American History

Britain stationed troops in Boston to protect cargoes from India. A crowd gathered near the port. The British soldiers fired into the crowd, killing five people, including Crispus Attucks, a mulatto worker. John Adams, the defense attorney of the soldiers, described the incident as a rabble of troublemaking immigrants and slaves. Two of the soldiers were lightly punished. Six of them were acquitted. England removed the troops from Boston. From the point of view of the colonists, England was transforming itself into a tyrant, threatening the autonomy and prosperity of the colonies.

Samuel Drowne, a resident of Boston, standing at his own door in Cornhill, saw about 14 or 15 soldiers of the 29th regiment (who came from Murrays barrack). They were armed with naked cutlasses, swords or bayonets, others with clubs, fire shovels or tongs. The soldiers assaulted the townspeople who were armed with sticks and shovels. The soldiers went by the way of Cornhill, Crooked-lane and Royal-exchange lane into King Street. Samuel Drowne followed them. The angry crowd followed the soldiers. Some of them were armed with large sticks and to some extent spikes.

Most of the soldiers were gentlemen, standing together a little below the Town-house upon the Exchange. The people who followed the soldiers assaulted the residence. The officer ordered five soldiers to be on guard. A corporal warned the people to go away. Unable to convince the crowd to leave, the officer ordered the soldiers to disperse them. The soldiers went out of King-Street. By this time, about two hundred people stood upon the steps of the Exchange tavern, being the next house to the Custom-house. Captain Preston ordered the soldiers armed with firelocks to approach the west corner of the Custom-house. At that very instant, the people were dispersed at the sight of the soldiers. About twenty or thirty remained in King-Street. Those who remained were mostly sailors and other persons meanly dressed. They dared the soldiers to open fire. Drowne heard Captain Preston said, Damn your bloods Why dont you fire

The captain ordered the soldiers to fire indiscriminate to the crowd. The soldiers fired irregularly, pointing their guns variously in a part of a circle they stood. The soldiers kept firing as though there was no tomorrow. Drowne saw flashes of two guns fired from the Custom-house, one of which was out of a window of a chamber westward of the balcony. The other was from the balcony itself.

The guns were pointed to the crowd, as though it was preempted. The person who held the gun in a stooping posture withdrew himself into the house, having a handkerchief or cloth over his face. The dead and wounded lay in the street. At first, the soldiers did not allow the people to carry the dead. At last, perhaps having realized their cruelty, the soldiers permitted the people to carry the dead.

The Atlantic System
British colonial supremacy in North America was due primarily to the creation of a commercial enterprise  the Atlantic System. This commercial framework was not just a system of colonial ports it was rather a system of colonies and markets in which the ultimate beneficiary was the island of Britain.

The creation of the Atlantic System in the 17th century facilitated trade and commerce between Europe and the Americas. Spain and Portugal controlled large colonies in the New World. Gold flowed from these colonies to the markets of Europe. Great Britain saw colonization of North America vital to the survival of the emerging English empire. Britain dominated the Malay-Africa trade route, after defeating the Portuguese and Dutch in several major naval engagements.

The real danger was in the Western edge of the route. Control of the Guinea-South African coastlines was necessary for the protection of the route. The advantage of this system is quite obvious. Great Britain could easily ship its goods from the ports at Malaya and India to London via this route. Raw materials could be transferred from Africa to the Thirteen Colonies  the emerging factor markets in the New World. Trade with both Britain and the East brought prosperity in the colonies.

The Atlantic system perpetuated even after the Second World War. British colonial possessions in South and Central Africa was consolidated via the Atlantic route to London. Indeed, the Atlantic system was not merely a commercial enterprise, it was the political foundation of the British Empire.

Causes of the American Revolution
The American Revolution was not simply an ideological revolution. Its causes were both political and economic in nature. To the historian, the conflict represented the triumph of democracy still to some, it symbolized the birth of a nation.

There were indirect and immediate causes of the American Revolution. The Seven Years War alienated many colonists. The British promised the colonial army (made mostly of colonists) land in Canada  which turned out to be a mishap in policy. Increasing British restrictions on trade, the imposition of martial law, and general economic restrictions fueled discontent. The passage of the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Tea Act of 1773 in the British parliament introduced new taxes.

The colonists were aghast with the situation. They demanded representation in the parliament as condition for the payment of regular taxes. When the British responded by sending a large army to the colonies, the colonists rose in open revolt. From a historical view point, the colonists knew that war with Great Britain was a very risky venture. However, foreign countries like Spain and France already promised military assistance should the colonies revolt (even before the war). In addition, a majority of the colonists opposed the new taxes. Thus, it would be relatively easy to swing the loyalty of the colonies.

The effects of the Revolution were both lasting and significant. Two centuries later, the Thirteen Colonies replaced Great Britain as the major trading power in North America. It has become one of the two superpowers during the Cold War  the wealthiest nation on the planet.

Two decades before the civil war there was development of conflicting sectional ideologies. Both Southern and Northern societies viewed themselves as one fundamentally well organized and the other one going against its cherished values and thus a threat to its existence. The development of these two ideologies was in many ways interconnected. This made the Southerners and the Northerners grow apart. The Northerners had their own ideologies as well as the Southerners which made them two very different societies. The Northerners formed the Republicans whereas the Southerners formed the Democrats society.  The republicans were mainly the white laborers while the democrats included the black slaves and the slave holders.

The Southerners were more and more conscious to insist on slavery as the basis of civilized life which made them reject the materialism and lack of togetherness in the Northern community. Northerners viewed slavery as the direct opposite of good society and also as a danger to their own essential interests and values. The existing political system could not restrain these two conflicting ideologies and this led to the breakup of the two societies to form the Northern and the Southern societies.

The Republicans valued the ideology of free labor which did not only involve an approach towards work but a validation of the ante-bellum of the southern society. The Northern republican thus extensively criticized the Southern society which appeared equally different and inferior to theirs. Republicans did not believe in the reality of slave power which had taken control of the federal government in the South.

The Republican ideology spread over a long distance because of its multifaceted nature, thus most people embraced it as an overwhelmingly successful combination of values and interests. This ideology appealed in many diverse ways to a range of groups within the party. It gave the northerners of divergent social and political backgrounds a basis for collective action. It provided the moral agreement which permitted the north for the first time in history, to assemble an entire society in modern welfare.

On May 26, 1960, one of the Republican Party leading orators, Carl Schurz of Wisconsin addressed an audience which had gathered to endorse the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. He encouraged the Republicans to stand before the country, not as the anti- slavery party but as the party of free labor. Many republican orators emphasized that the greatest idea and the basis of the Republican Party is free labor. The main aim and objective of the Republican Party was to make labor honorable.

The dignity of labor was a constant theme of the northern culture and politics. In America people did not just work, but worked specifically to gain money. This was considered very honorable labor was the source of every value. Many leaders reiterated that labor is prior to and independent to capital, indeed capital is the fruit of labor. The belief in the dignity of labor was not restricted to the Republican Party it has been part of the American culture from the start. Most Americans come from a protestant background in which the decency of labor was an item of faith. Each man had an occupation or calling to which he was divinely appointed and to succeed in ones calling serves to glorify God. There are moral qualities that ensure success in ones calling, which include honesty, prudence, diligence, punctuality and sobriety.

In the free labor perspective, the objective of social mobility was not great wealth, but economic independence. Free labor meant labor with economic choices, the ability to quit the wage earning group. One who lived all his life depending on wages was considered as still in bondage. As a Southern slave there was nothing wrong with working to acquire enough wealth to start a business. Thus a successful laborer was one who achieved self employment and owned capital, a business or a shop.

The Republicans regarded slavery as morally unjust, politically imprudent and socially destructive. They were therefore opposed to it and criticized the Southern community which exercised slavery. The free labor attitude gave republicans a model of good society and provided them with a standard for judging other social systems.  The values of free labor that were mostly cherished by the republicans i.e. economic development, social mobility and political democracy were greatly violated in the south. The south appeared to republicans as a strange and intimidating society because their values and interests were in deep conflict with those of the North.

The economy of the southern community was backward and stagnant. Slavery was to blame for all this as it hindered regional and national development. There was immense poverty in the south, the soil was exhausted, decaying town, wretchedly neglected roads and there was an absence of enterprise and improvement. Slavery had impaired all aspects of economic development in this region. Commerce, political power as well as military strength can never permanently reside in a community where slavery exists. The southern states were well known for their intellectual, moral and political darkness which covered the land.
Despite all these problems the Southern born settlers seemed content with their status in life and seemed to lack the desire to improve their condition. The Northerners feared the issue of slavery in their territories.

They wanted to keep their territories free from this primitive act. Many enterprising men from the Northern state were migrating to the territories with the desire to posses land. This is because they did not want their territories to be occupied fully by the Southerners, who they feared could import their ill values into the North. They believed by doing so they will be able to exclude slavery from the territories.  Free white laborers of the North though did not migrate to the South where there was no free labor and social mobility was non existence. They did not also want to work in close proximity with black slaves. In his book Roediger, clearly states that the white labourers did not in any way want to be associated with the blacks.
This made it difficult for both the black and white laborers to form a union to fight for their rights.

