America. This battle took place in the year 1862 and affected Maryland, Sharpsburg and Antietam Creek. This battle has been said as the worst of all in the history of America as it was the bloodiest battle that Americans had ever been involved in. It was fought for a day only but more than 23,000 people were reported as casualties by the end of the battle. The key people in this particular war were Major General George B. McClellan who led the Union team while the Confederate team was led by General Robert E. Lee. The outcome of the battle was not concluded although the North did have a win that was considered strategic as their casualties were few in comparison to the South.

It all began on September 3rd 1862 when Robert Lee came to Maryland having earned a victory earlier in August the same year in Second Bull Run. The main aim of Lee and his troops was to recruit more people as well as to seek more supplies from the state of Maryland. It was also the aim of Lee to influence the general opinion of the public for the upcoming elections in the Northern part of America. The two armies, one from the North and one from the South met at Maryland which was to be the battle field.

Beginning from dawn to dusk of the 17th day of September in the 1862, there were massive attacks from both sides and the battlefield was filled with bodies from both sides. The landscape of the battlefield was characterized by the color red as blood sprinkled during the war. One of the soldiers involved in the battle said that on this particular day one could walk on peoples bodies without stepping on bare ground. This showed the many number of bodies that were lying the day after the battle. It is argued that during this battle no side took the victory and that the battle ended due to exhaustion. On the night of 18th September 1862 Lee withdrew his troops ad went back to Potomac. There were two main opposing parties in the battle of Antietam. There was the Confederate which was led by the General Lee. This group was from the north of Virginia and was organized into two major groups. The first group was led by Major General James Long Street while the second group was led by General Thomas Jackson. The other opposing party was the Union which was led by Major General George McClellan.

The aftermath of the battle was one of the worst that America has had to deal with since their independence. The battle is estimated to have ended at about 5.30 pm on the 17th of September 1862. The Union side had a total of 12,401 casualties with at least 2100 reported to have succumbed to their injuries and died. The Confederate on the other hand had more than10,000 with at least a third people dead. According to the military history of America, this is the highest number that has ever been witnessed.

Upon the return of McClellan and his troops President Lincoln was not impressed by their performance. He felt that the whole performance of McClellan and his team was an underperformance and that there was no coordination. The President was particularly disappointed with the fact that McClellan did not pursue Lee when he withdrew from the battle claiming that there was shortage of equipment. Immediately McClellan returned from the battle he was relived from his duties as the commander of the army.

The Maryland campaign of 1862 has been ranked among the very most crucial operations of the military in all the civil wars that America has experienced. The battle of Antietam was not a full victory on the side of the Union especially in comparison to what President Lincoln expected. However this came up as an opportunity for Lincoln and his team to strike politically at the Confederacy. On the 22nd September 1862 President Lincoln issued the infamous Emancipation Proclamation which declared that the government which was federal in nature would consider all slaves that were held by their masters against their will free beginning 1st of January the following year.                               

This declaration did not take effect immediately and was met by heavy resistance especially from some masters who did not want to let their slaves go. However President Abraham Lincoln insisted that the abolition of slavery had been declared official and that this was just the preliminary stage of the government in a bid to end human slavery and ill treatment of the human race.                               
Immediately after the battle McClellan agreed that invasion of Pennsylvania would never come to be. Lee on the other hand had massive plans on crossing back to Potomac. It is the Emancipation Declaration that would later lead to the American Civil War. When Abraham Lincoln made this declaration most of the people from the South objected this idea as they thought that they would not survive. Pretty much of the income from the South came from slave trade and the people from the South felt that end of slave trade would take away their source of income. Slaves would work in tobacco and cotton plantations. In the northern part of America, slavery was illegal and had since abolished. Due to this reason there was anger between the two sides (North and South). In April 1962, the Southern side bombed South Carolina and after that there were many bloody battles that came to be crowned by the battle of Antietam.

The battle of Antietam can be divided into three major phases. The first phase took place on September 16th 1862. The rain that had lasted the whole night had just stopped. The battle began at approximately 6.00 in the morning. By 7.00 oclock all members of confederate had been withdrawn partially when Mansfield was attacked and killed.       

The second phase of this war was at the center of Confederate and the troops of the Union group had not seen the Confederate group hiding. The Confederates without the knowledge of the Union troops opened fire at a close range. This struggle lasted for a couple of hours with both sides attacking and counterattacking one another. During this phase General McClellan got an opportunity to totally destroy Lee and his troops. However he did not take up this chance and Lee together with his troops managed to escape.  Slowly the battle began to move in the Southern direction and Lee and his troops found themselves at the center of two main commanders from the enemy side. The troops from the confederate side had hid themselves in a road that was sunken making it impossible for the other side to recognize or even locate them.

However as the Confederates were skimming their next move they were surprised to spot those from the Union side being on a hill. They formed a parade that was led by Major General William French as they approached the confederates. This marked the end of the second phase. As the Union side approached the confederates they were attacked unawares and most of their soldiers were lost. A second troop of soldiers from the Union side attempted a similar approach and were equally overwhelmed. For three hours there were massive attacks from both sides which resulted in practical slaughter of people with neither side seeming to overpower the other.

The third phase of the battle was in Southeast and this was the territory of the Union side. It was at this point that this battle was considered a turning point for the American Civil War which was later to hit America. The battle of Antietam marked then point of turn for the Civil was as it brought to an end the invasion of the Northern side of America by Lee and his troops. It was also as a result of this battle that President Abraham Lincoln got an opportunity to make the great proclamation that saw all slaves declared free. President Lincolns intention was to make the Emancipation declaration way before the civil. However he was advised against this move by his members of Cabinet and was instead advised to do it after the victory that Union garnered against the Confederates. This was done to eliminate the perception that the declaration was made out of desperation.

The victory that was garnered by members of the Union and also the declaration that was made by President Abraham Lincoln were seen as playing a key role in dissuasion of Britain and France as far as giving recognition to Confederacy was concerned. Some people from the North had always thought that Great Britain and France had the plan to give recognition to the Confederacy and that they were going to view it as a nation independent from the Union if the latter suffered a major defeat in subsequent battles.

     The battle of Antietam is one of the most historical battles in the history of America because of its significance as many changes took place after or as a result of this battle. To begin with this battle has been considered as the point of turn for the Civil War as the aftermath was quite tragic. America has never witnessed such great number of deaths as they did on this particular battle. It was as a result that the Civil War in America was born. It is also one of the bloodiest wars that America has ever witnessed since its independence. Perhaps the greatest significance that is attached to this war was the fact that it was after the war that President Abraham Lincoln made the greatest declaration which came to be known as the Emancipation Proclamation that saw slaves declared free.

