American History

New York Times is a Newspaper that entails events, articles and stories relating to the affairs of the United States. It has the mandate to authoritatively publish information that is relevant to the public and that serves the interest of the government in relation to the image and security of the State. After the Second World War in 1945, most countries including America began to expand their international relations with other States to increase trade as a result of economic challenges brought by the war. America had to forge a way in which foreign countries could join their wing by creating a conducive ground for relationship without conflict or War (Penenberg  Barry, pp 140).

However, in 1971, the New York Times attracted the attention of the citizens when the company authoritatively wrote a headline that could make other Countries like the Vietnam withdraw their allegiance with America, this was after the official News Paper called the Pentagon Papers, discussed on the US-Vietnam relations in the House. It was then published by the New York Times without authorization from the senate to do so and the way the article was written could scare other Nations from associating with the American government since the paper clearly defined the future plans of the US government, which suggested that they were still interested in War with other States.

It is worth noting according to the views of McCombs  Protess (pp 117), New York Times got the access of the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg. Together with his close ally Anthony Russo, they gave the articles containing the secrets of America and the plans to a news reporter Neil Sheehan, one of the writers of New York Times, he then decided to write on the issues that were regarded as secret to the general public raising an alarm on American relation with the other States or the Allies. It was not even published once but the News Paper (New York Times) had a series of publications that raised animosity to the general public. In fact, most people demonstrated since they were against the governments intentions on war and as a result it turned to be a court case that was so controversial.

Court Case between the New York Times and the Pentagon Papers
Since the image of the government had been painted negatively by the members of the public and the international community for scheming a way to engage in War, the US government sued the New York Times Publishers for reporting the senate discussions in public without authority, raising an alarm and exposing the intentions and strengths of the government. According to experts, such publications could even lead to war or result in negative perceptions of the government by exposing the government tricks and plans to the enemies. Senator Mike Gravel who was a democrat wanted to secure the public on the content of the paper and therefore decided to forward the papers to the Public. Building and some of the sections of the paper were published by the Beacon Press.

Fortunately, the trial could not be easy since section 6 of the American constitution States that no discussion or debate by the senator(s) shall be questioned anywhere hence Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska, could not be questioned by the court. This led to serious damage of the government image since according to Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the information to the New York Times reporter, argued that the government had acted against the Oath of the office in relation to stopping War (Penenberg  Barry, pp 142).

He specifically blamed the then President Richard Nixon and extended his accusations on the negative intensions of Mr. Truman and Mr. Lyndon Johnson and accused the two for not giving proper direction to the government and misleading the general public. This led to the revelation of the US governments intention to raid Cambodia, North Vietnam and the Laos. As a result, it worsened the relationship between the States and the United States of America. However, according to the views of Penenberg  Barry (pp 141), the intension to widen US superiority was long stated by Mr. Lyndon Johnson when he was a Presidential candidate in 1964. He argued that the US government should not be humiliated by any individual or State. The US had to retain South Vietnam from China and to help in ensuring that the people of South Vietnam enjoyed their fundamental rights and freedom without external interference.

Finally, he argued that the US government must protect the rights and freedom of its Citizen from any external attacks. His campaign was grounded on War principles and reservation of American heritage and its influence on other States, such as the Vietnam and Cambodia hence, supported war as a way of solving international challenges. The New York Times revealed a lot of secrets in relation to intentions of President Lyndon Johnson, who in the shadow, pretended to consult with the advisors dealing with the issues of international relations and yet he did not. The paper clearly stated that the motive of President Lyndon Johnson was not promoting peace but advocating war and superiority of the United States. In fact, the paper was so specific on the event that took place in Vietnam on the 17th July, 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to Vietnam that led to the massive killing of the Vietnam population hence contravening the Oath of office (McCombs  Protess, pp 117).
The legal action by the New York Publication

As discussed prior, publications of vital information especially on issues to do with government security and secrets is against the constitution of America. The media is therefore barred from such publications since they can result to demonstration or instability. The New York Publishers were so keen and smart to seek legal advice from the legal experts before they could publish the paper to the general public since the information was more to do with the government secret plans to attack other States such as Cambodia, through carpet bombing. For the fear of legal actions that could follow after the publication, the New York Times had a clear strategy to use Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska to deliberately extract the vital information from Pentagon Paper and send it to New York Times for publication (Berry, pp 101).

President Richard M. Nixon Injunction against the New York Times Publisher
According to Berry (pp 101) the House counsel Goodale James was the first to defend the New York Times Newspaper, for not violating any law governing publication and argued that the first Amendments supports Publishers, to publish any information that is of public interest and information to do with government intentions and policies hence according to him, there was no mistake or error done by the New York Times for publishing the article to the general public.

The Appeal at the Supreme Court
However, President Richard M. Nixon blamed the action of the New York Times on Daniel Ellsberg and his close friend Russo for leaking information to the reporter yet they knew it was vital information, which was to be protected from public awareness. According to his argument, the two committed a crime that would result to death penalty in line with the Espionage Act of the year 1917 and that they had no mandate as per the constitution to publish such vital information to the general public. After a short period of blame games on who was on the wrong side, President Richard M. Nixon, took a court injunction against the New York Times forcing the Publisher to stop any further publications of the News on the Paper (Nixon, pp 10).

However, according to Mills (pp 126), the publisher by the name Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, argued that there was no breach of security since the government claimed that the Newspaper sent an alarm to the enemies which could result to serious security problems in future. In response to injunction that was taken by Nixon, the New York Publisher appealed at the Supreme Court and the ruling was made after. The court had to come out clear and defend the Amendments of the constitution on the regulations and the fundamental rights of the media to publish information relating to the Executive intentions and actions. The Amendments gave the New York Times the mandate to publish information that is of National interest without intimidation or censure. One of the sections that gave the New York Times an upper hand in the case was Section 793 of the Espionage Act. According to the then Attorney General John Mitchell, he clarified that the publication did not violated any section of the Amendments hence he deserves no penalty for publication by New York Times (Penenberg  Barry, pp 149).

Conclusion
The decision that was made by the Supreme Court did not defend Mr. Nixons argument on violation of government plans by the publisher of the New York Times. In fact, the court made a ruling stating that the two Publishing firms, New York and Washington Posts, had no legal restrictions to authoritatively publish information that is contained in the Pentagon Papers and such action cannot be censured by the government. The government lost the battle and could not even bar the New York or the Washington Posts Newspapers from Publications.

Reflective Criticism In 100 Ways America Is Screwing Up the World
This particular article talks about the interview of Jessica Bennet with John Tirman concerning the impact of actions that the United States is providing the rest of the world. In particular, it focused on key areas such as foreign policy and the historical development of pop culture in the region. These actions continues to be significant in outlining the course the country has taken to provide new directions that ultimately shape the way people perceive their society as a whole.

With regards to the evolution and history of pop culture, Tirman mentions in the interview how the development of todays American pop culture induced new patterns of behavior particularly within the youths and exhibited deviant norms and values accordingly. In essence, since the U.S. is considered to be an influential pop culture society, their corresponding response to these issues becomes highlighted as a norm by other societies.

Due to this, careful attention is then given towards how these actions are then induced and manifested within other aspects such as perceptions, immigration, and outlook in the environment. With the current stance of U.S. Pop culture Tirman, in the interview argues that there must be a corresponding responsibility on the part of leaders to rethink over these situations and come up with appropriate directions to this increasing problem.  

The overall aim of Gladwells article is to determine and argue within the lines of whether pop culture is degrading Americans capacity to think or is an essential tool towards diversifying their knowledge and competence. Here, he tries to connect the apparent IQ results exhibited by students to the existing patterns that Americans patronize media, television, and the pop culture associated with it. Here, it argues about the way media has changed and evolved through time and continues to exhibit the uniqueness of pop culture as it applies to todays society.