The slaves were mostly black men or Negros as they used to call them. They were denied every right including voting. They were always beaten, exiled and killed if they defied anything that their masters wanted a sure way of killing any attempts of Negro domination. The Negro was killed for disputing over the terms of contract with their employers. If there was any dispute between a colored man and a white man the colored man had to die either in the hands of the white man there and then or later through a mob which gathered speedily. If any man showed a spirit of courageous manhood he was hanged for his pains.  Colored women were also murdered for refusing to tell the mob where their relatives could be found for lynching.

The black men came up with anti-lynching bureau of the National Afro-American Council to have every lynching investigated and to publish the facts to the world. This was the beginning of the end of lynching because no lynching was allowed before proper investigations. There started to be big changes between the two states and it is during Abraham Lincolns leadership that the two states started to unite. It was then that so many voters from the slave state of Louisiana joined the union and accepted it as the rightful political power of the state. They adopted a Free State constitution and allowed public schools to be attended equally by black and white scholars. They also agreed to have the constitution amended to allow slavery to be abolished throughout the nation.

Although not everybody from the Southern state agreed to these changes those who joined the union represented a good number which could not just be overlooked. They included a good number of white men who felt that they needed to change from the previous unfair way of life. These people vowed to adhere to the new changes, fight for it until it ripens to a complete success. They believed the colored man, in seeing all America united for him, is motivated with vigilance and energy and daring to the same end.

Phineas Banning is a renowned historian from America. He was born on 19th August 1830 in Wilmington, Delaware and died on 8th March 1885 in San Francisco (Wilmington Historical Society, Drum Barracks Civil War Museum, Banning Residence Museum, 2008 pp.11). He was born to John Alford Banning and Elizabeth Lobwer as their seventh child. In total he had eleven siblings. He was an entrepreneur, businessman, a financier and the founder of one of the busiest ports in the world, the Los Angeles Port.  This is evident by the fact that he is referred to as the father of the Port of Los Angeles (Wilmington Historical Society et al, pp.7). Banning had eight children with his first wife Rebecca, although five of them died before adulthood. His wife died while giving birth in 1868 after which he married Mary Hollister the mother of his daughter Lucy Tichenor Banning.

Phineas Banning was the pioneer of the Wilmington Delaware city in Los Angeles, California in the United States of America. This paper will focus more on the history of this city and its historical sites. Bearing in mind that Phineas Banning was the founder the paper will focus on his contributions that led to the establishment and the growth of the city. Besides this, Phineas is remembered through Phineas Banning High School named after him and his magnificent house in this city.

Background Information
Wilmington town started as a port along the Cape Fear River back in the period 1739 and 1740. Its population increased at a high rate since it was was a business center (Watson, 2003 pp.28). Being a business center, it attracted people of different origin namely, people from North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina among others. It was in the year 1863 when the city of Wilmington was named after its founders birth place. Originally it was known as the New San Pedro as it was initially part of 1784 Spanish Land grant of San Pedro. The city has a very busy port with forty three miles of water front and 27 cargo terminals which occupy seventy five hundred acres. Bannings resident was first built in the year in 1864 as Eucalyptus Groove covering about a hundred and twenty two acres of land (Wilmington Historical Society et al, pp.7).

The first rail road in Wilmington was constructed in the year 1869 which ran from Los Angels to Wilmington by Banning and his business partner Benjamin Wilson. Still, it was Banning who saw to it that the South Pacific Railroad brought their lines to connect with the Ports of Wilmington and San Pedro. The construction of railroad in this town became the guiding backbone of development as it gained connection even with other continents. In the year 1874, it had become the legal port of entry and due to its continuous growth by 1914, twenty nine years after the death of its founder, it had expanded and could meet the new technology requirements (Wilmington Historical Society et al, pp.7).

Phineas Banning Business Empire 
Phineas Banning is credited with the development of the city through his efforts in business, entrepreneurship and finance. He actually started to work at quite an early age of thirteen in his brothers law firm. He then went to California in the year 1851 where he worked as a driver before establishing his own shipping and staging company in the year 1860. His ever increasing desire to develop made him to purchase more land for port expansion. More roads were constructed in the city and other social amenities which led to more developments.

Wilmington Historical Society et al. posits that, Banning established businesses which contributed greatly to the growth of the city (2008, pp 8). In 1880s, his machine shops used to produce rail cars, stagecoaches and also tugboats. In addition to businesses, other institutions that fostered development were started in this city. In the year 1865, the Roman Catholic Church was established and closely after Memory Chapel Presbyterian Church came in to being which was later followed by St.Johns Episcopal in the early 1980s (Wilmington Historical Society et al., pp.8). Further studies reveal that colleges were also established and the first one was the Wilson College which was started in the year 1874. It was still in the same town where the first post office in the United States was founded.

Banning House
This house was constructed in the early 1860s, precisely 1863 by Phineas Banning who was also its designer although history records he was helped by artisans, blacksmiths and also ship wrights (Wilmington Historical Society et al., pp.7  8). It was one of the most outstanding buildings in those early days. It used to be visited by political leaders as well as the most prominent businessmen of that age. History records that it is actually in this house that the first yachting party was held on the West Coast as the owner used to like holding parties in his residence. Originally it had thirty rooms although they were later reduced to twenty four.
General Phineas Banning Residence Museum also known as Bannings residence is located in Wilmington, California. Until the year 1925 it was under the ownership of the Bannings family after which the City of Los of Angeles took over in 1927 (Wilmington Historical Society et al.,  pp.25). Ever since then it has been continuously renovated to serve the public although during the World War II it was closed so as to preserve it. Today it is operated as the General Phineas Banning Residence Museum. It is a very important historical site as it contains some historic features which include a garden of the first eucalyptus trees that were planted in California, a collection of photographs that show the history of the port and also some of the stagecoaches of the 19th century. The house was among the very first site to be included in the Los Angeles National Register of Historic Places in the year 1971 (Wilmington Historical Society et al., pp.115).

Banning High School
This school is located in Wilmington, California in USA and is named after Phineas Banning as one of the founders of the Wilmington in the 18th century. Its building was a land mark until its destruction by earth quake in the year 1973 (Wilmington Historical Society et al., pp.94  95). However, it has been reconstructed and new facilities have been added to the school including a swimming pool and the gym. It is still in operation even today and as per the 2008-2009 statistics it had around three thousand students of different races including but not limited to Whites, Native Americans, Hispanic and also Asians.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that Phineas Banning lived for only fifty four years, he accomplished more than many of those who lived for a hundred years during his lifetime. His vision of establishing the Port of Los Angeles was realized especially after the full breakthrough water was completed in 1914. His house which he designed himself operates even today as Banning Residence Museum. The Willington city owes much to him as a founder and a man whose contribution had a lot of impact as it developed to be as it is today.

The government of Great Britain had thirteen colonies in North America who felt discontentment with their rule. The overwhelmingly high level of mistreatment and lack of representation in the government on their own land was the basis of their discontentment. This led to rebellion of Americans to the British administration. At first they revolted against the parliament of Great Britain and then the British monarchy later on. They wanted to have a government where they can feel well represented and treated with equal measures to their European counterparts. Because of this reason, they expelled the royal officials and established a provincial congress to have self governing states. (Wikipenda 1)

These governmental institutions (Bailyn, 94- 150) joined together to frustrate and antagonise the well armed British monarchical rule. They chose their own leaders in each of the thirteen colonies who were to spearhead their quest for liberation. The people were tired of the continuous creation of policies that violated the principles on which their freedom was build and wanted a change. Their wish was to have these social evils eliminated from their society. They wanted a society build on the principles of equality and formation of a government that was representative which could allow for expression of ones opinions without fear of being victimised. This acted as an inner accelerator and driving force to the struggle against their colonial masters.

Rumour had it that the government was to apply power to deal with the individuals who were disgruntled with the government in their search for their liberation and freedom,  and this conspiracy ignited the revolution in America before any other rebellion in any other country that was a colony of the great Britain. The churches also supported the tyrannical rule claiming that liberty of thinking and expressing individual thoughts was fatal to priestly powers. This enraged the people even the more.  The government later introduce the stamp rule to be levied on pamphlets, newspapers and all official documents. The stamp act that was introduced to enable the rulers obtains additional revenue but it was later discovered that this act had a hidden agenda and motives. It was argued that the stamp act was a strategy by the British government to set the citizens into a trap of trying to oppose its introduction and in the occasion of this rebellion, the military officers could deal with them with severity and reduce them to servitude. Amid the rebellion against the stamp act, other taxes were introduced that include the sugar act, townshend duties, paper bills of credit act and the quartering act. This was more than what they were able to chew. The American people could not stomach this kind of unfair treatment any longer

The government, in an attempt to win the favour and the trust of the people,   introduced a new strategy to deal with the current crisis. They allowed the people to appoint judges who were to listen to their grievances and provide them with justice but on the other hand they suggested giving them crown salaries. These salaries were to be taken at will or in ones own pleasure. The move was received with a lot of criticism and opposition by the people who thought that the government was giving them justice on one hand and take it with the other. This move was vehemently rejected by the Americans who warned the judges who were to accept these crown salaries from the government as having betrayed them. The Townshend duties were used in this process of trying to weaken the judicially.