    The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 was one of the worst labor uprisings in the history of the United States. There was wide scale destruction of private and corporate properties. For the first time, the federal government called on the army to quell a labor uprising. The vindictive effect of the uprising spread from Virginia to New York, as far as Florida the Mississippi region. However, like any other historical event, the uprising had indirect and immediate causes.

    In 1873, depression rocked Western Europe. On September 18 of the same year, depression reached the United States with the failure of banking firm Jay Cooke and Company. Cooke was the prime investment banker, backing loans to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company as well as shouldering the governments wartime expenses. The closing of the bank signaled a contraction of the economy. Out of almost 400 railroads, 90 went bankrupt, - about 20 000 businesses closed shop between 1873 and 1876. Unemployment reached critical levels in 1876 (about 14). There was also a 45 cut in minimum wage. The Panic of 1873 forced investors to reinstate capital in same channels of investment. Indeed, the overinvestment of bankers in the railroad industry destroyed the prospect of an early recovery. By 1874, the workers were in constant opposition with the capitalists (the federal government was seen as an agent of capitalist greed).

    In 1877, the federal government implemented a series of wage cuts. The election of Hayes into the presidency (which was controversial) darkened the issue. Hayes wanted a generalized wage cut to allow businesses to recover from the 1873 shock. In the same year, a second wage cut was implemented. The workers rose in open revolt, threatening the Baltimore  Ohio Railroad. When the governor sent state militia units to restore train service, the strike to Maryland and New York, setting the frantic stages of the uprising.

Violence as defined in the dictionary is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. But after reading the required readings for this article, I find that there is no definite meaning that can be attached to violence. It is imperative therefore that I discuss violent episodes that I have read about on these readings.

In the first chapter of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave, we see the first act of violence made against him. He grew up not knowing what his real age since there was no record of his birth and his master at that time did not permit him to even ask about it. Knowledge of his fathers identity was also kept from him and even though there were whispers that his master was his father, there was no real evidence of this. At a very young age, Frederick Douglass was also weaned from his mothers care as was then customary for slaves. He only saw his mother four or five times after that before she died before he was seven years old. In this chapter of his life, Douglas makes us understand that even before a slave is born, he is already stripped of the rights that free men enjoy. At that time, when you were born to slave parents, you become a slave upon conception.
The next incidents of violence that Douglass reveals in the next chapters deals with violence he has witnessed in the plantation he grew up but not necessarily what he actually experienced. He witnessed slaves cruelly flogged by their masters. The slaves and their familys cries of anguish and mercy fell on deaf ears. From what Douglass relates, most masters enjoy this act of barbarity and harmed their slaves at the slightest mistake or for no apparent reason at all but some whip their slaves only as a means of enforcing obedience and seem to take no pleasure in it. Slaves were also deprived of all the basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. In Douglass words, the total cost of their allowance for the said necessities is seven dollars. They were made to work from sunrise to sunset with no wages and endure the verbal and physical abuse from the overseers of the plantation.

    When reading through the book, it seems inevitable that you find an unpleasant incident worse than flogging. We next encounter an episode where Douglass witnesses the death of a slave in the hands of an overseer. A slave Demby was shot by the overseer Mr. Gore when he refused to get out of the river he jumped into to relieve the pain from the cuts he got from Mr. Gores whipping. When the master of the plantation questioned Mr. Gore, he justified his action by saying that the slave has become unmanageable and was setting a bad example for the slave and if not corrected at once, a revolt might be stirred among them resulting to the freedom of the slaves and the enslavement of the whites. It was a crime that went unpunished. No judicial questioning was attempted on the heinous act committed. Two more incidents of slave killings were cited by Douglass and he concluded that killing a slave or any colored person in Talbot County, Maryland, is not treated as a crime, either by the courts or the community.

    This was the life that Douglass was as accustomed to as a child and probably what he expected to happen to him had it not been for a small stroke of luck sent his way. He was sent to Baltimore to work for the brother of his masters son-in-law. It was here that he learned a valuable lesson that sparked the idea of freedom in his mind. His mistress, Sophia Auld, seemed to be a kind-hearted woman when he first met her. She taught him the ABCs and proceeded to teach him how to spell words of three or four letters. Unfortunately, his new master, Mr. Auld found out and forbade her to instruct the slave further. It would be best to quote what Douglass remembers Mr. Auld telling Mrs. Auld to get the full impact

It is unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read. If you give a nigger an inch, he will take an ell. A nigger should know nothing but to obey his master--to do as he is told to do. Learning would spoil the best nigger in the world. Now, if you teach that nigger how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy.

    Such words had so much of an impact on Frederick Douglass that would forever change his way of thinking and lead him to freedom in his later years. From that time on, his mistress acquired the slave owners attitude and regarded him as a property, one below her and not only stopped his education but made sure that he didnt get one. But Frederick Douglass was already given an inch and he was determined to take the ell. He contrived all means to be educated. He secretly studied the books of his masters son when his owners were not at home and thought of clever ways to make the white children in his neighborhood to teach him how to read and write. In the seven years that he lived with Mr. and Mrs. Auld, Douglass never ceased his quest to be educated and succeeded to learn how to read and write.

    His stroke of luck ran out when he was sent back to St. Michael to his old masters son and was forced to work in the fields. It became increasingly hard for him to do this as he was not accustomed to this kind of backbreaking work being that his old job in Baltimore required him to take care of Mr. and Mrs. Aulds son and to run errands for them. For this reason, in his first week on the job he already received a hard beating from the overseer. He was sent to work for a merciless farm-renter who they nicknamed a nigger-breaker because of his brutal ways of handling slaves. It was in his custody that Douglass saw another act of cruelty that a reader can find shocking. Because the farm-renter, Mr. Covey, was poor and could only afford to buy one slave he thought of a cunning way to produce more slaves. He bought a young slave girl named Caroline and hired a male married slave to work for him for one year. He then made Caroline lie with the male slave every night and a year after Caroline gave birth to twins, effectively making her Mr. Croveys breeder.

    Frederick Douglas hardships continued on and even came to a point where he questioned the existence of God. People of St. Michaels at that time were being converted to Christianity. Reverends were converting the slave masters into pious brethrens. Ironically, masters even had more reason to continue their cruelty with their slaves and justified such actions with quotations from the scriptures. To this Douglass reaction was

I assert most unhesitatingly, that the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes,--a justifier of the most appalling barbarity,--a sanctifier of the most hateful frauds,--and a dark shelter under, which the darkest, foulest, grossest, and most infernal deeds of slaveholders find the strongest protection.