In this light, Gladwell then provides an analysis on how both media can be constructive and destructive to ones cognitive abilities. On one side, it argues that the process this change has allowed greater capacity to apply and incorporate a relatively complex cognitive display of pattern recognition and motor coordination (Gladwell, 2005). It is through this that people have the capacity to designate vital pieces together effectively.

The other side of the debate coincides with the fact that pop culture is inducing a different kind of learning  something that shifts in the academic discipline. It can be seen that many students nowadays lag behind because of this reality as they continuously become immersed into the pop culture and somewhat neglect their responsibilities in school. This process then creates insights about how instruments of pop culture are becoming appealing to students compared with homework.

The author claims that the social construction of the concept of white race was a conscious effort to mentally differentiate slave owners and the slaves. Also, the author tackles the relationship between the improvements of Americas working classes and the social build up of unfairness behaviors or racism. He pointed out that the chronological order of the historical background of history of racism, together with the working classes within the United States, was basically based on ethnicity.

Chapter one of the book sets the conceptual approach and gives out important questions of the significant concept of Marxist labor historians that have been ignored or misconceived. Thus he said in on part of the, The main body of writing by white Marxist in the United States has both naturalized whiteness and over simplified race. These weaknesses and the fact that they largely reproduce the weakness of both American liberalism and neo conservatism where raced is concerned, have limited the influence of the very real Marxist contribution to the study of race (Roediger, 1991, p 6). He classifies Marxism into two categories, namely the traditional Marxist who emphasis on class and the neo-Marxist who subscribe the views of Herbert Gutman of United States and P. Thompson of Great Britain. These historians according to him take the self-motivated society of history. At the last part of the book he mentioned took a task by correcting the error that white supremacism was in part a conception of the European-American workers during the early 19th century.

In Chapter two he refers the Anglo-American period as The Prehistoric of the White Worker Settler Colonialism, Race and Republicanism before 1800. He introduces the identity of what he called the language of class whereas the European-American artisans reacted to the hazard of extinction by the capitalist endeavor by an appeal to the white-only republicanism. Thus he narrates, None of these is to argue that working people in the 17th and 18th century were not aware of race or they are unwilling to use white supremacy when it could work on their advantage. Racial attitudes did behave promiscuously and coexist with their opposites, (Roediger, 1991, p 25).

Chapter three of the book tackles about the growing industrialization to the improvement and development of white culture and the emergence of whiteness in the society. This chapter he mentions as Neither a Servant nor a Master am I to build an economy and society without masters and servants. Unskilled European Workers according to him were resentful of the routine discipline if industrial employment and consoled themselves with the social difference of being free citizens. He further reiterates that special attention is given to laboring class to combined political and economic motives with an unthinking decision which they projected onto their image as African-American. Thus he further explains, The existence of slavery (and increasingly of open northern campaigns to degrade the free blacks) gave working Americans both a wretched touchtone against which to measure their fears of unfreedom and a friendly remainder that they were by comparison not so badly off. (Roediger, 1991, p 49).

Part four of the book argues about that in the period of the Civil War and Post-Emancipation, there was an amount of moderation of white workers to compare Blackness of a person to with servility. (Roediger, 1991, p 174). However, in the end of the process he mentioned that European-Americans were still governed by fears of equality and Sexual amalgamation. The Black workers because of their color had too much to give to the development of labor movement and they struggle for the eight-hour labor in particular, but this gift was rejected by white labor.

The federal government is charged with the responsibility of maintaining economic reforms and social welfare legislations to its citizens. Although these two are given the greatest consideration, crime deserves to be given the same consideration or even much more. This book on war on crime looks into ways in which the war on crime can be handled within the twentieth century. To begin with the study looked at the failures that were witnessed in the state in regard to cubing crime.  So many political scandals were witnessed in the bureau of investigation and the Department of Justice. These are actually the departments that are supposed to help the country stop crime and yet they are faced with so many scandals. The highlight of these scandals was the failure by the federal government to wipe out all the criminal groups and illegal markets that had been identified by the government. Cases of kidnapping and interstate crime were on rise and this led to so much conflict between the opponents and proponent of state intervention. It took in intervention of the anticrime movement to bridge between the two parties and offered a neutral ground that could help resolve the conflict (Potter 1998, 1).

The Kansas City massacre that led to the death of federal officers provided a good opportunity for using the national solutions to solve local problems. In the late twentieth century, crime anxieties were a familiar way of creating new government agencies which extended the state authority.  The bureau of Investigation was characterized as a disgrace of black mailers and red-baiters and it needed some structural reformation and some cultural intervention for it to be transformed to a professional force. The relationship between the reformers who aimed at helping individuals and the scientist who opted for incarceration of law breakers brought into light two different understanding of fight against war and crime. The way in which these two groups related with the public was also different. For instance the social workers supported the public with empathetic educational programs that could help them morally upright to enable them oppose unworthy state interventions in their communities. The state managers on the other hand saw the community as a moral public that was fighting against other people who were against the state solutions to social problems (Potter 1998, 4).

The department of Justice targeted kidnappers and bandits between 1933 and 1936 but they were all let lose after J. Edgar Hoovers intervention since they were considered to have been easy targets by the federal enforcement. Despite the wide spread war against crime, the bandits were considered heroes in the community and when they gained this celebrity status, the community ironically understood them better within their traditional categories as being ignoble robbers, expropriators, noble robbers and revolutionaries. This perversely indicates that the community supported crime in a way because everyone would strive to reach this status in order to be recognized by the society. It has been illustrated in the book that the war on crime was fought guns, radio, movies and legislations, pens and even government hearings. There were attacks and counter attacks from all sides and all institutions.
The reputation of the Department of Justice became worse in 1924. The Bureau of investigation also became so disgraced because of the daily allegations of corruption, fraud, and graft that were witnessed after the death of Warren Harding. Very senior people in government including the former president were implicated in the sell of the governments oil reserve at Teapot Dome. Graft and favors were exposed further when the department of Justice ordered prosecutors to carry out surveillance operations. This is a clear indication that crime of various forms was deeply rooted into the government system and therefore the possibility of defensive counter attack against the fight against crime was always there. It would be very difficult for any group to fight against crime since the victims are the law makers. This movement on anticrime narrowed the gap between the party and regional lines hence this formed neutral political level for both the opponents and proponents. In 1932, Roosevelts agreement of new deal in the monetary sphere integrated a commitment to social principle of all types the Massacre that occurred in Kansas City gave a welcoming avenue to disclose the supremacy of modern centralized policing. This attack happened just some months after the fall and rearrangement of the countrys depository system, this massacre on the officers became an added dramatic opening to verify that national solutions which could also be used to solve local setbacks. Even though the revitalization in economic was not very fast and controversial, activists of crime war realized the potential for direct political dividends. Regarding Roosevelts initial hundred days, Attorney General Homer Cumings and Hoover disclosed legislation that would change the Bureau of Investigation from one of the many centralized police agencies to the directing surveillance and crime battle force in the country. By around 1934, Hoover agreed to join India to assist in tracking John Dilliger, and the bill was supported fully with no opposing voter. When the time the war on crime finished in 1936, Hoover and his men who were under his authority and were well known as G-men, they had become as assign of national renewal and a strong state that was well managed, honorable, honest and ready to meet the citizens needs.(Potter  1998, 3).

Nervousness due to crime was a common course that was used to create new government organizations by the late twentieth century. Therefore the initial war on crime and the chances it established to new dealers  encouraged administrators like Hoover, it  was crucial as the researchers attempt to fight the ways the state tries to emphasize dominion over the population residential administration and political parties. While they aimed for material objectives for instance decreasing popular violence and offering security to private property. The development of Bureau of Investigation from humiliating elements of blackmailers to armed, centralized police army, all this needed structural transformation and cultural mediation that indicated and emphasized other kinds of political reinforcement at the period of the new deal (Potter 1998, 4).