At around 1770, a mob in London that was protesting for the release of a group of Wilkers was fired by the foot guards who had been summoned by the nervous magistrates. An 11-year young boy was suspected to have led the group of Wilkers was tracked and shot dead in Boston. The situation in political capital was getting loose with people claiming that that was a well planned massacre. The bad news about the massacre spread through the colonies like bush fire and an attempt to bring to justice the guards who had committed these killings was suppressed by the British government. This tainted the governments image in America and annoyed the Americans even more. Sometimes later, there was another massacre in Boston. The situation was too volatile and even those who were dubious of the presence of troops in Boston and claimed that it was the role of the standing army to terrify people to comply to the tyrannical wills were so much terrified and silenced. The two situations of abuse of power in the London massacre and the Boston, unconstitutional taxations imposed on the Americans, weakening of the judicially and plural office holding were standing in the way of achieving absolute liberation. This became the basis of the revolution against the rule of Great Britain. Pamphlets of these misdeeds of the government were written and distributed to all English speaking nations to rebel against the British rule.
 
In conclusion, the revolution and rebellion of Americans in the North America colonies was triggered by unfair treatment given to them by the British government. These mistreatments are so evident from the examples discussed in this discussion. High tax levies, inequality, lack of proper representation were among the many concerns that provoked the rejection of the tyrannical rule of the Great Britain. This revolution produced fruits when the North American colonies gained their independence.

Question Number 2 As a historical source, what does Douglass narrative reveal about the lives, culture, and psychological struggles of American slaves

Literature as a repository of human experience manifests the social, cultural, and psychological conditions of a particular group of people in history. Such is the case since literature serves as the locus of a condensed and social evaluation of the events in a particular period in history. As a storehouse of human experience, literary texts also participate in the discourse of defining and identifying a particular group of individuals. This is evident in African American literature as the texts within the genre provide different accounts of African-Americans struggle to create a solid ethnic identity which allows them to incorporate both the negative and positive aspects of their experiences in slavery in determining their characteristics as a people. In line with this, the following discussion focuses on Frederick Douglass account of his experiences as a slave in Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. The text serves as an appropriate historical source for determining the lives, culture, and psychological struggles of African-American slaves as the narrative and autobiographical structure of the text provides the in-depth development of the changes in an African-Americans psyche as he overcomes the restraints caused by his initial position as a slave in a racially biased society.

There is no slave narrative in American literary history that is as famous and as widely demanding of praise than Frederick Douglass narrative of his life. Anyone who is interested in getting into the mind of a slave as he travels a self-imposed journey in order to try to make sense of the peculiar institution, that is American slavery, ought to read his autobiography. The context of the life and experiences of Douglass and the plot of his narrative so closely parallel each other that the text reads as a great literary piece as well as a historical source that constitutes one of the most regrettable chapters in American history.

Douglass was born into slavery in Maryland as Frederick Bailey in either 1817 or 1818. Douglass inability to know his real birthday was a source of contention for the rest of his life. He notes, I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it (Douglass 41).  In addition, he further claims, The white children could tell their ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege (Douglass 339).  This association of knowledge of ones age with privilege can be understood if one considers that knowledge of ones age enables the knowledge of ones parentage  and hence knowledge of ones roots. This type of knowledge is important since the ability to know ones roots enables an individual to locate a frame of reference for the creation of his identity. Denial of such a frame places an individual, in this case the African American slave, in an ambiguous context for the formation of his identity. In fact, one might state that the possibility of identity formation is null given such a context. It is important to consider that the denial of such a frame for identity formation is tantamount to the denial of an individuals ontology. Denial of ontology, on the other hand, leads to the objectification of the individual. The relation of the denial of ontology and the objectification of an individual may only be understood if one considers the fallacious account of the naturalized degradation of the African American slave. Such an account assumes the lack of humanity of the African American slave thereby positing African Americans as untamed savages incapable of rationality. Such an exclusion because of the said fallacy leads to the objectification of the African-American slave, the results of which led to the initial destruction of the African-American family as well as the Africa- American identity.

It is due to the aforementioned results of slavery that Douglass objected to the practice along with the ideology associated with it. He notes his experience of the manner in which the African-America family is destroyed as he recounts his own experience in the following passage

To cap the climax of their base ingratitude and fiendish barbarity, my grandmother, who was now very old, having outlived my old master and all his children, having seen the beginning and end of all of them, and her present owners finding she was of but little value, her frame already racked with the pains of old age, and complete helplessness fast stealing over her once active limbs, they took her to the woods, built her a little hut, put up a little mud-chimney, and then made her welcome to the privilege of supporting herself there in perfect loneliness thus virtually turning her out to die (Douglass 73)

In addition, Douglas notes that if a slave childs father were also his master, the mistress would treat them more severely or insist they be sold out of jealously. He claims, Slaveholders have ordained, and by law established, that the children of slave women shall in all cases follow the condition of their mothers, and this is done too obviously to administer to their own lusts, and make a gratification of their wicked desires profitable as well as pleasurable (Douglass 43). Slavery, in this sense, enabled the conception of women as property more than as individuals. This stood as a justification, in the minds of white male slave owners that African-American women could be raped and their offspring sold off in order to avoid embarrassment from their peers.

The emphasis that Douglass attributes to the denial of his heritage in his autobiography manifests his psychological desire to establish his roots because of his recognition that one of the means that may free him from the state of oppression experienced by slaves is through separation from the patriarchal structure of slavery. By continually reiterating his stance on the necessity of tracing ones origins, Douglass provides an in-depth look not only on the lives of African-American slaves and their masters but also on the psychological effects of the conditions in slavery. Within this context, one may state that although such a frame was denied to the individual, the frame of developing identity as result of the fallacious account of a naturalized savagery or irrationality, the possibility of forging and hence creating an identity of ones own was not entirely withheld from the African-American slaves. However, it is important to note that it is not the mere process of creating an identity for their selves, which is important here, but the process of creating an identity that reverberates through the succeeding generations.

It is important to note that the denial of their identities is not merely rooted in the denial of their heritage since it can also be traced to the denial of their rationality. Adherence to slavery entails ones adherence to the belief that African-Americans are irrational beings.  In the text, Douglass traces the different ways in which both the recognition and development of their rationality was denied to the African-American slaves as they were prevented from attaining education.

During the period of his enslavement, Douglass learned how to read and write. The importance of such is evident if one considers that the aforementioned skills were deemed as weapons that the slave owners went to great lengths to avoid giving to the slave. The most oppressive limits on slave education were a reaction to Nat Turners Revolt in Southampton County Virginia during the summer of 1831.  This event not only caused shock waves across the slaveholding South, but it had a particularly far-reaching impact on education over the next three decades.  The fear of slave revolts and the spread of abolitionist materials led to radical restrictions on gatherings, travel, and literacy. The ignorance of the slaves was considered necessary to the security of the slaveholders. Within the text, an example of this restriction on slave education is evident during the incident wherein Mr. Auld prevented his wife from teaching Douglass how to read and to write. Douglass claims, Mr. Auld found out what was going on, and at once forbade Mrs. Auld to instruct me further, telling her, among other things, that it was unlawful, as well as unsafe, to teach a slave to read (Douglass 63).

It is important to contextualize this in relation to its effects to the African-American slaves formation of his identity. Note that reading and writing serves as tools for the creation of an identity. Both skills are necessary for effective communication and are needed by African-Americans to converse with their fellowmen. By setting limitations to the skills that the African-Americans could develop, the slave owners also set the boundaries for their attainment of their freedom. Freedom here may be understood as enabling the attainment of both psychological and physical freedom. In its psychological form, it allows the African-American slave to retrace his roots and hence discover his origin, which he may use in the creation and or definition of his identity.  In its physical form, it enables the African-American slave to possess a viable method for effectively presenting his views.  An example of this is apparent if one considers that such tools enable an individual to participate within a discourse wherein he or she may frame his rhetoric under the very thing that makes him equal with other human beings. It is within this context of the importance of such skills that Douglass opted to continue to learn how to read after his lessons from Mrs. Auld had stopped. He notes, Whilst I was saddened by the thought of losing the aid of my kind mistress, I was gladdened by the invaluable instruction, which, by the merest accident, I had gained from my master. Though conscious of the difficulty of learning without a teacher, I set out with high hope, and a fixed purpose, at whatever cost of trouble, to learn how to read (Douglass 64).

Within this context, Douglass autobiography serves as an appropriate historical source for determining the experiences of African-American slaves during his time. The reasons for this may be traced to how Douglass text showed the interrelationship between the psychological and cultural development of Africa-Americans in relation to their experiences as slaves during the 19th century. In his text, Douglass was able to show that the psychological conflicts experienced by African-American slaves were ultimately determined by their unequal treatment in American society. In a wider perspective, Douglass narrative thereby does not merely show the African-American slaves separation from his roots, problems with determining his identity, and problems in attaining education. Such is the case since Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass provides an account of the slow and tedious emancipation of African-Americans from slavery.

