American History

1A. The Kansas-Nebraska Act has been called the most significant law ever enacted by the US Congress because it subjected slavery to popular sovereignty. Senator Stephen Douglas wanted to allow settlers to decide whether to allow slavery in the newly established territories of Kansas and Nebraska.

1B. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska (hence from the name of the law), repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and allow settlers to determine decide the future of slavery in the new territories.

1C. The law was initially designed to create opportunities for Mideastern Transcontinental Railroad. However, there was always the problem with popular sovereignty. So, to resolve this issue additional features were added to the proposed law. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 would have to be repealed, and settlers would be allowed to decide the future of slavery in those territories. Sen. Douglas hoped that this new law would ease the tensions between the North and the South.

1D. Opponents denounced the law as a concession to slave power of the South. The Republican Party launched a furious campaign aimed to stop the expansion of slavery. In the long-run, the law divided the nation and engulfed it in a future civil war. The act itself repealed the Compromise of 1850. The turmoil over the act split both the Democratic and Know Nothing parties and gave rise to the Republican Party.

2A. The major goal of the Union was to end the rebellion in a matter of 90 days. The Confederate capital, Richmond, would be captured in a lightning campaign. The major goal of the Confederate was to force the Union to negotiate for peace terms. The peace terms would recognize the Confederacy as an independent state.

2B. The war had three major theaters eastern theater (1861-1863), western theater (1861-1863), and the trans-Mississippi theater 1861-1865.

2C. In a strategic sense, despite being a tactical draw, Antietam maybe considered a turning point of the war because it ended Lees strategic initiative and allowed Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

2D. The battle forced Lee to adopt a defensive stance in his campaigns against the North. It enabled Union forces to consolidate both manpower and resources for a final campaign against the South.

2E. The battle of Gettysburg ended Lee attempts to invade the North. It also weakened his numerically inferior forces. The battle of Vicksburg had an important logistic outcome. Control of the Vicksburg area would give logistic control over the Mississippi region. The Confederates lost the battle, and hence the battle for the Mississippi region.

2F. Former Union General McClellan was running against President Lincoln on a platform of peace in the 1864 election. Part of the Democratic platform called for a peace agreement with the South. The capture of Atlanta and Hoods burning of military facilities were covered by Northern press. This significantly boosted Northern morale. In effect, Lincoln won by a large margin.

3A. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia between 1795 and 1800. In 1830, his owners took him to Missouri. Two years later, Major John Emerson of the US Army purchased Scott. After some years, Emerson died. His wife took possession of Scott. Scott wanted to purchase his freedom but Emersons wife refused. A series of lawsuits were filed in the court the first being against Emersons wife and the second against John Sanford, the executor of John Emersons estate.

3B. The Court ruled that people of African descent imported into the country and held as slaves, or their descendants (whether slaves or not), were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also ruled that the US Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The broadness of the decision was a response to growing cynicism over the issue of slavery. The court apparently was afraid of a major political storm should the decision be specific.

3C. The decision sent shockwaves throughout the nation. Opponents of slavery argued that the courts decision was a Southern propaganda  that the court gave in to pressures from slaveholders. Some argued that the court simply became a propagandist of human slavery. The decision severely divided the nation  an event which led to the Civil War.

The nineteenth century in America marked an era on the policing of race and racial boundaries. This involved giving of legal definition to the borders of belonging, an event that brought about the racial priviledging and the racial excursion operation in the American law and racial inequality. Slavery was a touch stone measure of the freedom and denied the right of self ownership and personhood. This led to a strong anti slavery campaign and apparently, some of the slaves were able to acquire property.

The main theme of my essay is that the United States constitution was formed to establish the whites general welfare and more so frustrate any other party related to the colored population in the creation of boundaries. The colony had united its conflicting interests and diverse sentiments through the use of compromises and concession to attain its common goal for the safety and welfare against the enemies.

Unfortunately, the same very protection of the citizens right, in a way turned into a red hot sword to the gender differences of the same country. There was the limitation of legal rights and a parallel legal working status between the working class white men and other racial group and women.

But the constitution is meant for the equal representation, whereby the citizens have the right to understanding each and every section, article and a clause in it. Without this consideration the adopters of the same constitution uncertainly never raised a voice against it immediately.

The northern white women worked hard to achieve racial and gender equality, but their efforts and connections turned problematic. This was after the civil war during the reconstruction that determined a lot on the status of the working people and the labor movements.

The ownership of property and the property rights law on property control was greatly determined by the race and citizenship. Some policy makers were against the legalizing of slavery due to its foul and monstrous character.  But some denied it saying what the concessions and the compromises were known when the compact was framed and adopted relating to the prosecution of the foreign slave trade for twenty years to the allowance of the slave representation in the Congress, to the hunting of fugitives slaves, and to the suppression of the domestic insurrections for the special benefit of the slave states. (Garrison W. The United States Constitution p303).

The recapture of slaves law was passed immediately after the adoption of the constitution. This led to the elimination of the words slaves and slavery in the constitution to avoid the protection of the slave system whereas those that were used were used very intelligently. Really if slave trade was a humane task, do you think there was the need to use was there the need to use equivocal and collusive phraseology Was it not a means to cover up the misfits and help meet the disagreeable necessity The law denounced the white men as the self owning individuals not even the women unless through marriage and the covertures law.  The husbands were presumed as the providers by law and had the rights to their wives, labor and persons. Women were excluded from certain professions like law and medicine and they were maintained as white mens domain.

The laws on racial boundaries on land ownership were even tightened in the North and West at the end of the nineteenth century. African Americans were bared from settling in the South under strict regulations. The miscegenation laws, the covenant laws and the alien land laws had a very great impact on this.
The north was fighting for the anti slavery laws that would have lead to the abolition of slavery in the south. But there was fear of the civil war. This is cheerfully granted but are these Anti Slavery interpreters ready for a civil war, as the inevitable result of their construction of the constitution (Garrison W. The United States Constitutionp306). What case have they to believe that a civil would not occur immediately shaking the union to its foundation.

This led to the formation of the Anti Slavery Movement to fight for the accomplishment of the rights.  This to date conveys the present difference in the state of the North and the South. The movement objective was to fight the ages of oppression and ill hearted selfishness against the colored race. In the name of respecting the forefathers and their ways some would argue the enslavement of the colored race as a begotten right. Not considering that the generation change and development as the projection to future of the country. But many were also against this.

And the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches stood firm behind the movement terming it as against the laws of God as well as the laws of man. In1780 the denomination said The conference acknowledged that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man and nature, and hurtful to society- contrary to the dictates of conscience, and true religion, and doing to others that we would not they should do unto us. (Douglas F.Anti slavery Movement p11).

A revolution emanates from the rule of majority. The intense and expeditious campaign by he Anti slavery movement sects which consisted of four divisions, i.e. The Garrisons, the Anti Garrisons, The Free Soil Party and the Liberal Party,  led to the acceptance of the Fugitive Slave Bill that made a positive change on the anti slavery movement.

The society was faulty and the writer says Its chief energies are expended in confirming the opinion that the United States constitution is, and was, intended to be a slave-holding instrument- thus piling up, between the slave and his freedom, the huge work of the abolition of the government, as an indispensable condition to emancipation. (Douglas F.Anti slavery Movement p33). This wonderful amendment denounced the degraded colored race and imposed some rights though not fully but worth a start.

The Mississippi Act of law represented the amendment for the freed men. In this act, it consisted of many sections of rights for the group that included the freed men free Negroes and mullattoes. Among the acts involved acquired judicial rights and state equality and the right to the ownership of land and property in some of the states. Though, they had no power to lease or rent the property unless in the incorporated authorities. There was the right to inter marry but not with the whites, using the same rules as the white men. This was in the fear that they might use the land to benefit the non citizens. This was the fight to retain the country resources. Its the difference between perceived freedom and denounced freedom where ones efforts are turned disability. They were allowed to take part in lawful employment with the documentation with the county authority. This would in turn take their responsibility to obey the labor laws and liability to face court case in case of failure since their tenure of employment was secured.

There were also the act to regulate the relation between the master and apprentice as related to the freed man. This involved the reporting of any freed person to the counties and protection of the minors by the master. The master had the right to recapture any of the minors who leave the employment and take him to a court of law and he never had the right to transact the masters property.  Concurrently, as he works he had the right to get a child. These were major steps to attaining equal rights with the whites but the economical differences were the inclusive slavery.

The constitution amendment was progressive and the colored race turned to be assets in the economy engine. Each and every citizen was to participate in the growth of the country and having realized this, the vagrants laws of the states were also amended where all vagrants were to be charged and imprisoned. The freed men were also to take part in the paying of the taxes and live a responsible live under employment. All the cases involving justices of the peace in the counties were being handled by the mayors and they had the power to try all the vagrants and to take them to a court of law.