By 1954, if the director could launch the best history of the FBI by declaring that his supporters together with him were not at all separated from crossroads of America we must therefore come to a consensus that crime and policing were also important to a renewed nationalism before the start of World War II. This time between Hoovers election as a director about 1924 and the closing stages of war on crime in 1936, it assisted in developing ideological and structural groundwork for the good documented effects of post war and civil freedom era. Critics have come up with an issue about these unknown cross roads that might have been there in absence of Hoover. All through his career, the director often, secretly and illegally encouraged national security, antidemocratic, and racist plan that reflected his own beliefs and his friends who were administrators. Nevertheless, a number of authors have discussed how this strong agency of police was started as a result of orders made on the state by the citizens during a period when there were social crisis. In addition, ideas within the Department of Justice on the kind of reforms that should be emphasized in a national police force were regarded as component of war on crime. Confidentiality and undercover operations were major features of Hoovers campaigns in opposition to public political events which were as well important to the development of federal police supremacy (Potter 1998, 5).

Similar with the New Deal, the war on crime was founded on the progressive politics of the twentieth century, the state increase of the years of war and the philosophies of Hoover and technical reforms of 1920s.The association between anticrime movement and strengthening of the emerging New Deal is enlightening because reformers who planned to help people and scientific directors who give priority to incarceration and punishment visualized in a political  way and fashioned different wars on crime. The bandits and hijackers who were aimed by the Department of Justice between 1933 and 1936 have been disregarded as easy goal for federal enforcement. Many of the scholars have associated the war on crime to the postwar and policy guidelines of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a wide belief system in relation to crime and policing these are mostly regarded as cultural by most historians. The number of criminals and policemen were also very much influenced by politics, which were the major, sites for analyzing the relationship between citizen and state. Forming a state with moral standards was also a political process, a chain of policy choices that simultaneously passed in popular culture, secured inhabitants consent for a state in the process of development (Potter 1998, 4).

In the period of Roosevelts first term, the disagreements between the G-man and the bandit, that is the Bureau of Investigation and the mob, these became grounds for expressing nationalist narratives concerning the benefits of an intrusions state. Large number of print, film and other kinds of cultural texts progressively generated by FBI stressed the war on bandits as a founding period for modern criminal research. Many scholars have translated these reports of fights against Barker-Karpis gang and John Dilliger as deception that were forged to create heroism around Hoover and his supporters. Nevertheless, with the prominence of magazines books, films and television videos that have made the war on crime celebrity in history. This era represents a memorable time of public relations that intervened Hoovers long lasting campaign in opposition to political radicals. In deed, the war on crime brought about lasting transformation in the ways Americans would come to appreciate crime as a national crisis, police power as communally positive, and crime control as a centalized responsibility. These logical shifts were important ideological preconditions for upcoming public opposition to the civil rights activists, homosexuals and black power groups. The pressure of anticrime movement provides twentieth century bandits a concrete political importance that has only been alluded to in the records of FBI or the New Deal. As opposes of the public and producers of a group of cultural representation for crime, bandits also molded the drama of state development and police modernization. Even though differently referred to as mobsters or gangsters, bank robbers for instance John Dillinger and artists like Clyde Barrow were both well known auto bandits as a result of stealing cars, committing of crimes that were pursued by fast escapes on the new system of the nation. Newspapers in the mid and southwestern states they regularly appeared and they used the term bandit to differentiate them from the settled, more urban gangsters. They frequently referred themselves as bandits, sometimes expressing their crimes as part of traditional criminal brought about by legends such as Jesse James and Robin Hood.

In twenties and thirties, to be a bandit meant one is fully an armed robber, mostly a bank robber, and other times a hired killer or a kidnapper. For instance, Alvin Karpis says that his work was bank robbery, kidnapping rich men and knocking off payrolls. Mostly men, bandits were instructed and committed thieves who worked as a unit of one or many gangs. They were mostly recidivists who started with insignificant theft in their adolescent stage and proceeded to payroll knocking and kidnapping by joining more skilled criminals they met in jail. In contrast to urban gangsters, who around 1930 discussed freely with genuine businessmen and politicians. Bandits together with their mobile mob families acknowledged their careers as a chain of life or death conflict with authority.

Referring to banditry around twentieth century, United States needs a reorganization of what has been regarded as speculative discussion across fields and various disciplines. Literature holds that bandits attract the attention of the state Eric Hosbawn came up with a model for the social robber as violent, heroic and unique to agriculturalist communities. However, not all bandits are social robbers, some are intentionally political and many originate from societies that have for a period of time made an evolution to capitalism and industrial production. The bandits of 1930s were example of those obsessed with symbol and myth mostly as they referred to the individuals conflict with the economy and recent forms of power of the state. Bandits involved their viewers in a dialogue regarding tragedy, individuality and history that sandwiched the association between state and citizen. By the fact that cultural analysis is intertwined into structural review of state development, the war on crime colonize the New Deal with individuals who provoke questions regarding politics of symbol and myth. The appearance of heroic, intangible male bandits and their sexy, hostile molls look forward to the creation of a new type of cop, the hardworking, scientific, mannish G-man who became a part of newspaper and literature around 1930s.The modern qualified Government Man substituted these humiliating detectives, molding a new rule of law and protecting the well organized families and societies encouraged by the New Deal state. In terms of public relations, the G-man encountered with a more conditional victory during a war on crime beyond what historians think of. A study done by Lizabeth Cohen in relation to working class Chicago has argued that the effect of mass culture rely not only on how it is released and distributed but also on the criteria it is consumed. That means peoples social situations inspired them to regard mass culture in varying dimensions.

The case files originating from war on crime are unusual documents. They disclose intentional and unintentional association that happened between citizen and state as the federal administration expanded. A headstone to FBI information gathering, they symbolize a range of investigative machinery containing confessions, interviews, account from paid informants, intercepted mail, recordings from prison meeting rooms, memoranda and crime fighting guidance from reliable citizens and internal directives, progress reports and personal notes from manager.

These documents increase the understanding of how the bureau transformed between 1924 and 1936, other close references disclose the practices through which Hoovers well known files were generated, the style used in reporting, the ways of surveillance, and the build up and distilling of information. These files are rich and they explain relationships contained by the bureau and between bandits and also the associations between each of the group and the different publics they planned to reach. Confessions also disclosed gang discipline and what were the outlines of that discipline, the ethics of the team and the situation under which they were broken. Further more, the documents disclosed the issue of the value of the bureaus goal which revealed the important role of the campaigns in developing new ways of federal surveillance and manifestation. Federal police reform and criminality were both released through gender and racialised organization, systems that are not wholly recognized in the field of history. For instance, the exceptional ways that females were involved in bandit crimes differentiated these criminal associations from the urban commotions that dominate the past of American crime in the twentieth century, and mostly caused them to be symbolized as perverse gender. The war on crime and the oratory with which Hoover and other state directors regarded the war were also based on racism, expressing criminals as ethnic while whites were wickedly blackened by their pathological behaviors.

These definitions were altered, reproduced and changed outside the centre of the state as the bureaus strong message was consumed and duplicated by different people (Potter 1998, 7). In conclusion the bureau of Investigation was important and there was a real need for its foundation since it disclosed all this information regarding crime and war and those bandits who were involved in these scandals.

The Second Great Awakening is the term used for the great revival of religiosity in the antebellum United States. A great wave of revived interest in religion, and preaching of gospel and conversions mark the period. One of the most prominent figures of the Second Great Awakening is Charles G. Finney. The era is also marked by efforts of several religious or secular societies in establishing utopian communes or neighborhoods.