In the narrative about his life as a slave and subsequent escape to freedom, Fredrick Douglas applied extremely clear and striking language to bring out the reality of the kind of violence that slaves experienced during their daily lives in the American plantations. Throughout the narrative, Douglas provided the reader with a detailed description of horrendous accounts of violence that slaves were exposed to under their masters, which stole the very dignity of this sector of society yet, which no one apparently appeared to care even little about. His main aim was to reveal the evils of a practice that was justified by many especially those in the North who had little information about the true nature of daily events as they unfolded on the plantations of the American south. By narrating his own experiences as well as those of other slaves, Fredrick Douglas used the narrative to highly condemn the violence and other maltreatment that slaves were exposed to, irrespective of the fact that they had no legal power to mount their own defense or even protect themselves. Throughout the narrative, the writer embraced the noble task of enlightening the rest of America and the world at large about the dehumanizing effects that the institution of slavery had on the lives of his kinsmen and how the writer was finally able to triumph over it.

Violence and the enslaved experience
Violence according to Douglas was a tool that slave masters in the state of Maryland used over their servants in such way that more violence became secondary to more control. Slave masters were always ready to apply violence at any given opportunity as it gave them continued reassurance that the Negro was totally under their control. It became a tool that the institution of slavery highly depended upon for its very existence. Douglas narrated the frequent whipping of his own aunt by her slave master while tied to a tree and states that .not until overcome by fatigue would he cease to swing the blood-clotted cow skin (19-20).   The writer goes on to make this allegation quite clear through the statement, ., Behave well or behave ill, it is the duty of a master occasionally to whip a slave, to remind him of his masters authority (Douglas 82).  Slave whipping was an act that the slave masters appear to have taken great pleasure in considering the many incidents of whipping that Douglas put down in his narrative. One of the slave masters, Mr. Severe is said to have been so cruel that according to Douglas From the rising till the going down of the sun, he was cursing, raving, cutting, and slashing among the slaves of the field, in the most frightful manner (24). This theme runs throughout the chapter with Douglas being quick to add, All these lived at the Great House Farm, and enjoyed the luxury of whipping the servants when they pleased... (30).

To the slave masters, slaves were just another property like the horses, pigs, cattle and sheep although the animals received better treatment than the slaves. The writer explains that, Men and women, old and young, married and single, were ranked with horses, sheep and swine (Douglas 54). Yet, the animals lived better than the slaves in that they did not have to experience the bloody brutality or murder that marked the daily lives of the servants. In Maryland, killing a slave was not a criminal offence. According to Douglas, a slave called Demby was shot by a Mr. Gore as he tried to escape the usual whipping and, His horrid crime was not even submitted to judicial investigation (34-37). Two slaves were also killed by Mr. Thomas Lauman while a cousin to the writers wife was killed by the wife of Mr. Giles Hicks. Another slave belonging to Colonel Lloyd was shot by Mr. Beal Bondly for trespassing on his property while fishing. All this was done to create fear and intimidate the other slaves so that they would not in any way try to press for better living conditions or their release.

Although violence was generally a mark of oppression for the slaves, it also helped to arouse an urge for freedom among the oppressed. Despite the horrendous acts of violence that marked daily life among the slaves, as well as a lack of basic education, Douglas mind never got enslaved to this unpleasant way of life and he always harbored a distant desire for freedom. It was apparent that knowledge appeared to be the main key to freedom for the slaves yet the writer presented his own transformation from slavery to freedom as a pure act of violence. After physically being engaged in a fight with his master and oppressor Edward Covey, Douglas claimed to have regained the interest in learning that had long disappeared besides regaining personal spirit as well as the strong conviction to get out of slavery and live a free man. Douglas questioned his condition thus, Why am I a slave I will run away. Get caught, or get clear, Ill try it (71). By fighting back his master, the writer appears to have applied violence as a means to confrontation and for self defense and did not in any way advocate violence against the slave masters. Douglas vividly described the encounter in a language that expressed nothing but victory over his master, .I resolved to fight.. I sized Covey hard by the throat. ..I did not hesitate to let it be known of me, that the white man who expected to succeed in whipping must also succeed in killing me (76, 77-78). Contained aggression helped Douglas to successfully bring under control, the violence between himself and Covey. An act of violence had helped to rebuild his self-esteem. Violence was also used as a tool for ensuring that the slave never improved his status in society by using it to deny the slave any access to formal education or religious enlightenment. The slave masters feared that any access to such information would give opportunity to the slave to make his life better. As stated by Douglas,  it was unlawful as well as unsafe to teach a slave to read..Their minds had been starved by their cruel masters. They had been shut up in mental darkness, (40, 85).

Family life was extremely difficult for slaves in Maryland where Fredrick Douglas was born. Babies were separated from their mothers during infancy and placed under the care of older women who had passed as economically unproductive to plantation farming. Douglas clearly states their plight as follows, Frequently before the child has reached its twelfth month, its mother is taken from it. And the child is placed under the care of an older woman, too old for field labor (17). Although Douglas frequently depicts women to have been the worst victims of violence within the institution of slavery, children were not exempted from the brutality either. The writer narrates an incident in which, Master Andrew- a man who... took my little brother by the throat, threw him on the ground, and with the heel of his boot stamped upon his head till the blood gushed from his nose and ears. (Douglas 55). Hunger and cold was also a way of life for the slaves including the young children. There was never enough to eat for the slaves while food rotted in their masters houses.

In his own words, Douglas wrote of a slave girl, I have seen Mary contending with the pigs for the offal thrown into the street. (46). To stress the plight of the slaves, Douglas goes on to inform the reader that A great many times have we poor creatures been nearly perishing with hunger, when food in abundance lay moldering in the safe and smoke-house (60-61). Beds were completely non-existent for slaves and blankets were a privilege for the men and women. In his narrative, Douglas describes the conditions the slaves encountered during sleeping time, ., old and young, male and female, married and single, drop down side by side, on one common bed, .the cold, damp floor, each covering himself or herself with their miserable blankets. (23-24). Clothing was also hard to come by for slaves and more so for the children who knew no season and as Douglas narrates, Children ., of both sexes, almost naked, might be seen at all seasons of the year (24). Even life in jail was better than life on the plantations as stated by Douglas, While in jail, we found ourselves in much more comfortable quarters ..we had a good clean room. (94). Slave women were sexually abused by their masters some of whom used them as breeders for more slaves and it appears that the writer may have been born from such a union as stated by Douglas, The whisper that my master was my father (18), and, .he bought her, as he said, for A BREEDER (Douglas 69). To avoid conflict with their white wives, slave masters often sold off such children popularly referred to as Mullatos to other slave masters.

Conclusion
Through his accounts of malice and cruelty towards the salves, Fredrick Douglas was able to help his readers visualize the kind of evils that were associated with the institution of slavery. By narrating the beating and whipping scenes now and then, Douglas managed to expose the excessive brutality that slaves had to persevere in a manner that was geared towards attracting crushing emotional appeal from the readers. His narration of the slavery experience after he had escaped from slavery not only raised the emotions of his audience after they got an impression of slavery that they never  before had but also earned him the rank of lecturer in the American Anti-slavery Society. Fredrick Douglas became a strong figure in the abolitionist movement.

In 1830, a debate ensued in the halls of the United States Senate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina.  The debate initially stemmed from the issue of the sale and purchase of government lands in the west.  From this issue would come forth a much bigger issue  sovereignty.  It was an issue of which was held in high regard, the national (federal) government or the local (state) government.  Webster took up the nationalist position while Hayne took up the sovereignty of the states position.  Several questions needed to be taken into consideration How does one define the Union  Is the federal government the ultimate arbiter or judge in certain issues or do the states have a say on the issues as well

While both senators delivered powerfully eloquent speeches to drive home their point, it could be said that neither of them were absolutely correct.  When the Constitution was first drafted in 1787, the framers were then trying to address the issues of the day.  The infant United States of America was going through a period of economic and political instability and the existing system then, the Articles of Confederation, did little to address the problems.  When the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia on that fateful day, they have decided to establish a strong, central government for the purpose of ensuring the survival of the new nation born out of political struggle and revolution.  The creation of the new law of the land was not very easy and as a result, compromises were made to make it acceptable to all parties which would eventually lead to its ratification by the states.  Despite the ratification, there were still issues that refused to go away and one of them was the issue of sovereignty where the debate was whose sovereignty would stand above.  Hayne was one of those who subscribed to the notion that the Union, as he and his ilk defined it, was a league of states enjoying autonomy and that this autonomy was to be recognized by the federal government in Washington.  Whatever went on in the states were strictly the affairs of the states concerned especially when he mentioned this

Never will the Federal Government, or rather those who control its operations, consent to emancipate the West, by adopting a wise and just policy, looking to any final disposition of the public lands, while the people of the West can be kept in subjection and dependence, by occasional donations of those lands and never will the Western States themselves assume their just and equal station among their sisters of the Union, while they are constantly looking up to Congress for favors and gratuities  (Belz).