All the businesses that were against the morals were also deemed as vagrants by this law. The freed men were deemed with the full responsibilities of the white men including caring for their families. Any person feeling himself or herself aggrieved by judgment of any justice of the peace, mayor, or alderman in cases arising under this act, may within five days appeal to the next term of the county court of the proper county, upon giving bond and security in a sum not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred and fifty dollars, conditioned to appear and prosecute said appeal, and abide by the judgment of the county court and said appeal shall be tried de novo in the county court, and the decision of the said court shall be final. (Black codes of Mississippi 6).

This gave each and everybody an equal chance to defend his rights.

The United States mining laws consisted of local states laws. The California state and other states then composed of the many counties that were governed at the county offices by a team of elected members. The miners in this state had a working constitution that governed the different counties and their life in the mining industry.

All then miners actively participated in the decision making of the counties through the direct election of their representatives to the county. The miners used to hold a meeting and choose leaders that would then set up specific county laws. Among these included, any citizen of the country had the chance to become a member of mining under the laws and also consisted of rules and regulations of taking a claim on the ground for all the mining counties. It also consisted of laws relating to water. They also contained rules on the relation between the miners. No representation by another party once each person is absent. Pertaining sickness it was dictatorship whereby incase on was sick this would have resulted to his absentees and there was no one who had the right to represent him. Quartz miners of the Sacramento County also had the same rules as the New York miners. Each U.S citizen was entitled to one claim of the quartz. In Sierra County the holders of the claims were American citizen and those who possessed the mining tax permits. This was a greater advantage for the foreigners. The hard working discoverers were entitled to a bonus claim in many of the counties.

In conclusion, these results of legal and extra legal violence that were evident in the century were essential in enforcing the borders of belonging. In the south in particular, the safe guarding of the white mens claims of the property and the nation space as a whole was through the use of violence. This was all the fight for the colored race where the whites short-changed their efforts to disabilities.

Europeans have been part of the history of America since the 15th century when Spanish explorer, Christopher Columbus, discovered the Americas, paving way for other Europeans to follow. England colonized the United States for the next several centuries. In these texts, Galloway and Paine argue for and against Englands colonization of the U.S. as the latter comes to declare her independence.

According to Galloway, the United States relied on England for protection. The British therefore argued that they had the right to maintain dominance over the United States. In return, the United States was obligated to swear allegiance to Britain. Paine faults Galloway, observing that the U.S. was home to European immigrants from not just Britain, but from the entire continent. According to Paine, Britain was cannibalizing its young one.

These two texts appear towards the end of British colonial hold on the United States and Britain finds herself having to defend the colonial policy against an American who sees Britain as the enemy who has no moral right to be in the United States. Galloway defends Britains dominance by arguing that because Britain protects the colony, then it follows that the colony cannot declare independence.

Although British emigrants outnumbered immigrants from other European countries, America was inhabited by immigrants from all over Europe. Britains interest in America had little to do with protecting the colony. Britain was more interested in exploiting resources found in America. Britain however attempted to justify its colonization of America even as it became clear that it was time for colonialist to leave America. The colonizeds views are in direct opposition to the colonizers views of the justification for colonization, and urgent need to end the master-slave relationship.

PROLOGUE
Oppenheimer makes a reference to the Bhagavad Gitas words on death when he speaks of the explosion of the first atom bomb in the New Mexican Desert in 1945. The same words could be remembered by the Spanish ships that reached the Mexico in 1492 to explore the New Lands. Though these two instances are spoken of as periods of crowning glory for the technology age, they were at the same time, moments that laid the ground for the worst form of human destructiveness. Hispaniola and Hiroshima were the products of destruction.

When the Europeans contacted the outside world, there always was a bloodbath following after which only very few of the natives were left alive. The greatest genocide though was that of the native Indians at the hand of the invading Europeans. The current statistics of the post  Columbian holocaust declares that atrocities committed against the natives of the New Lands were far greater than those often stated in general history. The writings of the Spanish adventurers themselves are testimony to the brutalities they committed on the natives. One Mayan woman was even thrown to the dogs because she refused to indulge sexually with the invaders (pg.xi). Killing the women and children was merely a sport for the invaders (pg.xi). In the post  Columbian America, only a few of the natives remained after the carnage so that their race did not go extinct. It is true that epidemics and plagues caused due to infectious diseases put an end to the lives of natives. At the same time, it is cannot be ignored that the brutality of the invaders did exist immensely.

Attempts are made to erase all the blame that must necessarily fall on the invaders for the carnage on the natives. This book tends to study cases of the racist carnages that occurred from 15th century Hispaniola to 19th century California and to find out the underlying theme and culture behind this wild attitude of the invaders. The need to study this history, as a historian of the Jewish Holocaust put it, is not merely so that we pay homage to the dead, but also that so that we do not see a repetition of the same tomorrow due to our own ignorance and negligence of the holocaust history behind us (pg.xiii). Columbus is being praised for his conquests in media today, but the carnage that his voyages resulted in should not be ignored, so that carnages like those of yesteryears being committed today can be stopped. Such carnages do occur even today as was witnessed in Guatemala in 1986. Killings of a lesser degree have occurred in the Vietnamese War, the Korean War, the Civil War. The natives always resisted the attacks of the invaders to a degree that even amazed the invaders themselves. In this book we tend to look into the magnitude of the destruction caused by these carnages.

The following chapters explore the native civilization in comparison to the invaders to the New Lands. Did they have their own cultures before those from the New Lands supposedly civilized them Or was there ever a need for them to be civilized by the invaders Did the invaders actually need to be civilized by these natives who were already living on the peak of civilization

THE MAGNIFICANCE OF THE CULTURE OF THE CITIES OF THE NATIVES IN THE PRE-COLUMBIAN ERA
     
BEFORE COLUMBUS
Before the Spanish conquest, the Lake of Moon in the Valley of Mexico had many populations of people in its various towns and cities. Trade and commercial activity ran high, and the landscape and creative town planning was unbelievingly impressive. The Spanish invaders were amazed by Tenochtitlan, the central city of the Aztecs and surrounding Iztapalapa.

The invaders were appalled by landscape, the volcanoes with the mountains and volcanoes, the creative abilities of the inhabitants, and construction of the city. Public works and the sanitation system of the city were flawless and accurate. The network of canals running through the city resembled Venice, but the floating gardens were matchless. Trade and commerce in the Great Market of the city was uncomparable. However, the eyes of the invaders were on the citys Gold mines that resulted in the destruction of these cities by 1492  starting from the ruin of Hispanolia and extending to Tenochtitlan and spreading further.        

The natives were emigrants from Berengia, which city the melting glaciers drowned and the migrants settled in Hispanolia and Tenochtitlan in early 70,000 B.C(pg.11). Unlike popular belief, the natives were cultured and civilized long before the Old World. Mere cultural conceit hides this truth from the public eye and history being taught today. The history and cultural thickness of these civilizations were distorted in the greedy search of the invaders for gold mines(pg.13) beside the attempt to rationalize colonial conquests. The colonist is portrayed as benevolent arm of the Holy amidst the barbarian natives who allegedly have no past.

The natives of America have a long civilization and history than Europe, for eg., the Adena culture of 500 B.C. People of these cities were hunters and farmers, nomads who lived in iglus. Yet their well organized culture speaks of respect for the elderly, excellent social networking and political makeup. Women were well valued. Pottery, jewelry, carpentry, agriculture, and fisheries flourished. Homes of chieftains were exquisite. In fact, their political thinking had a great impact on European social mind that logic suggests that it was the Indians who civilized the Europeans and not vice-versa. Women suffrage, and equality were contributions to the American Constitution by these native Indians. The natives regard for nurturing children and for the poor impacted the European mind(pg.32). Their architectural masterpieces were also brought to ruins by the invaders.

The Olmec culture also thrived with trade activity. Teotihuacan with its great pyramids and artworks monuments, town planning and writing methods, trade and commerce of the Maya culture and the Toltecs and the Mixtecs were other awe inspiring cultures. Central and South American cultures too was no less civilized. The Inca Empire also had similar impressive trade, commerce and town planning, palaces with magnificent masonry and social organization that explorers earmarked them as model cities. The Cuzco civilization, the Awaraks and Amazon lowlands also had such ancient cultures of well organized people who lived in peace and amity with their neighbours, courteous and affectionate and hospitable to strangers from other lands. Pre-Columbian era was disease free.

The native peoples of America before the Columbian conquest lived with their cultural diversity and speaking in many tongues but living in peace and cordially.

THE POST COLUMBIAN ERA AND THE IMPACT OF THE INVADERS ON THE NATIVE CULTURE AND CIVILISATION.