The Second Great Awakening made a profound impact on the American society and it helped to shape it in its current form. The awakening affected every aspect of life and every part of the American society. People, regardless of gender, race and social status all were affected. The important thing was that it was more than a religious impact. One of the major impacts was disengaging of the government from every kind of religious affairs like disestablishment of state churches. Another important change was the rejection of many Calvinist beliefs and theories like Human sinfulness, helplessness and impossibility of salvation for all. It also led to individualism, gender equality and rejected the popular demonizing emblem of Calvinism regarding women as the source of original sin. The main emphasis was on salvation for anyone who repents, forgiveness and divine love. In this manner the 2nd awakenings theology was more democratic and optimistic in nature.

Moreover, since majority of the people of the United States were Protestants the increased religiosity in the people also sparked anti-Catholicism, which is marked by many fictional tales regarding sexual abuses of nuns for like the memoirs of Maria Monk. Moreover the revival increased the urge to integrate religious and spiritual life in the daily and everyday life increased and literature regarding this also emerged. The Mother at home is such an example, which gives a detailed guideline for Christian mothers how to raise their children so that they can become pious and perfect Christians as adults. These books reveals about the anti-Catholic sentiment among the American people, who mostly were Protestants, though were not religious fanatics. The second book gives us insight about the feeling of integrating religious teachings in daily life in the people of early republic. This led to the publication of books like The Mother at Home.

Although the most costly conflict in terms of casualties and the most divisive one yet fought by Americans, debate continues about what caused the American Civil War. On the one hand, official statements by the two sides, the United States under President Abraham Lincoln and the Confederacy under President Jefferson Davis, gave preserving the Union and defending states rights respectively as the reason for the war. On the other hand, in seceding from the Union, several states referred to slavery as a valued part of their cultural legacy. An investigation of what was behind both secession and each sides willingness to engage in a bloody, protracted conflict suggests that what made the war worth fighting was slavery, either to defend it or to end it. Following the argument of several historians, the paper argues that slavery was at the root of the war.

The American Civil War took place from 1861 to 1865. Seven southern states seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy, opposed by the non-seceding states that remained within the Union. Jefferson Davies led the Confederacy, the Union by Abraham Lincoln.  The war was the most divisive incident in US history. Some family members fought on opposite sides. More people died than during any other conflict involving US personnel, including the two World Wars. Yet debate continues about exactly why the war was fought. Stampp describes the search for the cause as one of the most absorbing historical problems (Stampp, 1991, p. 16) and after reflecting on the problem of causation suggests that one is driven to the conclusion that historians will never know, objectively and with mathematical precision, what caused the Civil War (p. 17). The cause is, still open to debate (p. 18). For some, the conflict was to restore national unity, and nothing more (Berlin and Field, 1985, pp 1-2).  Despite lack of mention in official statements at the time, even its denial by some as a cause, several scholars argue that what made the Civil War worth fighting was ending or keeping slavery.  In this view, which one proponent calls controversial (MacPherson, 2008, p. 88), the South did fight to keep slaves, the North to end slavery.
The Cause Lincolns Statements

Lincolns official Declaration of War makes no mention of slavery.  It begins by describing the secessionist states as opposing and obstructing the laws of the Union. In order to maintain the honor, the integrity and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government and to redress wrongs that had been long endured war was declared.  Forts and property seized from the Union were to be re-possessed and the law restored. To facilitate this, Lincoln was convening a militia of seventy-five thousand men and was convening Congress (Lincoln and Fehrenbacher, 1989, p. 232).  Haven says that Lincoln repeatedly states that he was fighting to preserve the union and that if he achieved this he did not care whether he freed the slaves (Haven, 2002, p. xiii). From the Union perspective, the war had to be fought to restore law and to preserve the Union.  The cause of the war, according to Lincolns Declaration, was the revolt or secession of the seven states. What did the Confederacy say about the war and why had the seven seceded Jefferson Davis, the Confederate President, responded

The President of the United States calls for an army of seventy-five thousand men, whose first service is to be the capture of our forts. It is a plain declaration of war, which I am not at liberty to disregard, because of my knowledge that, under the Constitution of the United States, the President is usurping a power granted exclusively to Congress.  He emphasized that in withdrawing from the Union, the seven states desired only peace and had no desire to expand their territory indeed their only request was to be left alone (Davis, 1990, p. 283). However, any effort to subjugate them by arms would be resisted (p. 284). He then asserted that their cause just and that, relying on the Divine Power, they would struggle for their inherited right to freedom, independence and self-government (p. 284). From Davis point of view, resisting the Unions militia as it tried to capture Confederate forts was in defense of liberty and freedom and the right to self-government.  No mention of slavery here.  Southerners, says Macpherson, compared their secession from the Union with that of the Union from the British Empire.  They were fighting a Revolutionary War to secure their freedom, for the independence of what they called their country for liberty and self-government against invasion from what they now considered to be an alien power that no longer represented their interests (Macpherson, 2008, p. 86).
The Cause Davis Statements

According to Davis, the existence of African servitude was in no wise the cause of the conflict, but only an incident (Davis, 1990, p. iv).  He and others consistently described the birth of the Confederacy as conceived by Divine Principle not by any worldly cause.  Secession was thus a right under God, an exercise of self-determination and of self-government. On the other hand, in passing its ordinance of secession, the State of South Carolina referred directly to slavery
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all states north of that line have united in the election of one man to the high office of President of the United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery  he has Declared that Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free and that the public mind must rest in the belief that Slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction (December 20, 1860. Heidler, et al, 2000, 2242).

  This suggests that it was Lincolns election that caused secession and that this was directly linked with his hostility towards slavery. Lincolns anti-slavery stance was so distasteful to the South that he was not even on the ballot for the Presidential election. The Texas Declaration of Secession also referred to slavery.  The right to retain slavery was of utmost import

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time (Heidler, et al, 2000, p. 2250.)

In a latter dated January 18, 1861, Davis stated that Lincolns election was not the cause of secession but could be seen as the last feather which you know breaks the camels back (Hilton, 1999 49).  What did Davis mean by the last feather This almost certainly refers to the general feeling in the South that their way of life was under threat. The North was developing as the industrial region, while the South remained heavily dependent on agriculture. The North was imposing high export tariffs on the South as well as buying Southern goods at very cheap prices. The only way the South believed it could afford to grow produce was by using free slave labor.  Building on this economic reality, Haven argues that while the civil war was fought both to preserve the union and to defend states rights these issues only flared into war because underneath them lay the issue of slavery (Haven, 2002, p. xiii).
Slavery The Unsolved Issue

Slavery was the issue left en resolved by the US Constitution.  As some states abolished slavery (every Northern state by 1810) while some resisted this and defended slavery and also as new states joined, the issue became all the more toxic.  Would any new states be admitted that retained slavery, or would only free soil states be admitted to the Union. The slave states and the free states vied for power in the Senate, each trying to make sure that the other side did not dominate (Haven, 2002, p. 4). The Compromise of 1850 was an attempt to diffuse tension by allowing California to accede as a free state but New Mexico to decide the slavery issue by free vote.  All US citizens were also required to return runaway slaves to their owners, making assisting them a crime (Haven, 2002, p. 2). However, when Kansas was admitted to the Union on the basis of the Compromise of 1850, that is, that it would vote on abolition, both sides rushed to secure victory at the polls. Abolitionists paid settlers to flood Kansas with anti-slavery voters while opponents of abolition used illegal votes as well the point of the gun to prevent free staters from voting (Haven, 2002, p. 4). The pro-slavery voters easily won the election of 1855. The slave states enjoyed the upper hand until Lincoln, hostile to slavery, won the Presidential election of 1860.