It can be inferred here that Hayne was trying to state that states, especially the new ones being created in the west, should not be too dependent on Washington for their needs but rather be self-sufficient and take the initiative in pursuing what was for their best interests.  It is also worth noting that Hayne made use of the word subjection which could be loosely interpreted as subjugation should one subscribe to the same stand as Hayne.  It was quite clear Hayne and his ilk were batting for and asserting the rights of the states to exercise their sovereignty, in this case, they should be the ones to settle the (current) issue on their own.

From the eyes of those with an opposing position to Hayne, it appeared apparent that he was trying to win over the western states to their camp.  At that time, the United States was already at the state of expanding westward.  As these western territories were being rapidly populated by settlers from the east, they eventually became part of the Union and if one were to scrutinize Haynes speech, he was currying the favor of his colleagues from these states to be on their side.  This was something that was not lost to Webster when his turn came to speak out.  Although he referred to Hayne as a gentleman, he was quick to make a rebuttal of the arguments made by Hayne.  For one, he somehow too offense on the way Hayne rebuked the east (northeastern states), calling them obnoxious when he said that Hayne, has yet recited the indictment against us, with the air and tone of a public prosecutor. He has summoned us to plead on our arraignment and he tells us we are charged with the crime of a narrow and selfish policy of endeavoring to restrain emigration to the West, and, having that object in view, of maintaining a steady opposition to Western measures and Western interests  (Belz).

Webster, being a skilled orator had somehow managed to bait Hayne into reacting the way he expected him to when he raised the dangers of consolidation which appeared to be an anathema to those who espoused the sovereignty of the states.  It can be inferred here that Hayne and his associates feared an encroachment of the rights of the states.  One must also take into account that disposition of lands was not the only issue that concerned the issue of sovereignty.  This issue also affected another raging issue that even the Constitutional Convention could not resolve  slavery.  Looking at the issue, it would appear that the southern senators were trying to win over their colleagues in the west in what they hoped would be a long-term coalition against the northeastern states on the issue of slavery where the practice was abolished.  They feared that consolidation would require the imposition of abolition in the southern states which were not so keen in letting go of the practice.  It was apparent here that there was a much deeper agenda in the minds of the southern states when they reacted to the issue of federal lands in the new states in the west.  They were hoping to extend their influence in these new states.  Hayne brought this up in his second speech before the Senate, citing this issue was dividing the Union as there were states that practiced slavery and there were those that did not.  He went further yto justify the practice by saying

If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands. Finding our lot cast among a people, whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty. We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty. We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfill the high trust which had developed upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery and ruin throughout the land (Belz).

By examining this line, it can be inferred that Hayne, speaking in behalf of the slave-owning people of the South, was justifying the practice of slavery, going so far to even say that as slave owners, they were doing a great service to the negroes by caring for them instead of leaving them in a wretched, pathetic state they were when they were first acquired and even said that they could not be sent back to where they came from for it would be committing a great disservice to them.  His position stated that the states had to right to interpose if Washington would threaten their (state) rights, particularly on this issue.  Webster made a riposte in his second speech where he stated that I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political (Belz).  He even went so far to go back to make use of history of how the trend toward slavery was heading.  But it was quite apparent that Webster was speaking for the rest of the northern states on the issue of slavery although he made his personal stand very clear.

All in all, the debate between Webster and Hayne underscored one of the nagging issues that was still pervading in the United States at the time which was the clash of sovereignty between that of the federal government in Washington, DC and that of the individual states, especially those which have enjoyed a greater degree of autonomy long before the drafting and ratification of the Constitution.  Webster closed his final address by reaffirming his belief in a strong Union

What is all this worth Nor those other words of delusion and folly, Liberty first, and Union afterwards but every where, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole Heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heartLiberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable (Belz)

The United States was created with a rather unusual structure that called for a strong central government while recognizing the autonomy of the states that comprise it.  It was apparent that those opposed to the domination of Washington were afraid of a return to tyranny which was the reason for breaking away from England.  But the unionists or nationalists, made it clear and even tried to allay these fears that rights would not be compromised though they asserted that (federal) national law supersedes state laws to ensure order and harmony.  The framers of the Constitution saw the folly of having states exercise way too much autonomy which nearly brought them into conflict and this would have led to greater instability.  They also saw that the survival and security of the nation lay in their unity.  In the end, it was proven that Webster was right when the tensions between the state led to the civil war thirty years later which finally resolved this issue once and for all on the supremacy of the federal government.

The Cold War that took place between 1945 and 1991 began after the termination of the World War II. It was the ongoing situation of political clash, military pressure and fiscal competition. The tension was basically between the Soviet Union and the powers of the west, including the US. Even if the key participants in the Cold War never had a direct military contact, they conflicted through military alliances, organizing tactical conservative forces, nuclear weapons contest, surveillance, substitute confrontations, propaganda, and technological antagonism. This was how the Cold War earned its name because the participants did not want to wage war between each other directly. They fought each other indirectly. The Cold War represented an era of relative calm but a lot of international tension. American raised political, military and financial strains against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The Soviet Union was at the time experiencing severe economic stagnation. The Cold War terminated in 1991, after the collapsing of the Soviet Union. The US was left as the dominant military power.

President Trumans involvement in the outbreak of the Cold War
Truman entered power in the United States government on 12th April 1945. He became the president amidst deep concerns about his capability for national or international leadership. This was the same period that the World War II had terminated and all the involved nations needed proper leadership for reconstruction. Truman was inexperienced in foreign affairs and did not know anything about the complex diplomacy of his predecessor, President Roosevelt. During the same period, the expedient Anglo American Soviet Alliance was becoming strained over the Soviet Union acts in Eastern Europe. In his last final year in power, republicans claimed that his administration has given up 15 states and 500 million people to communism. They also claimed that the administration had condemned 20,000 United States citizens to death in Korea. The acts of the United States that assisted in fuelling the cold war were as a result of fear and trepidation. Truman could not accept the fact that a state could exist with principles divergent from democracy and capitalism.

In 1945, President Truman cut off all assistant to the USSR, as a reaction to Stalins policies. In august of the same year, Truman expressed scruple over the world subject to enmity between USSR and the rest of the world. According to Truman, the USSR was not anywhere close to accepting peace. Truman was conscious of Stalins prospects of a second depression in America. He therefore talked about the Soviet Union being enthusiastic to take advantage of the economic depression to extend communism. Truman had taken advantage of the fact that the economy of the Soviet Union was nearly collapsing and knew that Stalin would start seeking financial support. He came to the realization that the United States was in a better bargaining position. Under Trumans authority, the United States had begun to restrict financial aid to the Soviet Union. In 1945, congress reached a decision to deny Lend-Lease for post war construction in Russia.

In 1946, Truman felt tired of baby sitting the USSR. He argued that all they understood was iron fist and strong language. Stalin reacted with a talk emphasising the primary incompatibility between communism and democracy. He also established a new hard line policy. This is where the war of words started.  So as to earn support from the congress to use a lot of finance necessary in rebuilding European economy, Truman argued ideologically that communism thrives in economically deprived regions. His aim was to use scare and anxiety to win the support of the congress.

Truman is described as having employed mole drivers language in addressing the foreign minister of the Soviet Union. This shows that he was not afraid of offending the USSR diplomats. The president was not patient with discussions and compromises concerning the non-communists in the governments of those states that were occupied by the USSR. He referred to Romania and Bulgaria as police states. He also announced that America would not identify governments forced upon any state by the power of any foreign authority, in a speech on 27th October 1945.  

The western democracies under the leadership of the US were trying to terminate the spread of communism and soviet influence. The United States and Britain were unable to stop the influence in Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, they were determined to hinder communist power from gaining control in Western Europe. Even though Truman was not able to avoid soviet influence in Eastern Europe with a lot of bipartisan help from congress, he was able to prevent further growth. The president advocated assistant to Greece and Turkey to prevent communism. He argued that it was supposed to be a policy of the US to help liberated people who are against suppression by armed minorities or foreign influence. The Marshal plan followed this Truman Doctrine. The Marshall plan was a huge financial aid program to rehabilitate Western Europe after the war.

Even if it is clear that President Truman had a hand in the start of the Cold War, he is clearly not the most responsible for the outbreak. There were very many other key players in the outbreak of the Cold War the greatest of all being Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. The Cold War began as a struggle for control between two powers.

Two months following the surrender of Germany, the Big Three gathered at Potsdam to debate the destiny of Germany. The Big Three were Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Harry Truman. By this time, Stalin was an expert revolutionary who had held power in the Soviet Union for almost 20 years. Truman on the other hand had become the president of the United States for barely 3 months. The Soviet Union was out to reconstruct the destroyed economy using the German trade. The US on the other hand was afraid of having to pay the whole price of reconstructing Germany, which would consequently assist in rebuilding the USSR.