    This only made the desire to break away from slavery in Douglass heart grow bigger until he managed to finally find a way with the help of abolitionists to head to New Bedford where he began his life as a free man along with his wife Anna Murray.

    Frederick Douglass spent the remainder of his life advocating and fighting for the freedom of slaves in America. He wrote books, published articles in magazines, gave speeches all geared towards the emancipation of all slaves from the bondage of slavery. He was even recognized as the Father of the Protest Movement.

Thomas Jefferson was the third president (18011809) of the United States of America Andrew Jackson was the seventh president (18291837).  Both Presidents are important figures in the History of the United States and Jefferson not simply because he was the primary writer for the Declaration of Independence. 

The Indian removal program was a program that was extremely controversial initiated by Jefferson and supported and finally brought into law by Jackson.   Jeffersons plan was to allow the Native Indians to remain east of the Mississippi as long as they became assimilated with white Americans.  The idea was that they gave up their traditional lifestyles for a more European culture.

The expectation was that this would mean they would become dependant economically concerning trade with white Americans and therefore willing to give up desirable land for white American settlement and for agricultural purposes in exchange for goods.    The Indian Removal program was also a major part of Jacksons presidency.  After his 1828 election he signed the Removal Act bringing it into law in 1830.  The act enabled the president to negotiate treaties to purchase lands further east, lands that were outside of the then existing borders of the US state borders further west.

With respect to the Federal Reserve, Thomas Jefferson gave a warning, stating
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. 2
Andrew Jackson, vetoed legislation in 1831, which would have extended the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. In 1833, he announced that the U.S. Treasury would no longer deposit federal funds at the bank. Like Jefferson, Jackson warned that allowing a central bank to hold sway, by manipulation of the nations currency, would push the people into a world of perpetual debt, while enriching the fortunes of a small minority of people. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank, in 1913, that is exactly what has happened.

Both presidents also had major events occurring during their presidencies.  During Jeffersons second administration the Tripolitan War concluded.  The war had seen a newly created U.S. Navy fighting their first engagements.  President Jefferson despite his misgivings of Congresses rights to buy land sent expeditions to explore the Louisiana Territory and bought Louisiana in 1803.  This purchase doubled the size of the United States of America.  

President Jackson is the only President in the history of the United States to have paid off the national debt.  In 1835 he managed to reduce the debt to 33,733.05 the lowest it had ever been since the beginning of the nation 3. 

The Nullification Crisis occurred during Jacksons presidency involving claims that the Tariffs on 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and consequently was null and void within South Carolina.  President Jackson asked congress to pass a Force Bill which would enable and authorize the use of military force to enforce the tariff.  He declared the state of South Carolina was on the brink of treason he said The Constitution... forms a government not a league... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation.

Both presidents left legacies and both presidents go down in the history of the United States of America as men of influence.   Both men had successes and failures as head of a foundling nation and both men had policies that were controversial.  Andrew Jacksons legacy is mixed, he was a protector of democracy and liberty yet supported the Indian Removal Program and supported slavery.   He was the first President to be involved in the American frontier. Jefferson was a Founding Father of the Nation a primary writer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America and for those alone will stand in history as one of the greatest Presidents in the history of the United States of America.

Abraham Lincoln rose to his reputable position in the 1850s. Lincoln reshaped the Republican Party in 1854. The president was not concerned with interfering with slavery where it existed. Worth observing is McPhersons assertion that the president opposed the spread of slavery across the union. This assumption is retrieved from Lincolns preferment for all territories to be free soil. Lincolns moderate anti-slavery standing doubled with his own moderate stature increased the prominence of anti-slavery among Americas political priorities as it wrecked havoc in the dual party system in the country despite the fact that, for a very long time, the system had sustained balance. By the beginning of the 1860, Lincoln managed to convince 40 percent of the American electorate with no support from the southern States as most of the presidents support came from the north. As such, his principle of free soil drove Republicans to power. McPhersons use of the 1860 election as the primary source shapes his thoughts in his text. He draws the concept of free soil from Eric Fowners text (Fowner 1995).

Americans in the South, referred to Lincoln and his staunch supporter, Davis, as the black Republicans. This was less as a result of the two supporting anti-slavery and more because their model of republicanism was a shadow and an anti-thesis to the founding fathers spirit. A distinct and separate sense of Nationalism emerged by the beginning of 1860 among southern states. This was claimed to be the true reflection of the American spirit with regard to the countrys Nationalism. Consequently, the southerners contended that the northerners had foregone the underpinning of Americas long held nationalistic ideologies. James McPherson in his introductory remarks in his text the Ordeal by Fire contends that slavery was central to the Southern perception with regard to American liberty as well as constitutionalism (McPherson 2009). Development of pro-slavery in the south was more than a mere peculiar institution. This argument in the south claimed to provide an alternative nationality to America which ideally was more in tandem with the spirit of the founding fathers when compared to the postulation in the north, at least to the southerners. The perfection of the union was thus perverted by the northerners embracing of reformist agendas as well as easement on immigrants and industry. The secession that characterized the south was endeared towards retaining what the south feared to lose in case the northerners prevailed with their nationalism. In February 1861, when the states convened in Montgomery, Alabama, they adopted the constitution without revision in a bid to form the more perfect union.

History of the years of war as narrated by McPherson is similar for both the Lincolns north as well as the south. The period of the war was filled with overtones of national self definition. Lincoln and his opponents in the south were faced with critical questions of recruitment as well as outfitting of soldiers simultaneously moving towards a national draft. Rivaling secretaries of treasury that were faced with huge problems with regard to Americas financial status resorted to deficit spending whereupon they opted for paper money and taxes. The commanders on the battle field realized that their West Point tactics were faced with significant challenges from advanced weaponry as well as the move to trench warfare together with total war. In the same spirit, business men in the face of increased demand for given commodities, needed to consolidate and at the same time centralize their corporate operations. Diplomats as well sought foreign support noting the significance of this domestic quarrel.

     William T. Sherman, an American general, marched through Georgia, an event that McPherson exploits to bring this reality home. McPherson opts to give first hand accounts. He writes of the officer from Indiana that witnessed the evacuation of Atlanta. McPherson notes the babies that tumbled down on the ground from the backs of mules while others dangled precariously on the animals. General Sherman observes i hev conkluded that the dam fulishness uv tryin to lick shurmin Had better be stoped we hav bin gettin nuthin but hell  lost uv it. (McPherson 2009).. McPherson opts to use this primary source of real elements in the course of history to tell the story as it was as opposed to as it was thought to be. This invokes an element of realism in his text as history unfolds in its true spirit.