Slavery was deeply entrenched in the South, where it had existed for more than 200 years and there were at least four million slaves when the Civil War began.  The seven states saw slavery as essential to Southern culture and economic success (Haven, 2002, p. xiii).  Use of household slavers to maintain the quality of plantation life, for example, was regarded as the backbone of a whole way of life. Religious sanction was cited, the contention that God had created the black race  descendants of Ham  to serve the white race. In the 1840s, southerner writers and even politicians recited the story of the curse of Ham as if, in itself, it explained both the legality and origins of modern American slavery (Guyatt, 2007, p. 238). See Genesis 920-27 for the curse of Noahs son, Ham. Racists in South Africa also based their treatment of Africans on this text.

Macpherson says that Southerners became defensive about slavery, so even though Lincoln advocated gradual abolition saw the handwriting on the wall when he became President (Macpherson, 2008, p. 84).  In his view, which he describes as controversial, slavery was the root cause of the war
If I were to take on a controversial stand, I would be on the relationship between slavery and the coming of the civil war. I would argue that slavery was at the root of what the civil war was all about.  If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war.  Ultimately what the Confederacy was fighting for was to preserve a nation based on a social system that incorporated slavery. Had that not been the case, there would have been no war (Macpherson, 2008, p. 88).

After discussing the stated reasons for going to war against each other, Haven suggests that despite everything that was aid about preserving the union verses states rights, what made fighting worthwhile for the South was slavery, thus without slavery there would have been no civil war and slavery made the war worth fighting (Haven, 2002, p. xiii).
Slavery as the Root Cause

In this view, the Confederates were indeed fighting, regardless of what they argued about states rights and the right of self-governance because they wanted to keep their slaves.  Did Union soldiers fight because they wanted to preserve the Union or to end slavery  Arguably these were so closely linked that they went hand in hand.  The Northern states has all abolished slavery and were opposed to slavery.  In fighting to preserve the Union, the question for them was the same as it was for the South  what type of society were they fighting for  One that enslaved some or one that honored all men as created equal and free  Lincolns Proclamation of 1863 may well have made explicit what had always motivated the war, that it was being fought to keep or to end slavery. Listing the slave-states, he stated, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free (Lincoln, 1863. Emancipation Proclamation, January 1.)   The Proclamation, though, did not include those states that had slaves that were on the side of the Union (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri) known as the Border States. Slavery continued in two of the border-states until outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment of 1865 (Berlin and Fields, 1985, p. 3). Lincoln may have said that if the Union was preserved, slaves might go free or remain in bondage but he later wrote that the question of Slavery was more important than any other indeed, so much more important  that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present (Lincoln, Nicolay and Haye, 1907, p. 617).

Some argue that if the Civil War had not been waged, the South would eventually have ended slavery peacefully.  This can be challenged.  After the end of the war, Southern States found ways of perpetuating the exploitation of freed slaves, passing a series of Jim Crow laws that segregated whites from blacks and condemned African-Americans to another century of oppression, slavery in all but name.  It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that anything like full equality was achieved, after the Civil Rights struggle led by Martin Luther King and others. Racism continued to be justified by many in the South and during the Civil Rights struggle some in the South were still prepared to fight to retain segregation.   Was the War fundamentally about slavery From the Confederates perspective, yes, it was fought to keep slavery.  From the Union perspective, it can be argued that preserving the Union was the main reason for starting the war, as stated by Lincoln. Yet, at the same time, many of the men who fought to preserve the Union also wanted the Union to honor all peoples liberty. Some argue that the slave issue became central during the war, thus Emancipation represented a shift in Union policy making what had been lacking at the start become a fundamental war aim (Berlin and Fields, 1985, pp 1-2 ). Union soldiers may not have started but they did finish fighting to end slavery. It is likely that ending slavery was always in their hearts, however, so for many the officially stated causes for war did not represent their real motives for fighting.

The United States under the British law had various grievances towards the British crown because it refused to address these matters which forced 13 colonies to move into action. They wrote to the British Crown about their grievances and the changes that they want.

Four major grievances that the colonies expressed in the document were primarily about what they perceived were violations of their right regarding matters of property, freedom, justice, and the right to rule themselves. The four primary grievances that these colonies felt were because of what they named the Intolerable acts they say were unjust, impolitic, and cruel, dangerous and destructive to the American State and the American people. These intolerable acts include the Boston Port Act, Massachusetts Government Act, Quartering Act, The Administration of Justice Act, and the Quebec act.

The Boston Port Act closed of Boston Harbor to trade where violators of the act lost their ships and their respective cargoes because of confiscation. In the Massachusetts Government Act, the popularly elected leaders lost their positions and the right of the people to peaceably assemble was not further recognized. The Quartering Act provided that British soldiers be allowed to be housed in private households without compensation. The Administration of Justice act shows that public servants were given more authority since they could not be tried in Colonies which allowed them to use violence to the people. The Quebec act gave Quebec certain rights and privileges in their laws and in their religion which the Americans have seen as unfair since it provides special rights as well as endangering other British Colonies.

The constitution and the bill of rights of the United States addressed these problems especially those pertaining to the powers of the legislative branch as well as the I, III, IV, V and VII amendments. The constitution specifically enumerated the allowable practices that the legislative branch can do and it also provides specific limitations to it. Relevant power of the Legislative branch in this discussion is the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and with several states and not to prevent it. Relevant to this discussion is its limitation to not suspend Habeas Corpus as well as the prevention of Bill of attainder. The constitution also provides that no preferences shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state to another.  This prevent s the Boston Act from happening again where it becomes a vital role for the legislature to think of the best interests of the government where they would not allow special treatment in cases of commerce and revenue. Also, The Constitution limits the power of the Legislative in order that it would not presume powers that are in the nature of a different branch of the government, specifically the Supreme Court. Though it allows the Legislative Branch to have tribunals, the legislative must still concede to the idea that the Supreme Court is superior when it comes to issues regarding the judiciary.

The bill of rights provides protection against the Administration of Justice act, The Massachusetts Government Act and the Quartering Act. The first amendment or the right to religion, speech, press, assemble and the petition the government for a redress of their grievances which will protect the people from the Massachusetts Government act. The Quartering act is addressed in the third amendment where it says that no soldier shall be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner. The fourth and fifth amendments addresses the problems that the Administration of Justice Act provides where it protects the people form unwarranted searches and seizures as well as protect the people by ensuring that everyone will not be convicted and punished without due process. .

The Americans during the British colonial era provides that they too have certain rights, by nature of the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English Constitution, and the several Charters or compacts, have the rights. The Americans felt that those that they have termed intolerable acts, the source of their grievances, have violated these rights.

Ernest Hemingways For Whom The Bell Tolls is a novel which takes place specifically three days before May 1937 ends. It is about an American professor named Robert Jordan, whom offered to fight for the Spanish government he joins a group of  Spanish guerrilla fighters  (Tyler 115-116) with the mission to  blow up a bridge  (Tyler 116)  in order to thwart fascist groups working against the Spanish government (Tyler 116).

The main concept or thesis of the novel revolves around the question on whether the meaning of a life is far more important than how many days it is spent. In the book, it is seen that the protagonist, Robert, is fully aware of his mission and its costs such as being deprived of a longer life and a life of probable happiness with the person whom one loves (Tyler 120).
Methods

The method which Hemingway uses in For Whom the Bell Tolls is unlike the methods employed by most novelists whom write about history. While most novelists prefer to  undertake a general survey of a revolutionary crisis and shuttling back and forth among various groups of characters  (Wilson), Hemingway prefers to contain the story in one main action, which is the protagonists mission to blow up a bridge (Wilson).