Spain, Switzerland and France in the 14th and 15th centuries were attacked by plague and famine. Public health suffered, and diseases, rebellions, food riots, violence, witchcraft, torture and murder thrived (pg.62). During these dark days that Columbus set sail on his first voyage from the City of Palos, Spain in 1942 (pg.62), along with deported Jews to the New Lands mistaking them as areas around the Indian Sea. Natives were unchristian pagans who needed Christian transformation the Spanish invaders prided in the same, which made the natives detest Jesus. These peaceful natives were made to read a declaration they never understood that subjected them to the brutal Christian rule.

Columbuss second voyage to Hispaniola in1949 to build his town Isabela (pg.68). On arrival there, disease broke out among the Spaniards and spread to the natives who died in huge numbers though history blames the natives for the plague. However, Columbus focused on the goldmines. The natives were forced to give gold as a tax for staying alive. These slaughters have been recorded as brutal and merciless even killing little children (pg.71, 72). The invasions spread to the Caribbean Islands and the Bahamas, Central America and Mexico and the Aztec Tenochtitlian. The Spanish used treachery and the divide and rule policy to destroy the city and left behind the small pox virus to annihilate it.  Dogging and murderous attacks on women were done in order to terrorize the natives. Native rituals were condemned. Birth rates of the depressed natives declined to extinction. Peru and Chile, the Andeans, the Brazilians and the Mayas and the Incas were massacred.
           
Aguirres expeditions of Peru were equally brutal. At this time, the English also began racist reactions to the native Irishmen. In fact, the English wanted to conquer the beautiful lands occupied by the Irish in the pretext of civilizing the Irish modeling on the Spanish holocaust of native Indians (pg.99). While English expeditions reached the New World, the Spanish were terrorising Florida, Georgia, Virginia and beyond to capture the Indians to labour as slaves in the Bahamas. The measles epidemic spread during this time and English men who attempted help natives were killed(pg.105). George Percy sent a brutal campaign to subdue the Indians. The British used the Bible verses to justify their actions (pg.111). Captain John Endicotts army proudly destroyed the Block Islands (pg.113). Rhode Island that was neutral was also pulled into attacks (pg.118).

Modern warfare also only exhibits this European craze for killings like the attack of Nagasaki and Hiroshima of Japan. Even today, American invaders believe that natives need elimination(pg.120).The genocides today have lessed native population in North and South Carolina. The Cherokee population, the Nootka Indian Village in 1972, tribal populations in Lower Mississipi and Eastern Colorado in 1864, Santa Barbara and California have been driven off their land by the whites brutally. When the Indian adults attempt to use courts to give them justice, will they ever get it (pg.145)

GENOCIDE
These stories of genocide are indeed stories that tell of 4 centuries of American invaders attacking, conquering and destroying the native innocent Indians, a history that should not be turned a blind eye to.

The issue on slavery has long been the cause of contention amongst different groups of people especially during the African American Civil Rights Movement. It was during the 17th century when the British colonizers brought the first Africans at Virginia, North America and that instigated the vast expansion of slavery in the Americas. For a very long time, from this period up to the present, African Americans have fought hard for their freedom and for social equality. Slavery brought along with it grave conditions to the African Americans. These people faced discrimination and injustice that led numerous states to secession and people to the numerous rebellions (e.g. The 1676 Bacons Rebellion, New York Slave Revolt of 1712, The 1739 Stono Rebellion, and The 1831 Nat Turners Rebellion). Many have lost their lives in pursuit of the radical transformation in the society.

Amidst the struggles and rebellion of the oppressed African Americans, feted and important figures emerged from them. The collective effort of these people was seen and bore fruit their voices echoed and then heard at the halls of the policy-making bodies. Significant events in the history of African Americans fight for freedom since 1863 include the following focal points The Emancipation Proclamation (1863), Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream (1963), and Barack Obamas Acceptance Speech (2008).

Emancipation Proclamation (1863)
The Emancipation Proclamation issued on January 1, 1863 by the then U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared that all slaves in the ten states who have declared their secession from The Union shall be free (1863). These states include Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. The Proclamation could also have been aimed to address the progression of the American Civil War. In line with this, the Proclamation was to protect The Union and carry on with its obligations.

The Proclamation did not free all slaves. Border states that were against the Union and the southern states that were already controlled by the Union were exempted from the Proclamation. Nonetheless, it had granted freedom to over three million slaves in the ten states formerly members of the Confederate States of America (CSA). Slavery was brought to end when the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1865.  

Martin Luther Kings I Have a Dream Speech (1963)
On August 28, 1963, at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., the I Have a Dream speech was addressed to over two hundred thousand people who were supporters of the Civil Rights Movement. King used anaphora, metaphors, and allusions to give emphasis and show credibility in his speech. He gave a historical background of the condition of the African Americans in the American society since the Emancipation Proclamation. A hundred years had passed and the African Americans are still suffering from the discrimination in the very society where they were declared free. Freedom was not yet completely at hand. King cited what his dreams were and two of them are the following

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

Racial equality and impartiality were his ambition for them and for the coming generation. He strongly believes that that day will come.

Barack Obamas Acceptance Speech (2008)
After winning the Presidential race for the White House, U.S. President Barack Obama gave his victory speech at a rally in Grant Park in Chicago, Illinois on the 5th November 2008. In his speech, he gave his warm thanks to all the people who have appointed him in his current position he gave compliment to the efforts of Senator McCain, his competitor and then he gave a brief overview of the problems that the current administration is facing two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century (2008).

He looked back into the past, into the political bigotry and tyranny of the times. Looking into the time when people were discriminated by their sex and color. President Obama set the 106 years old Ann Nixon Cooper as a good example of someone who has came from a long way and then found hope. And when she saw it, she grabbed it. She stood up and made her voice heard through her ballot.

Changes in Racial Equality Since 1863
In the aforementioned declarations given by three distinguished people during the critical times in the timeline of trying to end up discrimination and injustice towards African Americans, struggles and progress were seen. Efforts made by these three people have created an impact towards the state of mind and conditions of the African Americans who were the foremost people affected in these series of events. There had been tremendous changes that have happened since 1863. The current standing of African Americans in the social and political facet has been better since.  The current president of the United States is Barack H. Obama, the first African American to hold the position. Although there has been growth in the number of African Americans taking part in the government, education, and employment, there still is insufficiency in the number of representatives in these institutions.

The fight for racial equality has come a long way and it continues as long as there are voices that havent been heard. Having Ann Nixon Coopers voice heard was embracing victory that was longed for for centuries. This victory shall serve as hope for the present and the future generations of the society. It shall encourage people to dream just like how Martin Luther King did. Voices were heard and dreams came true and it is now time to exclaim, Free at last Free at last Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.

The revolutionary period of America was marked by some as a time in which division amongst colony members occurred over the feelings colonists felt about Britain. Many of the early American colonists shared a common respect and identity with Britain, and considered it a place of their heritage. While other colonists viewed Britain as an engine of tyranny, who would go so far as to attack people from her own land. The Second Continental Congress eventually joined together, collectively determining that the British monarchy, by acts of tyranny, could no longer claim their allegiance.

The historical context from which the two documents arose primarily took place during a time in which a series of intellectual, political, and social ideals held by a large portion of the colonists were undergoing radical change. People from all over the various locations of the colonies were beginning to feel a general sense of oppression from their British counterparts, therefore, the colonies eventually moved towards an armed resistance against the British. One of the main reasons many colonists began to side with the revolutionaries, revolved around the Boston Massacre. The aftermath from this incident helped spark the rebellion which took place a short time later.

Comparing and contrasting the positions on the relationship between the colonizers and colonies, although the majority of the colonies stood on the side of the colonizers, or, Britain, a small number of the colonists decided to fight back. This eventually led to physical battle. Some differences between colonizers and the gernal public of the colonies revolved around the feelings held by some of the colonists regarding political beliefs about national sovereignty and enlightened republican liberalism. The revolution itself took place in a time were the working class became discontent with the state and condition of their government.

The American Revolution, which occurred during the last half of the 18th century, was a major success for the American colonies. The colonies revolted against the governance of the parliament of the Great Britain and the British monarch. After wining the revolution, the United States of America was established.

The revolution was not an easy task as it was a long struggle involving the British and the American colonies and both were determined to win. This paper therefore, shall explain why it is right to conclude that the American colonies actually won the battle. It will also explain whether at the end of the revolution the American colonies were able to achieve what they wanted.

The American Revolution, which began in the year 1763, constituted of thirteen colonies and their leader was General George Washington. The main aim of this revolution was to enable these colonies have their freedom and enable them to control their government since each State had already established its own government. At this particular time, they were independent of England as their economic system was well developed.

According Schultz (pp.96), the continued conflicts between the American colonies and the uncompromising British eventually led to the revolution. The revolution was divided into two phases the phase before the war and the phase of the real war. Although the American colonies started the revolution, their army could not be compared to the British army, as it lacked in many things including good weapons.