It is not a surprise that in such a conflict the aims of the war for the Lincoln shifted from simple reinstatement of the union to the complete abolishment of slavery. A simple stroke of the pen by President Lincoln was the onset of the heftiest confiscation of private property by the government in the history of America. The Emancipation proclamation was a radical surgery of America that would result into its reformulation. Lincoln was hardly a radical liberal, yet he responded by invoking his own conviction by which he contended that all individuals are created equal and as such they shared certain inalienable rights. At the beginning of 1865, leaders like Jepherson Davis, granted liberty to colored races, primarily black people, whereupon the said blacks enrolled in the confederate army. At the end of the war, improvisation that characterized earlier period was replaced by organization and with this the northern and as such, Lincolns understanding of American nationhood prevailed.

Ultimately, nationhood was a concept of every tongue in America.
Lincolns ideologies continued to shape American thought, at least to some extent, even after his assassination. Like it is custom of all wars, the civil war in America derived unintended consequences. Not in the least of these consequences, was the central government strengthened the more when weighed against previous national governments. In 1865, Americans, in the face of the urgent issues of reconstruction, depended on the derived strong and central government to remake America. Quoted by McPherson, John Hope Franklin, in his book Reconstruction After the Civil War assessed these issues in great detail. Franklin examined how the seceded states were to be admitted back into the union. Additionally Franklin also examined the issue of how men that took arms to support the south were to be treated. The war also granted three million slaves liberty. Franklin examined what the future held for these freed slaves. Additionally, Franklin also assessed whether the economic policies that characterized the war period were still viable and practical in the post war period. In the same spirit, Franklin also examines whether the GOP which claimed to have won the war would follow to be a minority.  All in all, what Franklin sought to understand is whether the various processes that were assumed by Lincolns party resulted into a stronger national government with a clarified sense of a national self definition that had been Lincolns dream (Franklin 1995).
These issues, as McPherson observes, would have given a politician as astute as Lincoln greater difficulty.  Lincolns influence followed his Successor, Andrew Johnson. After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the reconstruction burden was bequeathed on Andrew Johnson who was tasked to contend with a congress dominated by Republicans. There is a whole array of evidence that implies that the south as McPherson observes, in the spring of 1865, was more than willing to allow the consequent effects of a military defeat. What prevented this was President Johnsons generosity with his lenient terms which acted to elevate hopes and at the same time diminish expectations. By December of the same year, when congress reconvened the president declared that the reconstruction was done with. Additionally, Johnson urged for a faster readmission of the southern states into the union who were ideally satisfied with his plan and as such, elected a significant number of ex-confederates into office. Congress was outraged as a result, and it went forward to develop a comprehensive cluster of needs. Caught in a dilemma whether to follow congress or the presidents lead, the south waited in a dilemma. It was not until March of 1867 that, a whole 2 years after a freshly elected congress that had been insulated from veto through the Appomattox asserted its authority breaking the stalemate and consequently imposed what is still regarded as the radical reconstruction of the south.

How radical this was through weighting losers alongside winners in civil wars elsewhere in terms of place and time denotes that this reconstruction failed to meet the standards of radical reconstruction. The states in the south ,that were constituted into 5 districts, purely military,  simply required ratification of both the 13th as well as the 14th amendment to qualify for the said radical reconstruction. Only one confederate who was in charge of Andersonville prison was executed. There was no redrawing of boundaries moreover no property and land as Lincoln signed, was confiscated for redistribution. One aspect that came out of Lincolns efforts was the ending of Guerilla war. By 1870, all states in the south that had seceded from the union were admitted back. By 1877, as opposed to Lincoln wishes, the last factions of Americas federal troops withdrew from the southern states restoring home-rule that implied white supremacy. In these sense Lincolns reconstruction was defined as a test of the extent to which America would move toward a more consolidated and solidified contemporary state, that would emerge from the war. This ideal state was judged against its ability to sustain beliefs that were central in the American grain that had to do with localized control, a free market economy, Americas racial diversity as well as its strict constitutionalism. To Lincoln, the subject-verb agreement had to shift from prewar United States are to the ideal postwar United States is. When a view of rationality has been done away with by the force of argument as opposed to the force of an argument, such a view according to McPherson never ceases to exist. By the beginning of 1880s, a fresh equilibrium was established which disregarded Lincolns dream as the new equilibrium fostered exclusion of black people from a whole array of elements that constituted American life like education and work moreover the new equilibrium established more narrowed definitions that permitted boundaries for the activity of a national government. McPherson quotes Uncle Toms Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe to defend this notion.

One book that addresses Americas rebirth and ideally the concept of nationalism as well as civil war as addressed by Lincoln is Dawley Alans Changing the World 2003. This beautifully authored text, traces Lincolns story. The text vividly describes 19th century America. The author captured the story of Americans that were in pursuit of the future which threatened as it beckoned simultaneously.
Beyond armed forces strategy, President Abraham Lincoln also espoused a sturdily European-influenced disagreement against slavery in the cause of the Union. This is opposed to McPhersons contention that the president invoked his own personal beliefs. Politicians from Britain in the 18th as well as near the beginning of 19th centuries endeared their efforts towards universal abolition of slavery so as to empower free market economies (Dawley 2003). This position was acknowledged through reinforcement from Frances Declaration of the Rights of Man during its revolution. Eliminating slavery or at least ending any international support for slavery as a vibrant institution became a broadly followed political duty outside the circle of America on the verge of the Civil War. Lincoln also embraced many anti-slavery sentiments, although he strayed away from taking a definitive stand on anti-slavery for a long time. When slavery grew to be clear in the course of the Civil War whereupon Lincoln could not find a compromise politically between both the south and the North in preserving the Union, he brought into play French and British anti-slavery stands in justifying the use of aggressive and brute force against the slaveholding Confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation, which Lincoln signed on first of January, 1863, granted the slaves freedom in the Confederate states. Additionally, it passed the pledge that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons. He also used this document to attract anti-slavery opinion in Europe to the Union side. The British government in particular, had strong economic interests connected to the cotton trade from the Confederate states. It also had geo-political interests in North America that would be served by a weak and divided American nation. Lincoln and his Secretary of State, William Henry Seward, feared that British recognition and support for the Confederacy would undermine, and perhaps defeat, Unions aims and ultimately nationalism (Dawley 2003).

The period between 1920 and 1930 is said to be a period of normalcy when Americans were supposed to settle down to their normal life after the 1st World war. However, this period that was characterized by political corruption, violence and also, it was the last happy phase before the occurrence of the great depression of 1929 as Roderick Nash puts it in his essays. Before the occurrence of the great depression, business was good through out the whole period. Due to this, people had a positive altitude and they hoped that poverty would be eradicated and America would achieve its optimum goal of being self sufficient.