Also, Hemingway tries to adopt various  unusual tactics  (Tyler 122) in order to present Spanish to his readers. Instead of actually incorporating actual obscene or profane phrases in the text, Hemingway preferred to allude to these phrases by using terms such as  unprintable or filth  (Tyler 122) and relying on the possibility that his readers will be able to interpret such words on their own.
Evaluation of the Thesis and Methods

The thesis of the novel is very interesting for it poses a very difficult question which would you choose, a short life where you are able to fulfill your duties and be of service to others, or a long life wherein you are made to remember your failures The book, in many ways, is a painful read, for it tries to convince its readers that there are, indeed, some choices which are right, and yet they are difficult to make.

On the other hand, the method which Hemingway employed is interesting and satisfying for the reader. While most history novelists prefer to write their novels using a wide array of events and thoughts from various characters, Hemingway preferred to centralize the focus on one main event, which is blowing up a bridge in the attempt to thwart fascist forces. Although readers are more accustomed to the former, it cannot be denied that Hemingways method was effective, for it provided the reader with the pleasure of focusing on one main event instead of actually trying to correlate various events that will lead into a main event. However, it is necessary to point it out that Hemingways allusions as to how Spanish guerrillas speak is not entirely that well-thought out. Although the language may have been vulgar, it would eventually make up for it because it will provide the reader with a notion of how exactly language differences between the characters affect their interaction.

Strengths and Weaknesses
One of the strengths of Hemingways For Whom the Bell Tolls is that it provides the reader with the feeling of oneness with the story. It cannot be denied that Hemingways gift of prose enables him to present his story is such a sense that the reader feels as if he or she is part of the story. The story pulls the reader for it provides the reader with a vivid description of the area wherein the protagonist and his friends face the battle. Every plant, tree, stream, and terrain is vividly depicted in the story, making it seem as if it is a direct description of the area (Wilson).

Another strength of Hemingways novel is that he is able to communicate feelings such as adventure and suspense. Since the novel is about the Spanish civil war, it is important that the reader is able to feel what the characters are feeling stories about war are effective when they are able to reach out to the reader and make them feel the difficulties and hardships of such events (Wilson).

On the other hand, while the novel, indeed, has strengths, it also has its fair share of weaknesses. One is that since Hemingway is more of a short story writer rather than an novel writer, it can be seen that he has certain problems with the transitions of the novel. One disadvantage of the fact that the novel pulls the reader towards it is that it enables the reader to be absorbed with the pacing of the story, and when the story seems dull, the reader easily notices (Wilson).

Conclusion and Recommended Readers
Hemingways For Whom the Bell Tolls is a combination of his obsessions personal honor and war (Wilber) although it has its fair share of strengths and weaknesses, it fulfills its purpose to show that it does not matter how short or how long a life is. What matters is that it is spent well, even though it is too short for comfort. Apparently, war is an event which forces an individual to make important choices in the protagonists case, it could be seen that his personal honor is far important than being able to live a long life.

This book is recommended for practically anyone whom is interested in reading about wars and life realizations. In a manner of speaking, this book might seem to be intimidating, because it is based on history, but it would be good reading material for young individuals whom are either in high school or college, for it will provide realizations and clarifications about life. In fact, anyone whom is passionate about life should read Hemingways For Whom the Bell Tolls for it is, undeniably, a good read with valuable insights.

Benjamin Franklin was one of Americas greatest known symbols of America. Many people across the nation may have learned about him in history throughout school. The introductions to Ben Franklin in history texts are usually brief. They continually speak of his accomplishments in inventions and work as well as political contributions. In learning about these things that he did, labels are created and many people could feel inferior to him. The study of Benjamin Franklin sheds another light. His champion for humanity in everything he did and said reveals another story.

The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin gives rise to the ability of others to learn from him. If his thoughts and ideas are put into action, people have a chance at contributing to humanity as well. The thoughts and ideas of themselves can be realized and obtained through the interpretation of the Autobiography of Ben Franklin. In this essay, these details are expanded upon throughout. The life and account of Ben Franklin has the potential to inspire. Studying Franklin more in breadth is recommended to all who come across this iconic figure of American history.

Benjamin Franklins spent years growing up around 13 other children in his household. His mother and father both would give rise to interesting discussions around the dinner table (Franklin, 2006, 2006, 11). The spark of curiosity that was inbred in Ben Franklin continued to give rise to his life. Franklins experiences and success was largely based on his curiosity and ability to put into practice what he wished. In earlier years, Ben Franklin wished to go about at sea for his living (Franklin, 2006, 12). His father did not desire this type of life for him and instead had put him to work with him. Ben spent 2 years doing work for his father but never took a liking to the work that he had to do (Franklin, 2006, 13). When his brother returned from England in 1717, Ben Franklin was joined by his side to work in his printing business by his father (Franklin, 2006, 13). He served his brother for about 9 years and was able to grow his knowledge through borrowing books that were printed from the press.

During this time, his brother was incarcerated and Ben took to run the paper in his absence (Franklin, 2006, 17). When his brother was let out, they continued to run the paper under Bens name for a time, according to the Autobiography (Franklin, 2006, 17). His brother had beat Ben too many times throughout the apprenticeship and finally Ben decided to leave the printing with his brother (Franklin, 2006, 17). He took up several jobs around neighboring states and abroad. He eventually settled into working creating paper money, a job he had received through writing and a friend.

His successes were largely in part of what he perceived were in need at the time. He would pay attention to what others were saying they were in need of. Then he would go about a way to create something that could be of use. He performed this with Poor Richards Almanac, which was printed for 25 years and other inventions as well from what is observed throughout the writings in the Autobiography. Whenever Ben Franklin had an idea or determined a need, he would perform what was in his power to fix the problem. He took upon the element of offering a service to where there was a need. This is what drove his success in many of his endeavors.

One such instance was when he had gained word of the common peoples complaint that there was not enough paper money. He then took upon his desire to create a pamphlet entitled The Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency (Franklin, 2006, 41). Ben Franklin was able to use his knowledge of the trade and argument to discuss the need for more paper money. Through his establishment of writing this, he landed the job for the Newcastle paper money at the time through a friend (Franklin, 2006, 41).

During his earlier years, Ben Franklin decided to set a plan in achieving moral perfection. He wrote down virtues and set about practicing them daily (Franklin, 2006, 46). With temperance, he called to mind not to eat toward dullness and not to drink to give rise to temper (Franklin, 2006, 45). I believe that from his experiences with others who had these problems, he put this into action within his plan. Frugality he decided to only do well toward himself and others (Franklin, 2006, 45). It seems that in frugality, I believe that he meant also in the ideas that he came up with and executed. He strove only to perform what was in need at the time and complete a service for himself and others.

In education, Ben Franklin thought that it should be prominent each day to give you to study. It seems that Ben Franklin never stopped learning and loved books. He read everyday and would practice what he learned. This is the biggest key to reading and study. Practicing what is read and learned is the importance of all education. Ben Franklin would strive to better himself in everything he did through practice. The letters that he and another wrote back and forth for a long period of time during his earlier years is one example of this (Franklin, 2006, 14). He would be persuaded by the others eloquent speech. Ben Franklin set about to make his writing eloquent and more persuasive instead of simply caving to the others point of view throughout the letters (Franklin, 2006, 14). He kept at education and did not ever reach a plateau. He would put into practice his education in all of his writing and experiments.