Despite the fact that the British had the most powerful army at that time, it was still possible for the colonies to defeat it because the army had major weaknesses. Further studies of the same reveal that, during the revolution war, Britain was not in a position to continue supplying its troops adequately, secondly, they were not used to the guerilla warfare that Washington engaged them in. The American colonies were also supported by European nations like France and this increased their chances of victory.  The desire for France to weaken the British Empire, as well as the desire to trade was the main cause of being in opposition.

Although it was possible for the Americans to loose hope during the revolution war, the small success they achieved kept them moving especially the victory at Trenton.  As a result of this victory, the British had to let it go although it was only for a short time. Consequently, in the year 1777, British planned another invasion thinking that after the invasion, the war would eventually come to an end. However, the invasion was not successful because Americans attacked them unexpectedly as they were waiting for reinforcement. Due to this, they had to surrender and the Americans enjoyed the victory.

The victory at Saratoga was a clear indication that it was almost impossible for the British to win the revolution war, and if they won, then it was going to be a major struggle. It was not only the French alliance that really helped the colonies to win the battle but also the fact that Marquis de Lafayette became the leader of the Americans army and as a result, the French government increased its support (Schultz, 2009 pp.103).

After the British realized that they were almost loosing the battle, they tried to buy the American leaders. They managed to buy General Benedict Almond but this did not take them far as it was still impossible for them to win. Even if the British had some victories, in the very end, it was the American colonies who won the battle. Studies of Carr reveal that in 1871 October, the revolution war came to an end.

After the revolution war, the American colonies were able to achieve what they were fighting for. They benefited not only politically but also socially. Politically speaking, the church and the state were now separated meaning that it was possible for them to enjoy the right of worship. After the revolution war, women as well as the African American could now access the ballot. The revolution also had great impact on the American Nationalism as they could now consider themselves as the Americans having a unique culture.
The revolution had a very great impact on women because it was after the revolution that women started to vote although this was only in New Jersey. Schultz argues that the greatest achievement that the colonies were able to achieve is the right to control those who governed them.

After the revolution, the United States of America were properly established. Each state developed its own constitution having bills of rights, Limits of participation, and the separation powers. The bill of rights was to protect the Americans basic rights like the freedom of worship. The limits of participation described those people that were eligible to participate in the government and lastly the separation of powers ensured that the government was divided to different sectors each having its own responsibility.

In conclusion, it is evident that the American colonies won the revolution war. Although the British had a very powerful army, it was possible for the American colonies to battle and win the war. Despite the fact that Americans were helped by other countries that were against the British, like France, it was still their victory. Moreover, these colonies enjoyed the outcome especially after the establishment of the United States of America. As Carr notes, it was possible for the colonies to enjoy the republican rights.

Vietnam is a country in the South-East Asia neighboring Thailand, Cambodia, China and Laos. The Vietnam War pitted American forces against the Chinese and Soviet backed Vietnam forces in the jungles of Vietnam. It is the war that does not agree with Americas military supremacy as the worlds leading power. The war which the US lost was carried out at the height of Communism between 1959 and 1974.  The war is said to have had a considerable impact on Americans in many ways, thus, it has caused numerous discussions and reviews over time. The discussions have centered on the choice of going to war and reviewing of alternatives to war that were available then. However, Rotter (1999) notes that the US did not get involved in the war as a result of a single occurrence, but rather an accumulation of events, which justifies Americas involvement in the Vietnam War.

For a long time, Vietnam had remained a colony of China and later a colony of Japan and then France in the late nineteenth century. The Vietnam people did not appreciate colonialism and constantly struggled for their independence and applied even to the international community. Consequently, the liberal minds in the country formed the League of Independence of Vietnam (Viet Minh) under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh. On the 2nd of September 1945, Ho Chin Minh declared Vietnam an independent country much to the resistance of the French they were not willing to give up their protectorate that first and thus repressed the independence calls with much hostility up to 1954 (Schulzinger 23). Ho Chi Minh originated a resistance mood with a speech that borrowed heavily from the American declaration of independence and said that All men are created equal. The Creator has given us certain inviolable Rights the right to life, the right to be free, and the right to achieve happiness (Katsiaficas 7)

A struggle therefore followed between the Vietnamese people and the French forces which were trying to restore their hold of the country. On May 7th, 1954, a major battle took place at Dien Bien Phu near the Laos border pitting the Viet Minh against the French forces. A strategy mistake by the French forces that saw them being cut off from supplies forced them to surrender. The US was keenly following these events silently. The war thus necessitated a conference in Geneva that divided Vietnam into North and South with Laos and Cambodia being made independent states (Katsiaficas 25). The south was where the French had their base with the support of the US which had so far taken a neutral stand. The North was Viet Minhs stronghold which was largely communist and was led by Ho Chi Minh. The South on the other hand was led by the self declared president Ngo Dinh Diem. However, many civilians who did not support communist policies and found themselves in the North fled to the South. Nevertheless, South Vietnam had also a relatively small, but active communist movement called Viet Cong (The wars for Vietnam).

The Northern Vietnam, through the encouragement and support of Viet Cong, showed interest in forcibly uniting the North and the South. The north was receiving military and economic aid from China and the Soviet Union where the aid was also secretly shipped to the Viet Cong. As such, the Viet Cong grew more powerful and in 1963 overthrew and executed southern Vietnams president Diem. This was followed by massive efforts to exert the Communist influence in the whole of the South where the US and France had set up a base. This required an immediate reaction from the two governments to protect the people of the South Vietnam and also the American and French interests in the country (The wars for Vietnam).

These events in Vietnam were not taking place in a time cell, as the rest of the world was facing the same challenges pitting combined the communist and socialist forces against the capitalist forces. Despite the execution of the South Vietnams President, the US and France restrained attacking the North. There was fear that an attack on the North would trigger a far reaching conflict between China and Russia, on one side, and the US and its allies on the other side. As such, the US opted for diplomatic solutions to the problem (Lawrence 43). In addition to economic aid, the US supported the South Vietnam with governance issues. The US aimed at establishing the South as a stable democracy that could withstand the pressures of communism. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case as there were a number of limiting factors such as cultural differences, corruption, and suspicion among many others. This resulted into the US sending in military personnel for advisory purposes at first but then reconsidered it and deployed the forces there ready for war.

The Domino theory, as a way of thinking in explaining expansion of communism propelled the US to protect the South Vietnam by invading the North as a way of protecting neighboring countries, namely, Japan, India, Thailand, Philippines among others. This theory hypothesized that once a particular country fell to communist forces, the neighboring countries would follow. As such, the domino theory called for preemptive containment strategies. John F. Kennedy, then a senator, supported President Eisenhowers idea of domino theory and campaigned for the invasion of the Northern Vietnam as a way of protecting the people of Vietnam and the neighboring countries that would be affected if the domino theory was to take effect (Katsiaficas 197).

Change in the government was another issue that precipitated and even accelerated the course of the Vietnam War. A change in the administration implied a change in the foreign policy depending on the personality of the president and his advisors. John F. Kennedy, a strong believer in the Domino theory and the American supremacy, took over from President Eisenhower and set on an ambitious plan that would sought to demonstrate the American superpower position. His reasoning toward Vietnam was not aimed at helping the people of Vietnam, but rather avoiding the presumed adopting Communism in the neighboring countries. While he was aware that the Soviet Union was responsible for the spread of Communism, he vented his frustrations on the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This was highlighted by a bitter disagreement between the two during the Vienna talks over the North Korea and South Korea issue (Rotter 1999).

Other developments, such as the Cuba issue, the construction of the Berlin wall and the failure of the Bay of pigs invasion pointed to the US failure in strategically employing its containment program. As the president, John F. Kennedy felt indebted to reinstate the US at the right place by stumping authority on the global arena Vietnam represented the best opportunity (Lawrence 71). The president was also driven by the need to reinstate credibility with the US allies and also make his own reputation.

All in all, the US entered the Vietnam War poorly prepared and there was low morale among the forces. The military men were accused of drug abuse while in the battle fields. But most importantly, the jungle terrain was the most challenging for the fighters given that their opponents were used to it and were resistant to some of the jungle illnesses that weighed heavily on the American soldiers. Collaboration with the local Vietnam forces was poor as the American soldiers looked down upon the jungle men who had inferior weaponry and the so called war tactics. In the end, America lost the battle that greatly dented the American image and reshaped the cold war.

In America, all types of battles had been waged and the most protracted of all is its battle against all sorts of criminalities. War on Crime by Claire Bond Potter has this colossal skirmish vividly depicted in a scholarly manner sans the frills and the nonsense or too-good-to-be true scenarios of action novels.

In all probability, this is one treatise which probes into the composition, the legalities and the cultural facets of J. Edgar Hoovers vigorous fight against crime in the 1930s, a New Deal crusade which created comprehensible associations between citizenship, federal policing and the ideal concept of what a centralized government should be. Potters volume tells us of how and why peoples adulation of vicious icon hero G-men and thugs surfaced and how everyone is now going through the effects of such adoration of these personages.