At the end of the meeting, they agreed that Germany would be separated into four zones. Britain, France and the US would take the parts on the west, while the USSR took the east. The main problem was which of the powers would control Europe. Everyone thought the control over Europe was a necessary move in avoiding another war the problem was that they all wanted Poland. The United States was determined to make the world a safe democracy. The Soviet Union was against this because it believed that the US was assuming too much power in determining what kinds of governments to be adapted by states. This was the reason behind the final establishment of the iron curtain.

The Soviet Union and the United States had been associates in opposing axis countries. They also had the most prevailing military instruments compared to their peers. However, the two powers conflicted about the occupation of Europe after the World War II. The USSR established the eastern bloc. The bloc had the eastern European nations it took possession of some nations like Soviet Socialist Republic and maintained others as settlement states. Some of these nations were later consolidated as Warsaw Pact. The United States and some western European nations created containment of communism. This was a defensive policy that created coalitions like North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Joseph Stalin is identified as the one most responsible for the commencement of the Cold War. The Soviet Union had the belief that it has a pact with the western democracies that established the Eastern Europe as under its authority. In 1945, Joseph Stalin announced that any liberally appointed government in Poland, Czech Republic and other Eastern Europe nations, would be anti-Soviet and he was not willing to accept that.

The blame of the break out of the Cold War cannot be entirely on Truman because given the experience of the World War II the separation of Europe was unavoidable. The two conflicting sides wanted their economic and political principles to triumph in regions which their military forces had assisted to gain liberation. If the conflicting factions had accepted the two spheres of authority, the Cold War could not have happened. This was however impossible because, the US and Western Europe still remembered what damage Hitler had caused and they viewed Stalin as an equal threat. Following the conflicts between the USSR and the western democracies, Churchill won in that an iron curtain was descended in between Europe.

Another problem that fuelled the commencement of the Cold War that had nothing to do with Truman was atomic weapons. The problem of atomic weapons such as the ones used in Japan posed another problem that separated the once friendly states. During the World War II, Roosevelt and Churchill followed a policy that would enable a nuclear weapons race after the war. Stalin started creating a soviet bomb when he got information about Manhattan Project.

Stalins interest was to protect the kind of soviet that he had created. He was out to protect Stalinism. He talked of being at war with capitalism, a course that the United States was out to protect. To Stalin, this was more important than the good relationship that once existed between the two states. Stalin had a belief that a depression was forthcoming in the capitalist states. He told Djilas of Yugoslavia that another war would reoccur in twenty years or so. He felt that by then the Soviet Union would have recovered and he would be able to enter into the war with his brand of unity.

The United States senate also played a part in the fuelling of the Cold War. This was however in the line of thought of President Truman, but the decision was not entirely his. The senate had of course observed the intentions of Stalin. The United States senate attacked the senate. Senator Wheeler of Montana claimed that the USSR was in the Eastern Europe because it was appeased by the US. The senate announced that the Soviet Union was on the way out and that they would appease it no more.

Churchill was another force that cannot be ignored. He was operating in support for Truman. Churchill talked about the iron curtain that had fallen from Stettin to Triest. Churchill spoke in favour of the US. A Soviet Union newspaper referred to Churchill as a warmonger just like Hitler and Goebbels. Stalin used the speech from Churchill to mobilise people that there was a threat from the western capitalists.

Conclusion
Even though President Truman contributed to the start of the Cold War, it is evident from research that he was not the most responsible for the commencement of the Cold War. In fact, the greatest power behind the start of the Cold War is Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. Another point that comes out clearly is that even without President Truman, the Cold War was inevitable. This is revealed by the fact that the enmity between the United States and the Soviet Union had began in Roosevelts regime, the disagreements due to the atomic weapons, and the fight between capitalists and communists were factors that were out of Trumans control.

For many years, the United States had a policy of isolationism. As George Washington, the first president of United States left office, he warned the American against entering into alliance with the European countries. This policy was in effect until the early 20th century where the United States could no longer stay in isolation. The change in policies however transformed the United States which has since then risen to a world superpower. Today, the United States is the world superpower controlling the world both socially and economically. The greatest achievement towards the American prosperity was however achieved during and after the First World War in the early 20th century. Throughout the 19th century, the United States maintained its traditional isolationism but the change of the policies was prompted by the American Spanish war in the last decade of 19th century (Spiller, p 24).

Towards the end of the 19th century the United States was growing to a major producer of consumer goods and industries had started developing. This created the need for global expansion of markets and supplies of cheap raw materials for the developing industries. This opening up of markets globally in the early 20th century saw the development of prosperous business ventures in America by the end of the First World War. The increased wealth led to development of more industries such as automobile industries, air and rail transport industry, textiles and consumer goods. Abandoning of the traditional isolationist policies led to the prosperity of the United States economically and socially becoming a world superpower.

In the first half of the 19th century, the United States made awkward attempts to deflect the Japanese antagonism against the Chinese attempted to patronize the political leadership in Philippines and used dollar diplomacy in some small countries in North and South America. However, the role of America in the international affairs was exhibited by its intervention in the First World War. Although the diplomatic success in the First World War was minimal, the intervention was prompted by idealistic and unselfish reasons. While the European countries involved themselves in the First World War, most American wanted the United States government to remain neutral in the worlds affairs including the war. The whole nation believed that isolationism policy was in the best interest of the Americans and their country in general. However, most of the citizens approved trade with other nations but rejected the involvement of the United States government in the war. Despite this national consensus, the increasing number of immigrants from Europe especially from France and Britain made the Americans to sympathize with some European countries (Joll, p 104). This led to the United States to reluctantly accept the request by the British to block trade with the Germans. This was based on the argument that the actions of the Germans against other European nations especially in the maritime would in one way or another threaten the stability in the United States. However, this move affected the United States economy negatively since trade between the United States and Germany dropped from over one hundred and sixty million dollars in 1914 to just two million dollars in 1916 but trade with the European allies greatly improving rising from about eight hundred million dollars to over three billion dollars within the same period. The allies depended greatly on the United States for supply of food stuffs, consumer goods, military equipments and weapons (Isolationism, Para 3).

The events of the First World War gave President Wilson and his administration a good opportunity to lead America to social and economic prosperity. The United States was better placed in the international affairs to attain its international and local economic objectives. President Wilson was able to succeed in his bid for League of Nations with his allies. However, his move away from traditional isolationism was challenged by the arrogant republicans. Towards the end of the war, the isolationism reappeared again among the Americans which led to the rejection of the Treaty of Versailles by the Senate. After the end of the war, the United States concentrated on internal changes rather than international affairs.

The event before and during the first world war created opportunities for the United States to develop into a superpower. These events prompted the United States to take steps and defend its interest in the international affairs. The abandonment of the isolationism policies which led to the creation of allies with some European countries opened trade and created wealth which was instrumental in rising up to a world super power. The United States was not affected negatively by its intervention in the war but rather benefited economically from the war. The presidents intervention in the war was based on the idea that there was no freedom in the United States if in the rest of the world there is no freedom. The victory of the allies nation in the First World War is attributed to the intervention of the United States government (Murrin et al, pg 346).

After the war, the United States continued to enjoy economic prosperity despite its return to traditional isolationism policies. The senate rejected the proposal to join the League of Nations which was considered as the predecessor of the current United Nations. It was also followed by immigrants not being freely allowed into the country as it was the case before. Mass production introduced by Ford inspired Americans economy due to mass production at lower cost. The availability of labor and mass consumption led to the development of industries and wealth. The same period saw great development in the field of technology such as development of radios, production of a variety of consumer goods and the invention of commercial air transport in the late 1920s. The mass production as well as mass consumption powered the United States society into the most prosperous society economically in the world (DeLong, Para 2). After president Wilson left office, his successors such as president Hoover made various proposals on the United States international policies due to depression that faced the world economy in the early 1930s (Norton, 785). He also rejected the proposal to cancel the war debts by the allied nations. When President Roosevelt took power after President Hoover, he adopted mixed policies where he negotiated for reduction of tariffs in the international trade while at the same time rejected the proposal to involve his government in stabilization of currencies in the world (Cole, p 24)

In conclusion, the event during the First World War transformed the United States into an economic and social superpower. Before the events of the First World War, the United States was a traditionally isolationism nation but its involvement in the war created opportunities which resulted into its prosperity.  

After the English North American colonies declared their independence in 1776, the conventional interpretation was that there were 13 little sovereigns (states) wielding power over their citizens. So, after winning independence and with a rewritten constitution, the new nation had to unify itself, put its ideals into practice, and form a stable United States. Needless to say, the early national period in America was overfilled with political, economic and social confusion. Little sovereigns found it difficult to harmonize their attitudes toward various aspects of political and social life. Simultaneously, it was the early national period that set the stage for the development of sound political, educational, and social frameworks. Given the relevance of religion and the growing role of education in the early American states and taking into account the impact which opening borders and immigration produced on the speed and quality of the national development, education, religious deregulation, and immigration can be fairly regarded as the three major influences that predetermined what the American states would become.