Franklin disagreed with many points on religion. He found disagreement that religion failed on many points (Franklin, 2006, 45). One of them being inspiration and the thought that religion divided the people instead of brought them together (Franklin, 2006, 45). This was likely because of the emphasis of violence and rules that were evident in religion and sermons during Ben Franklins time. He avoided religion and instead took to work to avoid going to services on Sundays. Ben Franklin took to Deism after reading some books that had fallen into his hands against it (Franklin, 2006, 45). He thought that after reading the arguments, the Deists were strongly executed above the reproaches of the other religions (Franklin, 2006, 45).

He admired Rev. George Whitefield from his moving speeches in way of building an orphanage (Franklin, 2006, 59). Rev. Whitefield proposed going to Georgia with the project and Ben Franklin ill-advised of this move (Franklin, 2006, 59). This was due to many shortages that would have encumbered the project. Instead Rev. Whitefield did not take the counsel of Franklin. Ben then would not contribute to the project (Franklin, 2006, 59). After attending one of his sermons, Rev. Whitefield softened the heart of Franklin into giving to the project anyway (Franklin, 2006, 60). He was taken by the Reverends well thought out sermons and tones of voice used throughout.

With the rise of the Enlightenment period that Ben Franklins views were at the forefront, it seemed that his objections to religious views were well received (Fahs, Murrin, Johnson, McPherson). I believe that through his views, he ushered in a new era regarding religious attitudes. The need for people to get away from what oppresses them was evident in his views. Instead focusing on enlightening ideas and positive ambitions became the guiding light toward enlightenment.

During the earlier years of religion, violence and oppression were the main uses of sermons. These divided people and focused on oppression and condemnation. The preachers during this time did not have any other thoughts to go on but what they were taught. They relived this through their sermons. Ben Franklin gave breath to the ideas and examined them for himself, coming up with his own judgment in his mind. This is the key to anything  coming up with your own experiences and thoughts instead of going with what is taught to you or what others think.

This was Ben Franklins thoughts and gave way to the age of Enlightenment to inspire and encourage others to do the same. When those free-thinkers decided to go about their business and not hold others judgment over their heads, they formed the new movement. They led the way to new thinking and empowered others to be able to think for themselves and argue against certain things that were considered a standard, as Franklin did with Deism against religion.

During a stage of his life, Ben Franklin decided to set about achieving a standard of moral perfection (Franklin, 2006, 46). He spent time coming up with virtues to live by. I think that during this time he wanted to define himself and give careful thought to what his code of conduct was for his life. I believe that in doing so he guarded against irrational behavior and was able to know who he was and have a systematic approach for all problems and daily issues that should arise. I believe that perhaps everyone comes to this point at one time in their life after coming into awareness of their actions and patterns of belief. If they decide upon change, then setting about a plan of moral achievement and action using virtues is what a number of people put into practice. He may have gotten the idea from Buddhism, although this is not stated in his autobiography.

He wrote a number of virtues down in a book (Franklin, 2006, 47). He would work on one at a time (Franklin, 2006, 47). He would keep conscious vigil of his actions and whether he broke the virtue daily (Franklin, 2006, 47). Franklin would then record this in the book. As he went through the list, he practiced them daily until they were ingrained and integrated within his self (Franklin, 2006, 47). He committed to working on them everyday and was successful in many, diminishing them as he went along with his diligence (Franklin, 2006, 47). He had faults with one, order. Order was the hardest for him since he was not used to it when growing up, according to the Autobiography (Franklin, 2006, 49). His success in the virtues also lent to his success and happiness from practice as perceived by the editor of the Autobiography (Franklin, 2006, 49).

Based on what I read from Ben Franklins autobiography, I believe that he was a great and wise American symbol. Ben Franklin stood for what America was built for. The realization of a problem in the current environment and absolve in himself to fix it. His actions led to introducing many things that were needed during his time period.

From his earlier days of reading and educating himself with books, Ben Franklin put into practice what he learned. He strived to make himself better at whatever he put his mind to. He did not take no for an answer to anything. When he had an idea, he went about perfecting it until he was satisfied with the results. This is the basis of what America is and was founded for. Striving to better humanity through an idea, invention, or writing is what drove Ben Franklin.

Instead of coming up with excuses or reasons why he could not perform an action, he instead went about achieving it. He is the symbol that a lot of America today should take after. He worked at himself through reading and education. After attaining notice of others abilities, he would then work at becoming better at his own. He did not use limitations in his words. He instead overcame them and worked at achieving what he thought was useful. This ability of his should be investigated by all of America today and, in my opinion, we would not be in economic distress.

His reading was not only what drove him to be seen as a symbol for America. His put of this knowledge into action also contributed to it. One example of this is when Ben put into action the thought about paper money. He created the pamphlet to be useful in the need of the commoners for more paper money to flow in the system (Franklin, 2006, 41). His friend then awarded him the job for his printing business and he solved the problem (Franklin, 2006, 41). He created more money to be printed which was a service for the people during his time.

When he saw a need, he came up with the solution. I believe that many people today in America see the potential of this. I also believe that many people in America also do not see the results of action. Instead they go with the provisions of government and do not put into practice their own ideas and thoughts. If they interpreted with their own minds what is written about certain things, including religion, then they too would realize problems and begin to work toward solutions. This is one of the main reasons that I see Ben Franklin as an American symbol.

He did not work for himself and egotistical views. He did not do it to see his name in lights. He did it because he saw a different point of view. He would argue cases, such as Deism, because the arguments for it were much more persuasive. They made more sense to him. He saw the differing points of view and what lined up for him in one, he would come to accept. He easily would interpret these according to his own arguments and would write about these. He did not keep silent his arguments. Instead he spoke out about them. Think of Martin Luther King. How many people before him were given the chance to speak about African American rights We do not know. The main point is that Ben Franklin spoke about what he saw need to. This is a way for the American people to tap into these thoughts to put into practice what they need to today and make aware what thoughts and ideas are out there.

Ben Franklin also sought to perfect his moral standards. He used the virtues in order to do this. Again, he put into practice what he read. Instead of sitting upon the information, he put it into practice. When he put this into practice daily, he resulted in fewer instances of the human condition. The practice of the virtues helped him a great deal in life (Franklin, 2006, 49). America should look to Ben Franklins habits as inspiration for themselves to put into practice similar ideas. The establishment of virtues in daily life is important to define a way that life should be lived.

The trouble is that many do not become aware of the need to do this. It is through the practice of self-realization that people in America can realize that they need to perfect themselves. When they learn from past performance and realize their habits, then the implementation of virtues comes into their lives. Taking study of Ben Franklin as an American symbol is important not only for what he contributed to history with inventions and ideas, but also his practice of virtues. In perfecting his ability concerning the virtues, he was able to define his life and moral behavior.

I think that one of his virtues comes to mind when defending the reason why I believe that Ben Franklin is an American symbol and not an egotistical man. The one I think of is Make no expense but to do well to others and yourself. Waste nothing (Franklin, 2006, 46). While this is put under frugality and can be argued to be mainly about money, I see a different view. I believe that instead Franklin meant to put into action what you think and believe also. Acting upon ideas and thoughts, as Franklin did, brings about inspiration and change in others.

He put into action his education through books many times in his life. By practicing what he came across in books, he was able to come up with very argumentative points that inspired others. In this virtue, Franklin was able to do well to others through the use of his knowledge. He did not sit to himself and say that he knew better than others. If he did then I would consider him to be egotistical. Instead, he let others know of his opinions to bring things to action. The betterment of humanity was Franklins use of his knowledge in his work. He did not sit idle.

In egotistical views, I believe that those who say they are better than others are the ones that are egotistical. If people sit around and dream about how they could do something better but do nothing about it, this is being egotistical. Doing nothing about something results in nothing. Only the thought exists and thought was made coupled with action. Putting action into thought is what drives humanity toward greater things.