Specifically, War on Crime overtly investigates the synthesis of collective restructuring and methodical management principles that created police professionalization and likewise depicted how new government careers in law enforcement looked like in addition, it colorfully described the coming out of a new breed of criminals,2 the types that commanded adulation and reverence from the public despite the fact that the damage they have caused to society is a lot bigger than who they really are or who they have become.

With significant and extensive in-text references to various sources, Potters explicit narrative is written like a concise primer that alters the account of the New Deal revolution and recommends a fresh outlook and an unsullied representation of political narrative views, an account that acknowledges and comprehends that ethnic singularity and the political domain created between them, a concept of the state.

Through the Potter lens, the war on crime in that period was tussled employing firearms and sharp written declarations, fascinating shows and legislation, the use of broadcasting mediums and government inquiries. All of these approaches elucidate this phase of state changerevolution including the insights and assessments of that embryonic state, during the years of the first New Deal. Additionally, it clearly exhibits the creation of G-men and gangsters as cultural protagonists and champions of the era. In like manner, the book delves into the Depression periods fixation with crime and celebrity and gives discernment on how different individuals perceived a nation going through huge political and social transformations.

In addition, clearly manifested in this volume is Hoovers attempt to carry the message of FBI work using the media to the people as he noted the extensive interest of media men in the battle against criminals. A case in point was the timely publication of the first issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin in 1932, at that time dubbed as Fugitives Wanted by Police. Clearly, Hoover became extremely proficient at making public the agencys work as he was at managing and controlling it. Prior to 1933 though, Bureau Agents were able to develop an esprit de corps, however, the public judged them identical with other federal investigators. As a result three years later, the sheer identification with the FBI became a source of exceptional delight to its workers which commanded immediate respect and deference from a lot of people.

One significant point that can be seen from the book was its depiction of Hoovers initiatives to try and professionalize the entire FBI organization5. As he exerted all efforts in running after hoodlums and trying to get them behind bars, he was also busy getting rid of politically-connected agents as he believed that these agents are the ones strongly susceptible to corruption, the ones who would commit the greatest acts of ineptitude and uselessness. Likewise, he tried not to make the narcotics bureau a dumping ground for jobless agents and other types of scalawags. In addition, it can be seen too how Hoover brought ferocious vigor to the workplace through adequate training of its agents, stringently implementing changes in the administrative procedures, executing changes in the hiring practices and brought about improvement in the agents general work habits.

Admittedly, the skillful portrayal of the efforts done by the FBI during the early and mid-1930s showed how numerous vital decisions congealed the Bureaus position as the countrys leading law enforcement agency. As an example, was its forceful response to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby in 1932, which resulted to the passing of a federal kidnapping statute in Congress. Then in May and June 1934, as hoodlums like John Dillinger eluded incarceration by crossing over state lines, Congress again passed numerous federal crime laws which considerably boosted the Bureaus morale and widened its scope and jurisdiction. After the brutal Kansas City Massacre, Congress significantly granted Bureau Agents constitutional power to carry guns and conduct arrests, however, it can be gleaned that this extremely noteworthy event was not thoroughly discussed in the book which is quite surprising since this kind of criminal act could have explicitly exhibited how the efforts on the war against crime have been effected by Hoovers men.

What the book lacked though is a comprehensive discussion on the many significant milestones of that period as far as the history of police performance measurement is concerned. This should have been adequately elaborated in the volume considering that during that era, there was so much transformation in policing and how Bureau agents carried out their functions. For instance, in 1930, Director of Research for the International City Managers Association, Donald Stone, suggested two methods of assessing police effectiveness -- the number of cases cleared and the value of stolen property recovered. Both suggested methods were equally condemned, though in practice they continued to be employed by both police and academics. Consequently, in 1935, Arthur Bellman, Vollmers protg created a wide-ranging mechanism crafted to appraise the quality of police service. This too should have been mentioned in the book. Such instrument contained 685 unambiguous points which was specifically designed to be accomplished by skilled police analysts who are asked to provide professional judgments on each point. Notably, with its enormous assortment of standards, Bellmans scale would be viewed oddly like a certification checklist. Moreover, the book should likewise have contained or at least should have mentioned Bellmans approach to police performance measurement which was censured on three principal arguments. First, it was based on conformity to current notions of good administrative practice and, hence, was inadequately equipped to have room for advances and enhancements in policing. Second, Bellmans rating structure took care of each of the indicators uniformly. As far as his detractors were concerned, the stabilizing character of Bellmans scheme led to the combination of important and trivial concerns haphazardly and third, Bellmans method concentrated entirely on internal measures concerning courses of action, practices and equipment. It completely overlooked the outputs, processes and outcomes of police agencies. All these should have been discussed comprehensively by Potter as these are significant occurrences during the period.

Essentially, War on Crime is a thoroughly investigated academic study of the New Deal politics following Americas first grand battle against crime, when J. Edgar Hoovers G-men overpowered the extremely exposed Midwest outlaws exemplified by the likes of Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Baby Face Nelson, the Barker-Karpis gang and Bonnie and Clyde, while instantaneously steering clear of any severe clashes with the forces of organized crime.

Furthermore, the book shows how Potter has profoundly probed into the fashionable culture of mobster exaltation in the 1930s and also believes the fraudster control on big city political machines as an aspect influencing the Justice Departments crime war. To put it plainly, there was certainty of success and was more satisfying (politically that is) to run after bank muggers than genuine hoodlums. The endeavors of Hoover and his superior, Atty. General Homer Cummings, to prevail over the states rights activists and produce a national police agency, meaning the modern FBI, was doing well and depended for the most part on the Justice Departments catapulting Dillinger and other criminals to become national threats. Moreover, this can be a good reference material if one wants to study the said period. One flaw though that can be cited about the book is its extremely inadequate and imprecise allusion to the Kansas City Union Station slaughter, which granted FBI the indispensable public backing and led to the G-mens being authorized to carry firearms.

Today, apprehensions regarding crime and hideous criminal acts have turned to be proverbial means for the formation of new government bureaus and the expansion of state power and influence. It is then significant to be reminded of the original war on crime in the 1930s and the prospects it gave to New Dealers which in turn ascertained pen pushers like J. Edgar Hoover. As academics wrestled with the methods the state affirm authority and power over the populace, local authority and party politics, Hoovers group pursue targets like trimming down popular violence and looking after private property. For the FBI, good government was synonymous with vigorous policing and excellent police intelligence work.

In the book, Potter basically conveys to life the forceful relationship between the diverse facets of mass culture in the United States of America in the 1930s and the ubiquitous state war on crime. Particularly, in the political landscape left by the War on Crime, police have come to signify and stand for the interests of crime victims and through them, of the public generally. As it is, almost any disparagement of the police is viewed as treachery towards victims and potential victims.

It is then noteworthy to mention Potters observation that law enforcementintelligence agencies have attempted to expand their capacity to police the nation through the identification of public enemies and the creation of new crimes. This simply indicated that with the certainty of identification of  -- who the criminals are, how far they have gone with their crimes, the extent of their criminal acts, the magnitude of the damage that they can do, how big of a threat are they to national security  law enforcers and law enforcement agencies (and most especially the FBI) can determine the steps that they need to take, what more they can do in order to effect arrest, the enhancements they need to put in so that they can effectively impose the kind of order needed in society. With all these, the scope of their tasks and the extent of their jurisdictions have been greatly increased or should be widened for them to be efficient in carrying out their jobs. As a whole, this is a positive development as this would improve the entire functioning of a law enforcement agency and in the process provide the kind of protection that must be given to the people. Naturally, there is the question of who should define crime or who can be considered as threats to national security. First, it must be borne in mind that, no single person has the privilege of classifying a certain act as criminal and no one should have the monopoly of making judgments as to what must be considered as a threat to national security and this is because nations have laws legislated and it is in those laws that classification of who are criminals and what acts would be considered as threats to national security are determined. If and when a single person or organization will have the monopoly of determining what must be viewed as acts that would endanger a nations freedom or safety, then it can be safely said that democracy is dead in that particular culturesociety and that the people have been duped to believe that they are living a democratic existence because that kind of scenario only happens in autocratic regimes or in places where freedoms have been trampled upon already.

Obviously, policeintelligence agencies must be held accountable for their actions. It is a component of democratic existence. While police agencies are the forerunners of peace and order, it does not necessarily mean that they own or they are above the law. Law enforcers might be enforcing the law, however, they are at the same time citizens of their country which means that they have to abide by the laws of that land and they must be the first ones to obey the fundamental rules of that sovereign state or else they will just be mocking the instruments of justice and the real essence of law enforcement.