  This was a period that was characterized by many revolutions. One of the most significant types of revolution that took place was the sexual revolution that changed the Americans attitude and caused many changes later in history. The Victorian moral code was rejected which identified women as the key moral custodians. Sexual revolutions brought about many changes more so in the social set up. Women seemed to have been greatly involved and thus they can be said to be among the main key players in all the changes that took place in 1920s. This paper focus on how women were involved politically, socially and even economically in the 1920s. It will also highlight the contribution of people like Henry Ford in the same (The Newsletter of Society Hill Civic Association, 2005).
It is in this decade that women aquired equal rights as men especially in voting. It is also referred to as equal rights amendment era. Women reformists were determined to push for changes in the political field and also in all other fields affecting them and they did this successfully. The National Womans Party was formed which mostly focused on ending the gender related and legal discrimination. They also managed to get equal rights as men in the labor market. This meant that, women could be employed as men and earn a living. Through this, they were able to acquire more power in terms of getting better education and education for their children. Laws that affected children especially the child labor laws, were amended. As Evans termed it in her essay Flappers, Freudians, and All That Jazz, this was an Era of great political victory for women (Hirsch, 2003).
As Sarah Evan records in her essay, women participation in politics started even before the end of the 1st war. They played a major role as they worked in defense plants and also as the care givers to war victims. This made them feel that just like men they had made a major contribution and were entitled to the same benefits. Their contribution did not go unnoticed by great historians like Leuchtenburg who emphasizes that women and other minorities played major roles in the civilization of America.
According to Evans, it is in 1920s when the Freud Sigmund psychological essays were well liked because they allowed more open expression toward sex .This led to sexual immorality especially in the cities. Due to this sex revolution, where there was permissiveness, women developed a great need to look good and had to find some form of employment so as to afford the clothes and the make up.
Thirty percent of women were in clerical and sales jobs according to the Evans essay. This means that they joined their male counterparts and they ended up becoming more independent especially before getting married. The fact that women were now in white collar jobs reduced the number of those who could be employed as domestic servants. Due to this, the modern woman who could not get someone to employ resulted into using the modern technology and more so electricity. This paved way for more civilization. Business also improved greatly during this era because these modern families could no longer produce their own food and therefore had to depend with those who were in the rural areas for support.

In maters of economy, in the decade, America was the richest globally. This was due to the fact that everyone was employed and they managed to have surplus after spending. Business flourished because people used to buy whatever they wanted since it was possible to buy in installments. One can borrow the words of President Calvin who said that business was really business in America. In 1920s, the motor car industry was really good and this led to more economic growth since new roads were constructed and more people employed. The stock market was also doing quite well given that people had money to spare hence investing in the stock market before it crashed in 1929.  According to Trueman (2000), in the year 1929, over one million people had invested in the stock market and following its crash every other economy in the world was greatly affected. 

However, in all this prosperity there were two groups that were left in absolute poverty. South Americans and African Americans did not share in all this. They survived by doing odd jobs like being the servants of the Americans. Those who lived in the southern parts used to engage in farming activities and selling their produce to the Whites. The ones who lived in the cities lived in absolute poverty and no one seemed to remember their miseries.

In the 1920s, there was emergence of what Sarah Evans termed as sexualized consumer economy. It started when the marketing experts turned in to using females to market products. Due to this, the cosmetic business flourished as women had to apply all tactics in order to remain attractive. It is still in this era when the first beauty pageant took place in Atlantic City. All these activities resulted in to a more independent woman who did not face any discrimination in all sectors. However, the black women were still being denied the right to vote though this was mainly a problem of racial discrimination. Although women had achieved a lot, it was the need to succeed in their marriages that pushed them to work really hard so that eventually they would get a perfect mate (Klingaman, 1989).

   Henry Ford was a renowned personality in the 1920s. This was due to his contribution in the technology sector. He owned a motor industry and introduced the first car which is said to have revolutionized the American technology. More people now could use cars instead of train and other ancient means of transport. Nevertheless this had its up and downs. The crime rate increased since gangsters could get away easily using the newly discovered automobiles. The cars also provided a private place where dating couples used to meet and habits like petting and necking developed. Henry Ford emphasized on the need to work instead of having pleasure. He once said that work is the salvation of a race morally, physically and socially. Work does more than get us a living it gets our life (Wood Wood, 2003, pp.57).

Henry Ford played a major role in bringing revolution to the labor policy as he introduced 5 dollar pay for a day worked. Although he contributed greatly to the revolutions he was always against social changes for he was a man who embraced good morals.

In the history of America, 1920s has been termed as the Roaring 20s. A lot of revolutions took place in different sectors with women being the main key players more so in social and economic sectors. As Nash described it in his essay, Symbol of an age, pp. 152, Para 3 it was a changing industrial America that longed for the security of old days as it struggled with new complexities.

One of the most unforgettable showdowns in US presidency was the battle of John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, particularly in 1828 wherein the stage was reserved only for these two political combatants. In the end, Jackson emerged victorious, vindicating his 1824 loss and allowing the beginning of a new era. While the election is simply about who won and who lost, the analysis of the factors and components affecting election is far more complex and requires the analysis of many different factors. One should go to the past and examine the present. One must analyze the friends and allies as well as enemies of the individuals involved, and examine the party that pledged its support to the candidate. All of these things are important part of the analysis of the election and its outcome. This will be the focus of the study, analysis and discussion in this paper regarding the election duel between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson in the 1828 United States presidential election.

The Candidates  their life and their politics
The 1828 election featured the showdown between two contemporaries who will become famous not just for their pursuit of the presidency but on the manner by which such feat was pursued by both individuals. This analysis begins with the description of the two - John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. Both have earned their educational and academic merits through schooling, although in different fashion. Adams was from a family that was better off compared to the family history and background of Jackson, and Jackson only experiencing the comforts of life when he managed to become stable financially through his hard work.

    Both are hard workers and dedicated patriots, especially Jackson who experienced first hand the brutality of the British colonial masters, who was responsible for imprisoning him and his brother and was responsible for the difficult life he had when he was young resulting to the death of his siblings and his parents when he was still very young. Both will serve the United States, in some ways similar while in other ways different from one another. Both will become US presidents, but they are appraised differently by the people they served, by their contemporaries and by history, in consideration to what they have done and accomplished and what they have failed to do as well.