The Early National Period and religion
Throughout the colonial period in America, religion had been the source of the major controversies and one of the most serious social influences. The revolution and the subsequent formation of the United States shifted the emphasis from religion as the tool of ruling and governance to religion as an effective and never changing companion of the major social, political, and economic processes in America. More importantly, the early national period was associated with the gradual deregulation of religion and with the growing diversity of religious attitudes and beliefs  the diversity, which opened the way to religious inclusiveness and tolerance and predetermined the religious landscape of the modern America.

It is difficult not to agree to Noll in that that period was one in which American evangelicalism became increasingly commercial in its methods. The disestablishment of religion, which occurred in most states around the time of the Revolution but not until the first third of the nineteenth century in parts of New England, opened up a nationwide free marketplace in religion. In other words, it was due to the Revolution and the establishment of the new, independent American state that the deregulation of religious beliefs resulted in the subsequent multiplication of various religious sects and increased church membership.

Whether such multiplication of religions and sects was beneficial for America is difficult to define, but it was clear that since the earliest years of the American nation, such multiplicity have been governing the major social and cultural processes in society, turning religious diversity and tolerance into the basic features of the American democratic vision. In many aspects, what happened to religion during the early national period made churches and sects adjust their principles and standards to those of the conventional marketplace the growing level of religious competition led churches and sects to assume the need for improving their competitiveness and attracting retaining additional members this, however, was not possible without making churches dynamic, adaptable, and growing. As a result, religious deregulation in the early American state not only predetermined the role of religious diversity and tolerance in the system of the democratic beliefs, but also aligned religion with the principles of commercial and industrial expansion, and thus turned religion into an indispensable component of daily life in America.

The early national period and education
Religion alone would have been failed speed up the major democratic processes in America and that was a unique combination of religion and education that helped the first thirteen colonies to gradually expand and grow into a solid political power. Education during the early national period was still in its infancy, but under the influence of Thomas Jefferson education became the national priority for the years ahead in its current state, America votes for universal education and positions education and enlightenment as the basic sources of democratization in the country. Thomas Jefferson is fairly regarded as the founder of the modern elementary education which, for Jefferson, was more important than higher education on the premise that it was safer to have the whole people respectfully enlightened than a few in a high state of science and many in ignorance as in Europe. Jefferson was confident that primary education was the necessary source of enlightenment and set the six objectives for primary education as the tool of growing an informed and a productive voter (1) to provide every citizen with the information needed for the transaction of his own business (2) to enable every citizen to calculate, to express and preserve ideas and accounts in writing (3) to improve citizens morals and faculties through reading (4) to help citizens understand their duties, competencies, and functions (4) to help citizens know their rights and exercise these with order and justice and (6) to support citizens in their desire to observe with intelligence and faithfulness the quality of social relationships, within which they have to exist. As such, universal education became inseparable from the vision of democratic citizenship in America, and it is not surprising that led by those principles, Americans were able to establish one of the most efficient and professional systems of education in the world.

The early national period promoted the need for primary education to be public, accessible, and free those became the basic standards of the modern educational system in America. Although Jeffersons influence on the development and implementation of the current educational networks was not overwhelming, he was the one to change the direction of formal education development in the country. The establishment of the University of Virginia by Jefferson became the starting point in the United States movement to educational and social highs.

The early national period and immigration
Immigration is another major influence, which predetermined what America would become. Immediately after the Revolution, America became accessible and available to thousands of European immigrants, which predetermined its fate as of increasingly diverse society. The colonial years had been marked with the growing restrictions on immigration and the peer control of the colonial authorities over the quality and effectiveness of the labor force, but the Revolution made it possible to ease the existing immigration constraints since 1790, citizenship was available to everyone after two years of residence in the American territory, and only in 1798 was that term extended to require 14 years of residence as the necessary precondition for obtaining the American citizenship. The influence of those trends on the future of America was two-fold on the one hand, by opening its borders to immigrants, the American state became one of the most diverse and the most inclusive societies in the modern world on the other hand, by setting the rigid standards of citizenship, America initially positioned itself as the country that closed itself to low-quality labor force and illegal immigrants. Present day America is well-known for the strict requirements, which it imposes on those, who seek to become its citizens, but everyone who is willing to work for his own benefit and for the benefit of the American nation is welcome to become its part.

Conclusion
The early national period set the stage and conditions for the development and growth in America. In many aspects, the earliest political and social trends determined what America would become in future. It would be fair to assume that religion (or rather, religious deregulation), education, and immigration became the three major source of influence on the speed and direction of the social, economic, political, and cultural development in America. Those three influences created conditions necessary for the American state to become the major carrier of democratization in the whole world.

Eisenhowers plan for D Day was to fully control the seas and the air as such the date of the invasion was initially set for early May however was changed till June due to the fact that more landing crafts were not available. This was to ensure that the allied troops would be able to overwhelm the Germans stationed at Normandy. The plan of attack was to initially bombard the German positions with artillery as well as bombs from the air to ensure than a sea based invasion wouldnt be beset by an entrenched German defense.  Eisenhower set D- Day for June 5th however didnt order the invasion till June the 6th. This was due to the fact that at the time severe weather conditions would make it difficult if not highly improbable to launch an invasion force. Even German commanders at the time relaxed since even they thought that no invasion would come. Eisenhower learning from history did almost exactly what George Washington did when he crossed the frigid Delaware. With weather conditions far from optimal, with heavy raining beating down over the their ships he ordered the largest seaborne invasion in history taking the Germans by surprise.  2700 ships moved into position and on the morning of June the 6 they approached the French coast. The German forces were caught by surprise rather spectacularly when a massive naval barrage and fighters dropping bombs reduced their forces and lowered resistance. One beach though, Omaha was able to escape severe bombardment.

The taking of the 5 beaches
The battle of Sword beach started out with an aerial bombardment of the German beach front defenses and artillery sites, which was followed by a naval bombardment to soften up any remaining German troops. Sword beach was invaded by British and French infantry troops with the goal of taking two locations two German batteries which overlooked the sea and a blockhouse as well as the Casino (not a literal casino).
The targets were successfully taken by French troops over time however the German batteries which were the main goal of the British troops were devoid of guns which were stripped off by the retreating Germans.
The battle of Juno beach consisted of Canadian forces having to face 2 heavy batteries of 155mm guns and 9 medium batteries of 75mm guns. Not only that the Germans were heavily entrenched in concrete fortifications with machine gun artillery. The initial waves that attacked suffered a lot of damage however with the use of tanks the troops were able to successfully penetrate inland and capture the fortifications.

At Gold beach the fighting was equally as intense and the casualties were numerous however this was due to the fact that the same type of tanks used at Juno beach were not immediately available due to delays this of course resulted in numerous casualties until the tanks finally arrived and the troops were able to successfully capture the village on the beach used by the Germans as a makeshift fortification.

The battle of Utah beach was the one which resulted in the least casualties out of all the beach landings due to the fact that it was lightly defended, had few fortifications and was easily taken as a result.

During the battle of Omaha beach the main objective of the Allies was to secure a beachhead which was between Port en Bessin and the Vire River it should have been simple enough however problems besieged the Allies from the start of this particular battle. The land craft missed their targets resulting in problems with formation. The defenses in the area were unexpectedly strong as it turned out Omaha was the most well defended beach that was able to escape a majority of the bombardment from the ships and the planes. resulting in numerous casualties on the American side not only that engineers were also offloaded sometimes with their tools in the wrong area resulting in them getting stuck in the sand which made them sitting ducks for German Artillery. This logistical nightmare resulted in the deaths of some 5,000 men since due to errors with the coordinates as to where to land as soon as the transports hit the beach they were beset by German artillery. However due to the efforts of American troops who were able to take two isolated footholds on the beachhead the subsequent waves were able to take advantage of this and eventually captured the beachhead within 3 days.

Taking of Port du Hoc
At Pointe du Hoc in area four miles west of Omaha Beach, the Germans had erected a fortified position for a coastal battery of six 155-mm howitzers that were seized from the French  four guns were in open emplacements and two were enclosed in cases, with further construction work on cases reported under way in April and May. This battery was one of the most dangerous elements in the German coastal defenses of the assault area. With a 25,000-yard range, the 155s could put fire on the approaches to Omaha Beach and on the transport area of the soldiers.

The Ranger Group, attached to the 116th Infantry and commanded by Lt. Col. James E. Rudder, was given the mission of capturing Pointe du Hoc and neutralizing the dangerous German coastal battery. The Group was made up of two battalions the 2d Rangers, under direct command of Colonel Rudder, and the 5th Rangers, under Lt. Col. Max F. Schneider. Three companies (D, E, and F) of the 2d Battalion were to land from the sea at H Hour and assault the cliff position at Pointe du Hoc. The main Ranger force (5th Battalion and Companies A and B of the 2d) would wait off shore for signal of success, then land at the Point. The Ranger Group would then move inland, cut the coastal highway connecting Grandcamp and Vierville, and await the arrival of the 116th Infantry from Vierville before pushing west toward Grandcamp and Maisy.