In the case of Hoovers men, they are known to belong to a network of professional police organizations who happen to be the staunchest supporters of the government, hence, it is expected of them to behave responsibly.8 Another reason why police and intelligence agencies must be held accountable for their actions is the fact that if they will not be liable for their deeds then they will not be any different from the thugs and hardened criminals that they are pursuing. The public will not see the difference between the two groups and when this happens it would certainly breed great disillusionment in the public mind, it will generate cynicism in young peoples mind, create disenchantment in people who consider and strongly believe in the might and nobility of the police force or of law enforcers in general. In its entirety, Potters volume reflects that desire and the efforts of an organization to combat societys decay and implement positive changes. Though it has its own share of inadequacies, in style and in content, but overall, it is a great read for anyone who is interested in American contemporary history, those who are enthralled with myths and symbols which characterized the Great Depression years9 and the cultural analysis that goes with it,10 those who are fascinated with Hoovers unconventional tactics, the ones captivated by the sparkling personalities of the famous gangsters and to all those who remain mesmerized by the heroism of the G-men and the valiant FBI agents of that era and of course to all those who will forever be admirers of police intelligence icon, J. Edgar Hoover.

Europeans invaded South America in the late 15th century. In the nineteenth century slave trade was at its pea in the American land.  The colony had united its conflicting interests and diverse sentiments through the use of compromises and concession to attain its common goal for the safety and welfare against the enemies. Unfortunately, the same very protection of the citizens right, in a way turned into a red hot sword to the gender differences of the same country.

In my essay the main thesis is that the judicial racism of the minorities in the United States constitution led to their elimination in the boundaries by law. This was due to lack of equipments in the blacks and the low level of literacy. The blacks curtailed for the cultural force literacy deflecting them from material resources and even social justice. This enhanced the slave trade where there was a separation of ideas leading to separated arguments. The racially prejudiced white focused more on the social boundaries of schooling (Fredrick).

The anti slavery whites aimed at turning the free blacks to concede the racial identity. This eventually led to their strategy failing and never worked. The results were segregated schooling and a tenacity of racial boundaries in the American nation. The movement objective was to fight the ages of oppression and ill hearted selfishness against the colored race. In the name of respecting the forefathers and their ways some would argue the enslavement of the colored race as a begotten right. Not considering that the generation change and development as the projection to future of the country. But many were also against this. (Fredrick G.p12)

The European culture and economy of the Americans dominated more than the blacks. This resulted to a situation whereby the Afro Africans, the Mexican- Americans, native Africans and all the other groups to be incorporated into one group. Really if slave trade was a humane task, do you think there was the need to use was there the need to use equivocal and collusive phraseology Was it not a means to cover up the misfits and help meet the disagreeable necessity.

The law denounced the white men as the self owning individuals not even the women unless through marriage and the covertures law.  The husbands were presumed as the providers by law and had the rights to their wives, labor and persons. Denying slavery as justice and denouncing the union against slavery as injustice is one of the hypocritical manner of rule that was enforced. Failure to compromising with the principles of justice would have landed one to crime accumulated fears and a lot of oppression. Its the futile way where ones effort were reduced and short changed and paid with disabilities.  Going for the obvious reason that the citizens adopted the constitution in the first place but they could foresee the consequences that would result from it. I would then argue then that on this ground supporting that same reason was a compromise that would have rendered it practical for the abolition of the slave trading.

The North American blacks used the same language as the whites. They also believed in the same religion and had the same culture and economy too.  They used to compete in live the same way. They remained united unlike the other whites in the south. As a result the blacks structured themselves economically and they were able to handle the slave trade in a free way and thus reducing the economy gap between them and the whites.  (Fredrick G.p20)

Arguing that the slave trade and the words slaves and slavery were not included in the constitution is arbitral a brainwash since use of colloquial words and other simulative phrases is concurrent is a mutual  inclusive agenda. The framing might not be the issue but the implied meaning in the clauses and the judicial interpretation signifies the real phenomena. If this is not the case I tend to differ that the free human trading and degradation could has taken place I the eyes of the ruling power. Again the clauses needed to be abolished which was not the case.

All this expenditure of effort stood at a daring remove, meanwhile, from the ordeals of affiliation and fragments of resistance within the enslaved black communities. With an aim of turning the freed blacks into an independent working class rather than a dependent class the anti slavery whites invested in literacy instruction.  This meant to reduce literacy as a symbolic boundary for the black and the white racial identity. But the racially prejudiced whites were against the racial equality and the class equivalence. For the whites in the northern states, they totally objected this and insulated the white schools preserving the boundaries. (Fredrick G. p16).

The pro slavery whites in the southern states later embraced literacy as a cultural boundary and a symbol of freedom. The pro slavery whites increasingly removed these skilled labours to grant the enslaved blacks rationality but many of the whites were against this.

Doll wants me to put two of her grand children to school to learn how to read and write but I told her I should put them to some trade as soon as they were set for it. (A white overseer). The antislavery whites were unable to comprehend to the white racial privilege.

After the delegation of government powers  came to be delegated to the union, the south that is, South Carolina and Georgia refused their subscription to the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection of slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could extinguish.  The freedom of the north gave way, and the deadly venom of slavery was infused into the constitution of freedom where its first consequence has been to invert the first principle of democracy, that the will of the majority of the numbers shall rule the land but by means of the double representation, the minority command the whole and a knot of slaveholders give the law and prescribe the policy of the country.

The church was actively fighting for the anti slavery. The Methodist Episcopal Church Of America were looking forward for the gradual abolishing of slavery where nearly sixty thousand slaves in Maryland and as many in Virginia and other several southern states.

The Presbyterian Church and the Methodist were also working on the same ground. The Presbyterian Church of Virginia had declared opposed to the slavery and they were working gradually in the state. The anti slavery sentiment was wide spread and effective and this led to the rising of a powerful anti slavery party. This party existed among the Baptists of Kentucky known as the Emancipators. (Fredrick G. p26)

In the year 1789 the Philadelphia Baptist also joined in saying Agreeably to a recommendation in the letter from the church at Baltimore, this association declare their high approbation of the several societies formed in the United states and the Europe , for the gradual abolition of the slavery of the Africans, and for guarding against their being detained or sent off as slaves, after having obtained their liberty and do hereby recommend to the churches as represent,  to form similar societies, to become member thereof, and exert themselves to obtain this important object.  The constitution is made from the religion and if there exists conflict between the religion and the manner of ruling, then one should immediately know there are parallel interests between one of the groups.

Later in the century market for cotton was created and the slaves value gain support. A self confident social system was built in the southern states and the white superiority deepened as the blacks turned more inferior. In Mexico and Guatemala the Indians were adopted by the Ladinos and mestizos. The Indians then turned down and erected barriers to join them. (Fredrick G. p31)

Does this mean they were not the citizen of the country Its surely a discrimination agenda to keep them in the dark side of the economy and tender them away from the ruling and the decision making process in the country. Some blacks by then had already established themselves in the industry in the U.S past the white. The manner of differentiation in the U.S is by the socio- cultural status just as in the northern Brazil. After the civil war, the whites in the south were against the blacks terming them as the cause to the defeat.  How can someone under you allow for a defeat whereas all the commands came from you This is all on matters of scapegoat to the inferiors.

Gender differences were diverse where women were inferior. The immigrants and the migrants were rejected and they experience oppression and resistance both in school and in public.

The history and the way of living between the whites and other races are vital in history. Cultural ethno genesis with the slavery illuminates the different races relationship. Violence and brutality and riots usually were evident some areas. Culture, identity and race played a great role. Think of the Florida borderlands that undermined Africans into slavery and took the whites as the superiors through colonialism. Surely, talking of independence and equality in the land is a mere oppression and the fore fathers were not to blame since they were demeaned by the existing rules to put down their efforts and the others to safeguard their ill motives. To date, the war is far from over where the blacks still claim their indigenous ancestry and heritage.

As part of the Anti-Federalist wing of the Constitutional Convention, I for one, am not inclined to support a strong central government that might curtail the rights of the individuals and the state.  We strongly support individual rights because this has been endowed by nature and if it is inherent in us, it would be wrong or unjust for anyone to take them away.

There are several reasons why we do not support this (new) constitution. We seem to notice some flaws that we need to point out before we can approve it and present it to the people for ratification.  There appears to be too much power bestowed on the central government while greatly reducing that of the states.  Have we not learned our lesson from the past  We have known what it was like to live under a tyrannical rule of a ruler governing us across an ocean.  Another point is, there is no major crisis that threatens to undermine or bring the nation to collapse.  Furthermore,  the powers that will be granted to this central government might set a dangerous precedent if powers would be used to curtail rights and oppress the citizens.  Our concern is based on the clause of  necessary and proper  that defines the power of Congress though this may also apply to the executive branch of the government.  Even the Judiciary shows signs of becoming oppressive because it  is so constructed  extended, as to absorb and destroy the Judiciarys of the several States thereby rendering Law as tedious intricate and expensive,  Justice as unattainable, by a great Part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress  ruin the Poor.