    Although both politicians, there were noticeable differences. Adams was a dyed in wool politician. His service to the US has always been political in nature, serving as an elected government official and as an appointed public servant holding one of the most prestigious positions in the US government  the Secretary of State. Jackson, on the other hand, was not purely politician. He traces his roots towards American politics by way of military service, and a much decorated one at that. Born in the time of extreme armed conflict versus the colonial British, Jackson, at an early age, was already serving at wartime, albeit at first, he was a mere courier. Later in his life, he would become a very good and talented soldier. His tour of duty as a soldier will include the War of 1812 that saw his service as a colonel decorated by battlefield victory and the promotion to Major General soon thereafter because of his extraordinary accomplishment during this conflict, and the First Seminole War. Incidentally, Jackson and Adams paths crossed here. Jackson, under attack from Spain because of his actions in Florida, was defended by Adams, who then was serving as Secretary of State. Their paths would again cross in 1824 during the election for presidency which featured many candidates besides Adams and Jackson.

    The main line that dented the relationship of the two is the time when Jackson was defeated in the election after political strategy allowed Adams the victory. During the time, the conditions were favorable for Adams. He was deeply embedded in US politics and are strongly connected with other politicians while Jackson was mainly an officer in the field who is not as well connected to US politics at the time in comparison to Adams. By the time Jackson sought the presidency the second time, things were different. Jackson was secured a solid party and a solid political base which he managed to do since he was not as active in the battlefield compared to how he was several years ago. For Adams, the connections were still there, politically. However, Adams would not be able to use it this time since the public has made sure that they decided the outcome of the election this time and not the political clique that manipulated the1824 elections that handed Jackson the bitter defeat and to Adams, the victory and the presidency which he would surrender to Jackson four years later.

    Authors and analysts of the 1828 election believed that above everything else, the battle was fought not on how the two individuals stood regarding particular issues, but was about mainly who the people like the most between the two in the most basic and simple and non-political manner. This was strengthened by the analysis that explained that personalities rather than issues were the key ingredients of the election of 1828, and that Jacksons victory is to be explained mainly in terms of his personal charisma and his partys superior organization.

The Political Parties
Political parties are strongly influential in the outcome of the 1828 elections, based on what happened in the political parties in the very recent past and what was happening to the parties in the current present at the time of the campaigning, election and victory. Political parties are important, considering the fact that during the 1820s, politics in most states remained chaotic. The political parties play an integral part in making sure everything is set and organized for their selected candidate so that he or she has a good chance of winning.

    Prior to the election, there were many movements involving the parties that will move for the election of Adams and Jackson. There were splits in the parties as well as alliances among individuals who themselves are strong drawers of supporters to which the party was very amenable to. There were also internal and external problems that the parties of Adams and Jackson have to face before and during the campaigning and election so that they can contribute significantly to the winning of the presidency of their own respective candidates. Many factors were based in consideration to the party  who it looks after, what are the agendas it wants to accomplish, what it has done in the past that the voters consider favorable, etc. The two competing political parties were Jacksons Democratic Party and Adams Republican Party, with Jacksons party being represented by a donkey and Adams party being represented by an elephant. Although some were laughing at the idea of the donkey for the party symbol, Jackson believed that there is a better symbolism for that which he used, including hard work.

    How the parties of Adams and Jackson performed in the election is reflective of the present conditions and was a result of the strategizing of the party and its leaders to ensure that their candidate wins. In the case of Jackson, the Democratic Party was, during the 1828 elections, more capable in consolidating power and influence to back Jackson. There is no other politician of equal influence, relevance and clout to break the power base into pieces and scatter the support towards different candidates. The Democratic Party should also be commended in their role in making sure that besides the loyalists of Jackson or the Jacksonians, there were also support coming from other groups, like those considered as Old Republicans.

    In preparation for a rematch resulting to being defeated unfairly in the 1824 elections, it was not only Jackson who moved so that he can claim what was rightfully his in the first place but his party as well was already in motion even before Adams was able to complete his first year of service as president. Adams was already informed that his second term will be challenged by Jackson. Jacksons pursuit to run again for 1828 resulted in an important change in his party. From being a Republican, the followers of the party started labeling themselves as Democratic, creating the Democratic - Republican Party which later morphed simply as the Democratic Party. The changes in the party were, in effect, a portent of things to come not just for Jackson but for his followers, supporters and to his constituents by the time he was sworn in as president.

    As for Adams, his party was not doing him any good when they failed in advising him on what to do when he was serving his term. His party should have had a strong sense of direction so that they can help Adams not just in doing the right thing but more importantly to do the right thing that can help the popularity of Adams so that he is fit to fight the next election. The party should have thought of the implications of the perceived corrupt bargain that led to the victory of Adams and should have thought of ways on remedying it. However, since the party allowed Adams to fall from one political mistake to the next one, the party should be blamed as well why Adams acted as he did, which doomed his bid for the presidency. By that time, the people thought that Adams, and in some extent his party, was already detached to the real issues that needs to be addressed and are already not cognizant about what needs to be done, describing Adams as unaware of the changing political climate.

The Importance of the Populist Party
The officially recognized populist party is yet to officially exist in the political sphere of the United States society close enough to influence significantly the 1828 elections for the presidency of the United States.  The concept of the populist party and its impact in the election for the US presidency, particularly during the 1828 showdown between Adams and Jackson, was strongly felt at the time. This is affected by the social conditions of the US society at the time. The populist party is a political organization and movement wherein the main leaders and movers are those who are involved in the lower economic sector of the society, particularly blue collar workers and the agrarian laborers like farmers, to name a few. The agenda that are being set by this group are agendas that are favorable to this particular group of individuals, which usually meant changes in the social status quo that protects the interests of the rich people largely because the rulers of the society are the rich people themselves.

    The concept of the Populist Party and the result of the 1828 US presidential election is related and connected to one another. The party or the candidate that supported the ideas of the Populist Party and the populist movement is believed to have possession of the votes of a significant number of votes who are supportive of the Populist Party, the populist ideals and the populist movement. The question now is who between Jackson and Adams and between the Democratic and the National Republican party supported the populist party, populist movement and populist ideal. If both are proclaimed supporters or both parties identified as allies to his particular movement, who between the two won the votes of this particular group in the end

    Jackson won the elections and this speak highly of two things first, of how well he courted the voters belonging to the financial sector of the populist party or movement and second, how the same people showed their appreciation and belief of Jacksons genuine intentions to help this particular group of people by voting for him and helping him win. Jackson was known as someone who used the concept of the peoples will to legitimize his actions which is directed to people who belong to the lower financial tier of the society, thus making him closely connected to the populist party. There are those who believe that in analysis the election was not representative of the victory of the peoples will but was an indication of the peoples indifference. Perhaps the best indicator regarding the relationship of Jackson and the people that would comprise the Populist Party or movement is the inauguration of President Jackson. For the first time in history, Jackson has opened the gates of White House so that the poor people can also celebrate with him in the victory. This resulted to the entry inside the White House of poor people who nonetheless came to see the president they voted for.