The soldiers were tasked to scale a 30 meter cliff wall using nothing but ropes and ladders and then subsequently destroy  the German coastal defense guns which were thought to target the Omaha and Utah landing areas. The commanders of the Ranger group did not know at the time that the guns had been moved before the attack would take place as such they had to go further inland to locate them. They were successful in their missions and were able to destroy the guns however the fortifications in the area were vital positions since a single German observer in the area could have radioed in the positions of targets on the beaches for German artillery to aim at. The result was that the Rangers had to dig themselves in and capture the fortifications and hold the positions to ensure that no one could use them. The troops stationed there had to fight for two straight days to hold the position losing a majority of the force however they were successful and prevented any German spotters from using the location to call down artillery on the arriving troops and ships.

101st and 82nd  Airborne Drops
On June 5-6, 1944, the paratroopers of the 82nds three parachute infantry regiments and reinforced glider infantry regiment boarded hundreds of transport planes and gliders and, began the largest airborne assault in history. They were among the first soldiers to fight in Normandy, France.

The division dropped behind Utah Beach, Normandy, France between Ste Mere-Eglise and Carentan on June 6th, 1944. They were reinforced by the 325th GIR the next day. The division remained under strong German pressure along the Merderit River. Eventually, the 325th GIR crossed the river to secure a bridgehead at La Fiere on June 9th. It was during this action that Pfc Charles N. DeGlopper single-handedly defended his platoons position and subsequently was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism.

The next day the 505th PIR captured Montebourg Station and on June 12th the 508th PIR crossed the Douve at Beuzeville-la-Bastille and reached Baupt. They established a bridgehead at Pont lAbbe on June 19th. The division then attacked down the west coast of the Cotentin Peninsula and captured Hill 131 on July 3rd. The following day the 82nd seized Hill 95 overlooking La Haye-du-Puits.

By the time the All-American Division was pulled back to England on July 13, 1944, General James M Gavinit had seen 33 days of bloody combat and suffered 5,245 paratroopers killed, wounded or missing.

The US 101st Airborne Divisions mission was to secure four exits across the marshland near the coast for the invading US 4th Infantry Division at Utah beach.  These causeways needed to be secured because on each side of the exits, it was flooded several feet deep in places.  The 101st also were tasked to destroy two bridges over the Douve and to capture the La Barquette lock just north of Carentan.  The lock controlled the water height of the flooded areas and it was essential that it be captured.

It was in November 1943 when the allied troops finally landed in Morocco and Algeria for the operation torch. These landings combined with the lieutenant general Bernard Montgomerys triumph during the Second Battle of El Alamein positioned Italian and German troops in Libya and Tunisia in a shaky state. In an attempt to avert the forces which were under Field Marshal Erwin Rommel from being eliminated, backups were immediately transferred from Sicily to Tunisia. On November 8, 1942, the military forces of the United States and United Kingdom initiated an operation against the French North Africa particularly the French-controlled territories in Morocco and Algeria. The landing, which was referred to as Torch, mirrored the consequences of long, contentious disagreements between American and British planners regarding the prospected course of an Allied strategy. The arguments were at last stilled by the intercession of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the American president. In a direct and indirect logic, the impact of Operation Torch was gigantic on the course of Anglo-American strategy throughout the rest of the war it could have become the most imperative strategic resolution that the Allied leaders would make. Actually this operation inevitably deferred the landing in France till 1944 though at the same time it also allowed United States to finish the mobilization of its huge manpower and industrial resources for the titanic air and ground battles that described the 1944 Allied campaigns.

The onset of the war
The fighting in Kasserine Pass started in 1942, December when the Tunisia -German commander- Jurgen Von Arnim of the German V Panzer Army initiated an attack west as an effort towards linking up with the army of Rommel which was retreating from southern Tunisia and Libya. Arnims goal was to control Dorsale which is a mountain range is extending southwards from Tunis. In so doing, Arnim would also be able to rule over the mountain passes which restricted movement via east of Dorsale. If he accomplished this, Arnim would push Eisenhower to using passes like the pass at Kasserine. Kasserine pass used to be further south. As a result, the Eisenhowers men would be pushed further from their supplies and at the same time let Rommel and Arnim combine together their forces. Theoretically, the north Africa Axis forces should have gone at a loss mainly due to the inability of Germans to sufficiently supply their individual forces. However, they had a big advantage in comparison to the Allies since they had a command structure which was much unified it was absolutely clear who was in command of German forces in Tunisia. However, the Allies were in a total mess

Theoretically, Eisenhower had total power over the Allied forces. Conversely, he was stationed in Algiers which is 400 miles further from the battle front in Tunisia. Eisenhower selected Major-General Lucien Truscott as his area representative. Truscott also stationed himself at Constantine, another 200 miles away from the forefront. The real daily command was done by General Sir Kenneth Anderson (Lieutenant), the commander of the first British Army. Anderson faced great difficulty. A fraction of his force- the Nineteenth French Corps headed by Koeltz, could only take his orders from a commanding officer of French forces, General Alphonse Juin. Juin in turn got his instructions from General Henri Giraud. The French were still bitter about the attack by the British on Mers el Kbir. Attempting to calm down the French, Anderson Kenneth had wished to give them sectors in Tunisia save for the circumstances in the area which did not permit him to accomplish this. Andersons condition worsened because he never went along with the superior American commanding officers attached to his own force. They found him to be aloof and cold. The II United States Corps was headed by Major General Lloyd Fredendall. He had an individual hate for Anderson Kenneth and he had some confidence in the Koeltzs men.

On January 1943, Arnim invaded the French places with huge success. Eisenhower decided to remove the French troops to places in the backside and substitute them with lately arrived troops from American. Prior to this, Arnim hit again on 30th January and assaulted more French troops and succeeded equally. By February 1943, he had acquired his bridgehead in Tunisia and at the same time gave Rommel a protected enclave. By February, Arnim authorized approximately 100,000 men, and Rommel had about 70,000 men within his charge. In entirety, the Allies had approximately 150,000 men in the entire region.

On 4th February, Rommel recommended to Arnim that he ought to carry on with his hostile attacks on the Allies whereas Arnim would do likewise further south. During this time, the Nazi Germany had been shocked by the surrender of German VI Army at Stalingrad. Subsequently a chief conquest in North Africa could go far in restoring this defeat. Furthermore, following a withdrawal in North Africa, a triumph would reinstate Rommels reputation, particularly because he had realized that he would be taken back to Germany due to ill-health. Then all of a sudden, and in a way not fully known still, Allied acumen informed Anderson that they were precisely aware of what Rommel and Arnim were planning to do, a main assail against the French which could afterwards let them to attack the British. Therefore, the French were commanded to pull out their men from their positions. This further spoiled Anglo-French military relationship since Koeltz never wanted to withdraw his men before engaging in a fight.

On February 14th, the Germans attacked during a sandstorm. They quickly destroyed forty four American tanks, twenty six artillery guns and twenty two trucks. Anderson believed that the attack was a diversion to disguise an attack further north. Ironically, both Anderson and Arnim believed that any decisive battle would be fought much nearer along the coast of Tunisia, yet here they were fighting inland. They had to therefore initiate orders and troops to attack from the coast of Tunisia.

On 15th February, the Americans initiated a retaliate attack. By 17th February, they had already lost ninety eight more tanks, fifty seven semi tanks in addition to twenty nine artillery guns. While they withdrew, Americans on the other hand destroyed very important supplies except that the Germans were able to acquire critical five thousand gallons of aviation fuel in total. Rommel was instructed to attack Le Kef which was sixty miles north of Kasserine Pass. So as to invade this region, he was forced to move his troops via the Kasserine pass. General Alexander was allocated the authority over Andersons first Army along with Montgomerys eighth Army. General Alexander wobbled at the disorder he found in all regions that Allies controlled. He merely ordered for no withdrawals from whichever positions.

On 18th February, there was slight action on the frontage and this permitted the Allies to tense up their defenses. The coming of the ninth Artillery Division bolstered the morale in a great way. Between 19th and 22nd February, Rommel attempted to attain his goal - Le Kef. Nevertheless, he recognized that he had no means to initiate a consequential attack. Therefore, on   February 22nd Rommel authorized for the attack to be cancelled. His chief setback was the continuous lack of supply because men had already been withdrawn from the North of Africa to battle in Russian campaign. This had angered the Desert Fox and he pulled out from Kasserine Pass without the knowledge of the Allies who failed to pursue his retreat. Therefore, by 25th February the Kasserine Pass was under the control of the Allies. The Germans by now had been shoved back towards Eastern Dorsale.

Rommel had achieved a little elbow space in Tunisia, but he already had startled every Allied command centers inNorth Africa and taught them a good deal as regards to the art of battle. Considerable changes in preparation, doctrine, organization and weapons were as a result of this war.

The winners and losers
The battle in the Kasserine Pass eventually cost the Germans a total of 2,000 men in addition to approximately 10, 000 Allied soldiers, and 6,500 of who were Americans. Whereas the entire catastrophe had been forestalled, the Battle of Kasserine Pass was a very humiliating defeat to the United States forces. Their major foremost clash with Germans, the fight demonstrated an enemy dominance in practice and paraphernalia and exposed numerous faults in the American power structure and policy. After the battle, Rommel sacked American troops on the grounds of being ineffective and felt they did offer a threat to his command.