We fear that this strong central government might create a new aristocracy in these Unitd States.  This is made even worse with the absence of a Bill of Rights.  The executive (President) branch appears to have unlimited powers such as grating pardons for those who have committed treason or other crimes which might be used to acquit those who might be conspiring with him.  We fear this is one of the powers he might abuse and we feat the making of another tyrant though he has no royal title.  The Congress is hardly a House of Representatives but to those who have vested interests in their minds and that they will have little thought of the consequences of their actions which would be detrimental to the people whom they are supposed to serve.  These, with their other great Powers (viz their Power in the Appointment of Ambassadors and all public Officers, in making Treaties, and in trying all Impeachments) their Influence upon  Connection with the supreme Executive from these Causes, their Duration of Office, and their being a constant existing Body, almost continually sitting, joined with their being one compleat Branch of the Legislature will destroy any Ballance in the Government,  enable them to accomplish what Usurpations they please upon the Rights and Liberty of the People.

We therefore insist that a Bill of Rights be incorporated into this document.  This must include among others, freedom or religion, trial by jury (due process) and freedom of the press and that this through this Constitution, the government shall safeguard individual liberty.  There has to be a balance of power between the national government and the states to ensure harmony and protect and preserve our hard-fought freedoms and to limit the powers of the branches of government as a safeguard against incipient tyranny.  And finally, consensus through compromise should be the norm to ensure the success of our government.

We believe that the rights of the individual is what makes our nation unique from others and it is only right that we must set the example in upholding these rights and show the world that we can make our unique form of government work where it is possible to have a stable government and at the same time respect and protect the individual rights of our citizens.

Media is commonly regarded as the fourth pillar in a society for its role of passing information into the society. The other three pillars are legislature, judiciary and executive. The media is known to have a capacity to make, break or protect an administration through responsible reporting of the activities that happens in a country.  In the US, media enjoys relatively very high levels of freedom from interference from other three pillars in shaping the social welfare of the US citizenry. However, the 911 event put the media in the frontline in passing of the information about all that was happening, the causes and answering all the possible questions in the minds of citizens (Li, 2007). The revelations about 911 event is as a result of the information systematically passed forward to us by these media channels.

It is true that the media has gone ahead to explore this event and how it could have been stopped. According to guardian, if then president and the White House had keenly heeded to earlier threats from al-Qaeda in 2001, it could have led to arrests of some suspects involved in the 911 and the attack would have been prevented. The Times underlined how the transitional team that helped the Bush administration to take over the leadership from Clinton shifted its focus from Afghanistan and al-Qaeda related activities to that of China and Russia. This is where the new administration missed the point on planning of the ways to handle the terrorism activities of Taliban that led to their successful execution of 911 attacks (Kuypers, 2002).  The obsession of the White House to topple Saddam led to the undermining of the terrorism activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan. According to the Times, there was a foreknowledge of ongoing activities of al-Qaeda by the White House and discussions were underway on how to stop them. However, the decision was overtaken by the activities of al-Qaeda. While the White House continued debating on how to wage their offensive against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, 19 terrorists were busy preparing their final touches on an attack that would touch the heart of the nation. On its issue (Vol. 159 No. 21) of May 27 2002, the Times talked of underlying events that took place while American slept. However, there have been reports of lopsided reporting of the event by most of major media channels on crucial matters and question about this attack which gives an impression of a media that is working for the protection of the administration.

The media actually explored the faults of the US citizenry and the government for providing a viable environment that gave a room for the planning of the attack. The complacency of the citizens and their tolerance of slackness by the government to tackle critical issues regarding to the safety of the population was cited as a major contributor towards this incident. The 19 plotters of the attack were living among the American population. In addition, some were even trained in the American institutions. This raises concern over how these terrorists were able to find a safe heaven among this population (Campaine, Gomery, 2000).

The constitution which is a representation of aspirations of Americans and its extreme freedoms was pointed by the media as part of the blame in this attack. In the other hand, the government was blamed by its total failure to take appropriate measures to smoke-out such people from population despite its receiving numerous reports of underlying activities related to terrorism from all sources. In addition, the government through its military arm was faulted by its failure to protect the citizen from aerial attack despite having all the necessary capacity. In a normal case, planes that lose contact with the control towers are intercepted by jet fighters within ten minutes (Buckley, Fawn, 2003). On 911, the jetliners responsible for the attack were allowed to circle the sky for more than an hour and a half yet they were known to be victims of hijacking activity.

The media gave reports as they were released by relevant security bodies. Apart from giving live reports immediately after the occurrence of the incident through the television and other channels, the media went ahead to unearth some vital information about the attack. As per now we know of the close correlation between the Middle East occupations of Israel, US support to Israel, US history of relation with Muslim world and the Middle East oil had a lot to play in the execution of this attack (Brunn, 2004). The US foreign policy has also been pinpointed by the media to lack clear cut policies in relation to some of Arab worlds. This have been found to have fostered negative perception towards the United States.

On the bigger picture, the US media has played a lead role in covering and uncovering this incident. The major areas of focus were the effects of this attack. For once, then event brought Americans closer together than ever in supporting the victims of this tragedy. The event caused unprecedented military actions by the government and its allies against the Taliban in the Afghanistan and other groups in the name of fight against terrorism. The relation of US before and immediately after the attack with the foreign world ranked very high, however, with reduced improvement in the military activities of Bush administration strained this relationship. By 2008, the US foreign policy ranking had fallen as low as 20 percent.  Back at home, in 2002, the government passed the Homeland Security Act and the USA Patriot Act. The 911 incident brought about negative sentiments and stereotyping of people from Middle East especially those who were perceived to be Muslims in the United States (Torres, 2006). The event has not helped the US relation with Muslim world. All of the 19 suspected masterminds of this attack were Muslims. It has therefore made the US administration handle the Muslim in and out of this country with skepticism. With restrained foreign relation with the US, the economic performance in the US was affected negatively. The security of people living in the United States was also put to question.

Most of people who lost their sources of income and potential to remain economically productive will forever put a mark in the lives of these people. This attack put some fear on most of the American over the concern of their security in and outside of the United States. One of the most absurd cases is the assurance of by the environmental watch body that the air emanating from ground zero was very healthy to breath yet we know the air must have been polluted (Lasorsa, 2006). This might have posed risk to a number of American populations living and working near to the site.

The media was and is still concerned about publishing unsubstantiated reports due to the fear of legal action from the government. The first reports by the governmental sources were reported as they were. Any other unconfirmed sources were kept at periphery but this has not prevented speculation of inside involvement of the governmental operatives in the event.

The media focused on three perspectives in their reporting. The media focused this attack on the aspect of social and the impact of this attack on the victims and their families. In this, the attack was seen as a target to overall American population and its ideals. This view supports the notion of lowering of self esteem of the victims at home and abroad by increasing their fear of insecurity. At some point, the media portrayed the attack as an act of retaliation to American political regime and its policies abroad (Greenberg, 2003). This angle was supported by the zeal of the perpetrators to punch holes on the security might of the US and its administration. In addition, the media focused on the attack from an economic angle. The attack was also seen as a way of trying to cripple the economy of the country by creating a kind of undisputable fear of security among the US citizens.

The reporting of this event cooled down when there emerged reports of grade anthrax on mails. This caused an immediate suspension to the investigations of the 911 incident. The origin of these tainted mails was never revealed. The incident was also overlapped by the events happening on the invasion of Afghan.

Most of the media took a conservative viewpoint over this issue. The reports given showed a skewed reporting o the incident. There has been a consistent and systematic cover-up of the actual events that took place prior, during, and immediately after this terror attack The inability of access of most of the video tapes that were recorded by most of the media houses raises a lot of questions. The black boxes from the flights involved were also reported to have disappeared hence denying the public a lot of vital information (Galga, Wesley, 2004). People with vital information who were willing to pass it out were suppressed creating fear among many witnesses. Some of vital messages from some witnesses have been given a cold shoulder by the media.

In summary, this is one of the events in history that has gone to prove the capacity of the media to hold back information and only feed the public with reports that it so wishes. In this case, we see a clear collaboration between the media and other three pillars involved in the governance of a society to successfully muzzle the truth of the 911 from reaching the public with outmost success.