    It appeared that between the two, Jackson was identified more strongly towards populist movement or ideals than Adams, allowing Jackson to win the votes of the people supporting this movement. In fact, Jackson was the US president who advocated for the shift towards being an agricultural republic wherein the government will focus on hinging its productivity by strengthening the different agricultural tiers to which the US has plenty of and to which the government can rely on and depend for its products that it can sell locally or abroad. This was an idea that would put formerly financially marginalized group of people in the core of the economic ethos of the country and its productivity. Again, it is a very strong statement regarding the pro-populist stand of Jackson, his party and his tenure as US president. The concept of the agricultural republic is part of the change that was considered as a result of how Jackson was leading the country towards a direction different from previous presidents like the one he replaced and defeated, Adams. Andrew Jacksons election ushered in a new era.

The candidates policies
The policies of the candidates were important factors in the election and in the outcome of the elections. What Jackson and Adams promised to accomplish in the eventuality of their victory was something that the voters considered significantly. It was also an important consideration for the voters and in the outcome of the voting the political policies that Jackson and Adams strongly upheld and to which they were strongly identified with. Analysts believed that the people saw something in the policies that Jackson promised to them and are set to be accomplished upon his victory, making the people believe in the policies of Jackson which helped him win the election and allowed the start of a new political era.

    Meanwhile the defeated Adams, who was also incumbent president, can consider his policies as something that was not approved generally by the majority since he was not able to win in his re-election. It can be considered that Adams did not win at all in a convincing fashion featuring the actual votes of the people since his first tenure was considered as a result of a political strategizing in the part of Adams that allowed him to secure the presidency. Despite serving four years as president, it would be suitable to assume that the policies that Adams allowed to be identified to him through his initiatives were something that the people in general was not in strong favor of. This was the reason why they turned to Jackson and trusted the policies that Jackson is set to put in action should he win the presidency. This situation speaks a lot about the policies of the two individuals and how these policies strongly influenced the outcome of the election for Adams and for Jackson.

    One of the policies that was connected with Jackson and keyed his winning the 1828 elections was democratization, which was believed to have started to seriously manifest in the US socio-political sphere beginning in 1828, the year Jackson won the presidency. This sense of democratization was empowered by Jacksons policy to fight what he considered as the renewal of the presence of a corrupt government which he vowed to fight and destroy. Jackson sensed that something had gone wrong with the republic, that selfishness and intrigue had corrupted the government.

    The critics and supporters of both candidates used as leverage or foothold for their arguments for or against the policies of either Adams or Jackson the implications of the actions of the two. Some believed that Jackson may sponsor a set of policies that are characterized by the harmonious relationship of individuals inside the American society. He has interacted and managed them when he was serving as a leader in the military front. There are those who think otherwise considering his hate for the British and his past actions versus non Americans like Spanish and Native American Indians, which they believe will result in the creation of policies that will not serve the best interest of the country when it comes to considering the international relationship of the US that it will pursue sooner or later even if Jackson wins the presidency. For Adams, they believe that his stand on being pro American System will lead to his creation of policies adhering to the same set of values, which some people approve of, and some people disagree to.

    In analysis, to come with such idea for the paradigm in decision making in policies is unsuitable for national politics. In this field, there are more complicated considerations that do not simply manifest itself as a decision to pick between the white and the black. The actions of both Jackson and Adams in the past are nonetheless resultant to how they react to present conditions and situation and what alternatives and options were given to them prior to the action and decision making. This can still change in the future, as much as the inclination for particular policies of the two individuals can also change in the future should any one of them be elected president.

    Indeed, policies were attacked and Jacksons and Adams camps both used the policies of one another to scare people from voting in favor of their enemy. For example, Adams was discouraging people to opt for Jackson explaining that should Jackson win, it could mean that absolute proscription of New England and an exclusion of Massachusetts interests in the next administration. These things are absolute outcomes based on the policies that Jackson was known for.

Voting patterns and changes in voting
    There is a noticeable change in the voting pattern in the United States at the time, considering that the elections prior to the 1828 elections were an event to which Jackson lost. Merely a few years later, the electorate seemed to have quickly changed its mind regarding Jackson and his ability to lead, hinting the critical change in voting patterns as well as voting behavior. The majority leaned towards Jackson and relied on what Jackson can and is expected to do if and when he wins the office, which he did. Many people during the 1824 elections were split towards who to vote considering the fact that there were many candidates. Many candidates eventually split the votes among themselves making it difficult to identify a clear winner.

    But in the 1828 elections, the voters displayed two things in lieu of the change in votes and in voting patterns. First, the majority was backing Jackson, and second, Adams throughout his tenure has become less and less popular and was disliked by the majority of the voters. Similarly disliked was the idea of Adams serving a second consecutive term which the people blocked through a resounding and convincing anti-Adams majority electoral vote that erased all the questions regarding who the people wanted to lead them.

    The changes in the voting patterns and in the voting during the 1828 election is not simply because people wanted someone knew. Often, the public is easily swayed to allow the leader to serve one more time if (1) there are evidences of the leaders solid performance throughout his tenure, and (2) if there is proof that the opponent has the potential to be worse than the incumbent. In the case of Adams, it appeared that he was set to lose in majority landslide vote against him. The change in the voting pattern was affected by two things  the people feels that Adams hardly did anything that earns him the chance to serve for another term, and that people are realizing that Jackson can be a better leader compared to Adams and that is why the people gave him a chance.

    Whereas, the 1824 elections was a neck and neck raise that was eventually decided by the representatives, the 1828 elections showed the might of Jacksons popularity by reversing the previous voting pattern to reveal a collection of electorate ready and willing to vote for a similar leader and the electoral vote revealing a 178-83 win for Jackson. The eventuality of a landslide victory in favor of Jackson was already predicted even by the supporters of Adams even before the official announcement was released to the public.

    Of course, it was not a case of a totally radical change in the voting patterns and some features and characteristics persisted. For example, Adams stronghold still reflected competitive number of votes in his favor. However, the numbers are mere numbers  whether it was a statistically and numbers-wise a close fight or otherwise is already irrelevant. Adams, in his heart of hearts, knew that the bigger chance was leaning towards his defeat against Jackson, not by change in voting patterns, but by the change in preferences that changed the voting pattern. For example, Jackson was able to secure a second consecutive term, and so are other US presidents who served before Adams.

    The voting pattern on re-electing the incumbent, therefore, is not something new. Adams was not able to experience the voting pattern of allowing someone to serve for two consecutive terms. He gave the electorate and the people reason why they would change the voting pattern. This was largely based on Adams performance as president and how the people are not satisfied enough for them to help Adams win a convincing landslide victory versus Jackson.

    Some of the states inside which Adams won showed similar strong support for Adams during his bid for re-election, including the nine states that carried Adams campaign. This indicates semblance of maintenance on voting patterns. Also, voting through party alliance and affiliation still remained strong and has been a part of the voting pattern that persisted during the 1828 election.

The important politics of the time
An important aspect of the politics and the decision making process of the voters that swayed the majority votes towards the winner Andrew Jackson was how the two candidates responded to different important political issues at that time. This affected the US and was a point of concern not just for its leaders but also a legitimate concern among the people in general. Some of the issues that the people wanted resolved and to which Jackson and Adams positioned themselves with regards to their stand on the matter includes the issues on tariffs, the issue on the creation and maintenance of the US of a National Bank, the issue on government spending and lastly, the political personalities and characteristics of both candidates.
 
Tariffs
The imposition of tariffs on particular goods especially those imported from other countries and other tariffs that has been burdening the economic-political sphere of the country is one of the pressing and serious issues at the time, and the people are generally split into two regarding this issue some wanted to support it while others are against it, and this position of the people have swayed back and forth, in consideration to additional provisions, new implications and other effects that the current condition of the tariffs imposes upon the people to which they react to in a case to case basis. As candidates for the highest office of the country that can influence the future of the tariff in the United States, the electorate is curious to the position of both individuals regarding tariffs.

    In tariffs, Adams, in similar fashion to the American System, was favorable to the idea of putting stiff tariffs to control the influx of foreign products (including British products) inside the US. If this happens, the downturn in imported items can help boost the local products and the economy of the US. The tariffs being raised can be used to improve the country by using it for infrastructure and social welfare among others. It was believed that Jackson believed differently. This difference in belief was the reason why Henry Clay supported Adams in the 1824 elections that led to the loss of Jackson in that election.

    National Bank
The politicians and the political, economic and social leaders of the time were torn between agreeing and supporting or disagreeing and rejecting the idea of the creation of the National Bank in the US. In the issue of National Bank, voters also looked at the position of Adams and Jackson. This somewhat influenced the appraisal of the individuals on Jackson and Adams, and in the process, affected their votes. As for Jackson, Jackson has openly challenged the concept of the national bank in the past, and continued to challenge the national bank during and after his 1828 election to presidency.     Government spending  The issue of government spending is important. The two candidates differ not on whether it is wrong or right but where it should be placed and how it should be directed and regulated, with Jackson and his agricultural republic looking at a particular direction on how to use the resources while Adams saw things differently.

    The candidates  Perhaps the most important political consideration at the time is no other than the candidates themselves. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams are not just individuals. They are also a key political aspect of the US politics during their time, considering the influence of both men in politics, how their actions and positions can impact the political landscape of the country and considering how they wished and planned to impact the socio-political, socio-cultural and socio-economic spheres of the country, either in defeat or loss since both men will remain material individuals in the society regardless of their predicament in the 1828 elections.

    Others simply believed that part of the strategy of Jackson was to not make a clear stand on all of these issues during the campaign period. People were unsure whether he was supportive or in disagreement to issues like the National Bank, the tariffs and government spending. Authors believed that he did this deliberately just to prove to himself and to his opponents that he will win because simply said, the people wants him, and no other leader. He was correct.

G. Historical factors key to the election for each party and for the nation as a whole
    The election of Andrew Jackson and the defeat of John Quincy Adams and the resulting victory and defeat of the parties involved in each candidate is affected by present conditions as discussed earlier in the paper as they are affected by historical factors. The things that happened in the past influence the ability of the party and its candidate towards either winning or losing in the elections. For example, the National Republican party of Adams was slowly losing its hold on the people. This is because of what it has been doing politically which, to the people, appeared as acts of protecting the interests of the rich, the well connected and the influential people inside the elite group of families with very respectable pedigrees, without regard for the growing masses who are average or poor in income and finances.

    Historically, Adams and his party were already courting defeat. The country and its people are already primed for selecting a new leader for the US even before the elections were held because of the things that have happened in the past which stayed and lingered in the minds and thoughts of the people. The biggest historical factor perhaps is the infamous corrupt bargain that featured Henry Clay and Adams. Many people believed that what happened was a deplorable political act that robbed the people of the just manifestation of their exercise of the right to vote. The winner of the election was not someone chosen by people but someone who was placed in this position through political strategy. In his defense, no one can actually say and fully claim. Proof of such corrupt bargain that happened between the two and that everything else are superficial and circumstantial evidence to the case in point. Adams should have known better and should have addressed this problem and issue in such a way that this will not be a point in history from which the people will be reminded of how leaders cheat the results of the election. The people were, in some aspects, vindictive because they feel betrayed and cheated upon. They wanted to make up for that by supporting the defeat of Adams.

    For Jackson, the things that affected him are simply his actions in the past particularly during the time he was a soldier. As a soldier in the battlefield, there will always be stories about how brutal a person can be, about the atrocities he or she allegedly made, and the wrong decisions and actions he took. All of these did not impact him significantly. There is also the socially accepted form of acceptance wherein actions committed in battle are only reflected in battle and peace time society is different. Jackson was given the chance to lead a peace time US. Simply, the people experienced Adams in the past and they did not want him or his policies anymore to be the one running and leading the society towards its future. They wanted a new one. They wanted Jackson to influence the change in the history.

    For the country, the key historical components is that the people have seen the lives they lead in the past, and the desire to live in a condition better than this propelled them to act during the elections in the manner that they did. The plight of the people will always be a historical component that will be significant in the elections. Come Election Day, people will ask themselves if they want to maintain the current situation or if they want to allow change to happen by giving another individual a chance to vote.

    Historically, the victory is not determined and fought inside polar political party identifications. This historical trend was changed by the Adams-Jackson 1828 rematch for the presidency. There are those who argued that party lines are not as strong as they were during the 1828 elections. In American political life, the years from 1814 to 1825 are generally known as the era of good feelings in which party divisions largely faded into oblivion (Jenkins, p 97).

    John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson are two Americans in the history of public service that rendered great service to the United States. Sadly, the images and background of individuals who did a great service like Adams and Jackson can be tarnished by particular events they are involved in, like the details revolving around the election of 1828 that figured the two fighting for the position. Regardless of these issues, what is important and what remains significant above this is the fact that they tried and succeeded in being the best possible US president that they can be. Politics is a dirty game and every politician will have his own share of mud if one wants to tread this particular path of service to the country. Adams defeat in the 1828 election and Jacksons victory tells the public a lot about the election process, about the people participating in the election process, about how history can impact the individual during election, and how the outcome of the election will be presented in the history in the end.