Having received intense and enormous attention in research work, it is evident that the American Civil War had a lot to do with the ideology of free labor. Historiographical debates covering issues to do with the then political, cultural and social environment have sparked a lot of controversy as regard to the role each institution played with respect to the civil war. It is worth noting that in the America of 1850s, there were two opposing forces in the political and demographic arena the pro-slavery Democrats or southerners and the anti-slavery Republicans or southerners (Foner 3). A number of studies have associated the war with a conspiracy furthered by the abolitionists or the proslavery people (George 27). Thus the catalyst of the war has been linked to either the blundering generation (revisionist) or the irrepressible conflict- notion representing the intellectual and social divergences were existing between the south and the north. According to Donald stokes, the 1850s America depicts a period in which the political history of America was founded all in the name of an ideological focus centered on the issue of labor (Klein and Hariet 137).

From a wider perspective, the issue of labor particularly slave labor was a core activity in the events of this period due to its potential impact on the constitutional, political and economic consequences. The two conflicting sides held irreconcilable ideas which if had been resolved carefully would not have led to the war. The north on one side sought the end slavery and materialism as an illustration of an indeed civilized America (Avery 87). On the other side, the northerners held the notion of free labor as their main ideology. According to Foner, the ideology was just but an ante-bellum justification of the northerners rather than a work attitude. The northerners based on the notion of free labor to critique the south who were quite different to them if not inferior. For instance, during an endorsement rally for Lincoln in the 1860s, Carl Schurz a republican orator put it that, the republican stand before the country not only as an anti slavery party, but empathically as the party of free labour11)to make labor honorable is the object and aim of the Republican Party.(Foner pp. 11-13).

These statements were just but mere appeals by the republicans for the support of Lincoln from the laboring society. The notion of free labor represented the Republican Party as the perfect example of a coherent social welfare outlook aimed at the good of the society. This ideology was by far an illustration of the superiority of the norths social structure as an expanding capitalistic and dynamic society which relied on the opportunities and dignity it provided to the laborers (Foner 17).

At the heart of the ante-bellum political and cultural structure of the north, was the theme of labor dignity. According to Tocqueville, all aspects of work were considered and treated with all the dignity. For instance, the declaration of the fourth-of-July denotes the nobleness of the dignity of labor. The ideology was applied both in political pronouncements and treaties as a basis for all value. Northerners credited labor for the rapid economic growth and a capital precursor. Nobility of labor was a key factor in establishing a consensus between the conservatives and radicals or between both former Democrats and Whigs. This dignity was the major theme for unity in America. However, the antislavery slogan of labor dignity was not essentially a republican conception but an already existing American culture existing given that most Americans had come from protestant background which practiced nobility labor in their the faith. The notion of free labor was meant to ensure the economic independence of the middle class people was achieved (Klein and Harriet 140). According to the republicans, the people of the northern America society illustrated better the philosophy of free labor as the ideology was treated as a reality. The republicans hence held that there was a slave power which had been conspired to control the government and that it was now in the position of perverting the federal constitution to for its own sake (George 67).  According to Foner, the republicans now believed that there developed two antagonistic civilizations which were struggling for control of the Americas political structure.

As a rule, the southern slaves were not entitled to any education. The enslave people had no rights whatsoever in the eyes of their masters. Unlike in the north, the ideology of free labor did not exist in the south. The south was a rapidly growing economy given that cotton production was at its peak in the 1850s (Avery 92).  Production of cotton in the south was increasing at a rapid rate in the south hence increasing the appetite for slaves and in turn the slave trade. Despite the republicans critique of the souths slavery, slave trade rose to become one of the most profitable trade in the south outdoing tobacco which had been a stable commodity. Among the developments in the south that increased slave trade, were the discovery of the cotton gin and the purchase of Louisiana (Francis and Randall 157). Due to such developments it was hard for black men to be free in the south. Irrespective of the Missouri compromise, free men in the south could still be captured, and enslaved. By the 1940s, they slave trade was more than the ever following the increased cotton exports to the rest of the world. To bridge the gap for increased demand, the southern farmers had to increase production hence they went forth to obtain slaves from the north by enslaving the free black men from both the northern south (Klein and Harriet 93). By 1841, kidnapping of the free black men in the north was prevalent. The free blacks both in the north and south were considered a great threat to the slaveholders as they were potential allies to the fugitive slaves and opponents to the Americas goal of maintaining slavery among the whites only (Foner 268). Some free mixed race black men were also slave holders. Here, slave labor was not regarded noble despite its contribution to the economy rather the southerners perceived that it could devalue the whites free labor if abolished.

About 50 of black slaves in the south were slave workers in the cotton fields of the white. Others worked in tobacco and sugar fields while the rest worked as domestic workers. Slaves were the major driving force in the souths economy. The democratic south was a pro-slavery and did not uphold the Montessori compromise that had been adopted to promote balance and dignity of labor (Klein and Harriet 147). The introduction of wheat farming increased the demand for slaves hence leading to the compromise of free labor for slavery. Dignity of labor was nothing not the sort in the south because as the south had enforced black laws to deny nobility to the slave labor.  Foner, (281) notes that even following the aftermath of the civil war, the ideology of free labor was not quite clear to the blacks in South America. Even though the north was a free state, the farmers and entrepreneurs were the only free people (Klein and Harriet 149). For instance, about half the population of the Northerners was working as wage earners rather than independent laborers and this did not even improve after the civil war not even for most American men. In the south, the situation was worse the blacks victory over slavery, as the southern whites resulted into violent movements such as the Ku Klax Klan to continue enslaving the blacks and deny the notion of free labor.  

Reflecting on the question of which 13 British Colonies would I prefer to live, I feel that I have chosen Massachusetts as the appropriate place. The reason behind this is the locations rich history and heritage of early American life. Alongside Virginia, this is one of the earliest British settlements within the region and the place where the Mayflower Compact happened (Timepage, p.1). Similarly, despite the increasing tensions against the British rule, Massachusetts relatively was a peaceful territory compared to others. This then enabled peace to set in within and become a viable outcome for further growth and development particularly in the realm of agriculture.

On the other hand, George Washingtons role was significant during and after the revolution and made vital contributions to the development in American history. Despite his alleged failures in terms of leading Americans towards victory and ability to apply these tactics altogether, he was instrumental in shaping and unifying the nation in his own efforts. In the process, he proves his relevance with the way he seeks a balance between the public sphere and the needs of the nation (American Revolution Homepage, p.1). This involves in particular the way he communicates with politicians in supporting the endeavor of the revolution.

Similarly, with their victory, he also laid the groundwork in enhancing and cultivating the process of stabilizing the country. It was through his projects and brilliance in terms of balancing issues that he gained the trust of two politicians that differ in views concerning how America should be run (Jefferson and Hamilton) (American Revolution Homepage). Thus, his ability and keen to work in the background provided the necessary leverage to excel in what he does best. His exceptional capacity to carry out issues and balance them for the greater good justified his position as one of the most influential persons in American History.

History books entail information about various eras and reflect the times they represent highlighting information which may be subjective and debatable. To interpret and to fully understand, one needs to read various accounts of similar historical value to look for elusive content and the way selected authors have accounted the facts. Indians have been recalled as the losers of their times mostly by various historians, as most of history textbooks and collections are written by winners, therefore the evasive depiction likewise.

Hence today historians can correlate various accounts of history to translate and interpret how Indians influenced and shaped the lives of English settlers. Indians already provided the English settlers with cultivated and cleared land ready for farming and agriculture, which made their tasks simpler and thus they moved forward to impact the habitants with their cultural and technological exchange to develop infrastructure and government.

The first source reflects on selected Indians tribes wilderness and inadequate resources to preserve lives. It also lists their skills and expertise in construction of temples, pottery, textiles and clay artifacts until European settlers introduced the new world methods of farming, use of iron in construction, government and religious beliefs that would lead Indians to move forward in future. However it also projects Indians as an obstruction and waste to be eliminated for having no role in the future of America.

The second source details the Spanish rule on Indians. The Spanish leadership contributed majorly to education and review and printing of literature, while also acknowledging talent by giving out prices. However the Spanish were unable to utilize the agricultural resource and richness of the American land, and sought after the gold reserves which devastated many out of disease and starvation. They also struggled to convert Indians to the Christian rituals.

The third source looks appreciative of the Indians expertise and their sophisticated methods in cultivating maize and corn and for building infrastructure and cities to reach out to sizeable population. It talks about Indians who had nomadic lifestyles, and changed with English invasion into transformed and settled agricultural villagers. Furthermore since the Indians were not densely populated within close proximities it allowed English settlers to outnumber Indians to hold and restrain them.

All three sources commonly talk about John Smith, an Englishman who contributed majorly for creating awareness about the need to cultivate corn and maize and to give agriculture top priority. He ensured that prime objective of every native and traveler should be accumulating necessary food for survival. He served as great motivator and leader in those times. Nonetheless the sources also list the many uncommon diseases prevailing in those times amongst the Indian population and their inability and limited resources to cure.

Another common contribution is the account of Spanish and English peace deal that as part of the joint stock company that enabled order in the new world. The third source looks more credible for its account as it also gives credit to the Indians in their contribution for the development of civilizations.