Ben Franklin realized this through his own thinking. He realized at an earlier age that he had his own belief on things. Whenever someone did not agree with him, he would argue his beliefs. I think that these led him to be a great American symbol. His own thinking is what drove him to do things and have results. His drive and determination is what led to his success. Instead of going backward, he always went forward.

This is what America stands for, forward movement. Forward movement toward a better future for everyone was the realization of America. The thing is that people should go by their own thoughts and constantly learn. In learning, they realize their own thoughts. People are driven forward by their own thoughts and not those of others. It is through this realization that people are able to tap into Ben Franklins ability to further humanity and their own lives.

Sadly, I believe that not many people give second thought to Ben Franklin beyond what he accomplished. So is the nature of America today. Focusing on profit and accomplishment instead of peoples own thoughts toward ideas makes up a lot of America today. I believe that if people would tap into Franklins ability to see need around them then they would be able to get past their limitations and realize their own ability that Ben Franklin had during his time. This is the reason that I believe him to be an American symbol and not an egotistical person. Even today, Franklins story exists to inspire those who read it, learn, and put it into action within their own lives.

From 1776, the United States grew to a huge, integrated, industrialized economy that made up almost a quarter of the world economy. The United States possessed a unified market, a supportive legal-political system, vast areas of highly productive farmlands, and a huge labor and market capital. US economic growth from 1830 to 1890 attracted immigrants from Europe, Asia, and South America.

Cotton boomed following the invention and commercialization of the cotton gin. Large plantations, based primarily on slave labor, expanded in the richest lands of the south. There was also large-scale trade with colonial powers like Britain, Spain, and France. People moved to the fertile lands of the West. The federal government created national roads which helped settlers migrate west. After the US Civil War, rapid industrialization occurred. By 1890, the United States had overtaken the gross economic output of Great Britain. During the so-called Gilded Age, new discoveries and inventions took place, causing a Second Industrial Revolution in the West. Railroads increased the mobility of both capital and labor. Locomotives were mass-produced to carry more people and goods. Inventions like the telephone, phonograph, typewriter, and electric light facilitated development. At the dawn of the 20th century, cars replaced horse-drawn carriages as the primary mode of transportation. As the industry grew larger, it developed mass-production methods (Ehrenreich, 2002). Henry Ford established the first factory which used the assembly line. During the First World War, the United States outpaced Europe in the production of ammunitions, ships, and other war commodities.

However, after the Second World War, an economic transition occurred. There was a shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy, the diffusion of national and labor capital, and mass privatization. This event can be wholly termed as transition to a knowledge-based economy.

According to Kochan (2005), there are four characteristics of a knowledge-based economy. Here are as follows

There is a transition from mass production of commodities to increased provision of services. The production of goods such as clothing, ammunition, and food declines while services increase. Services dominate the health, education, research, and government sectors. In the 1970s, there was a 57 in the number of service jobs in the country. Most of the service jobs catered to immigrants from Europe and Asia. Today, the service sector accounts for 31 of the countrys GDP

There is an increased emphasis on professional, technical jobs over blue-collar jobs. In the 1950s, there was a marked increased in the number of scientists specializing in various fields. A number of mining towns and settlements faced depressing unemployment rates as a result of increasing importance of theoretical knowledge. There was also an increased emphasis on environmental issues which the old framework failed to address

Theoretical knowledge is seen as the primary source of innovation. Advances in knowledge also lead to other innovations such as means of dealing with ethical issues on theoretical rather than empirical methods. In short, in a knowledge-based economy, supply and demand are based on codified knowledge which is disseminated to consumers

A new relationship is formed between scientists and the new innovations they create. Technological growth lies at the base of the new economy. It is the lifeblood of economic growth. This situation leads to the need for more universities and learning centers. The university, with its vivid image of reliability, produced experts who can generate, guide, and control new technologies.

At the heart of this economy is the federal government. The roles and functions of the government have been theoretically modified to suit these new conditions. The essential function of the government is to provide a favorable atmosphere for the development of technologies. Note that the traditional role of government (classical economics) is to provide public goods (such as roads, canals, docks, airports, etc.). In a knowledge-based economy, the governments role is both passive and active. It is active in the sense that it must ensure the continuity of technological growth. It is passive in the sense that it must not intervene in the affairs of the market (Kochan, 2005).

Liberalization is the totality of this economic arrangement. The market is assumed to be beyond the confines of the state, and thus functions as a semi-independent appendage of the state. Because the world economy is integrated, changes are continuous  that is, a change in one part leads to a parallel change in all parts. In the United States, shifts in the world economy influence the decisions of economic actors in the country. For example, the oil crisis in the 1970s sent shockwaves across the country which, for a short period of time, deterred technological growth. Indeed, the shift to a knowledge-based economy has not without dangers.

Conclusion
The shift from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy occurred after the Second World War. There was then an emphasis on technological growth. In effect, the United States market had been fully integrated into the world market.

In the 18th century before the American government gained dependence from the British rule, there were several attempts to ensure unity in America and to be able to fight Britain that was a strong Nation with strong economic background and good political system referred to as the Kingdom of Great Britain. In Britain, leadership was based on monarchy common with the royal families. It was therefore not easy to take away the control of thirteen colonies from the Great Britain and the thirteen colonies of the Britain had to come together to fight the British Empire.

The Revolution
The thirteen colonies of Britain were Rhodes Island, New York, North Carolina, Hampshire, Virginia, Delaware, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Jersey and Georgia. The thirteen states united in a revolution that led to the formation of the United States of America. The British government did not allow the colonies to bring forward the names of the representatives in the parliament to air their views and to follow the proceedings in the parliament. This led to animosity among the colonies and even the royal officials were not allowed in the parliament (Nelson, 1926).

This led to the formation of provincial leaders or congress by different states to create another center of power out of the monopoly of the British parliament and to forge new system that was free from British influence. As a result, new crop of leaders emerged to fight with a common objective in gaining independence. After the revolution, political leaders from different states fought to form a strong government which was to be centralized since they were against the form of system that was based in monarchy and they feared that the British form of governance could be entrenched in the newly formed State (USA).

They also feared the attack from the well organized army of the Britain. To be able to benefit from the struggle and sovereignty that they fought for from the Britain, centralized government was important in the protection of the boundaries of different States from occupation or invasion by strangers. They had to bring the interest of every state to ensure that the views and the interest of the thirteen States were represented fully unlike the British government that never allowed representatives in their parliamentary sessions. It was also important in ensuring that representation was well catered by protecting or guarding the interest of every State.

According to Nelson (1926), there was an urgent need to come up with a working constitution after independence to define how the government was to operate and to ensure that no State violates the principles behind the new constitution. The first American constitution was drafted in New York and adopted in April 20, 1777 by a delegation from every Statethirteen states. However, the citizens had no option on whether to accept the constitution or not but to accept the principles behind it and the form of government in place.

John Jay and the two friends Robert Livingstone and Gouverneur Morris were acknowledged a lot for coming up with a new constitution that was accepted by the majority. It is worth noting that the draft was more of English laws and never acknowledged most principles that were initially valued before the declaration of independence. The system of governance was almost similar to that of England. However, most of the experts argued that the constitution was drafted by people who had little experience on constitutional matters and were not old enough to understand the deeper meaning of certain ideologies in governance thereby adopting a system that had similar context with the England constitution.

The constitution proposed a republican form of governance and the concept was well explained in a more republican form and ignored the democratic principles that were highly valued by some of the delegates during the fight for independence. It is therefore true that most of the people depending on the State of origin, were not fully satisfied with the form of governance or system that was proposed in the constitution but they just had to accept it since there was an urgent need to form a new government that could ensure unity of different States. However, some amendments were made to ensure that the interest of different States was protected, for instance, the amendments on appointment of the council was necessary in providing a clear guideline on the method of appointment and the requirements for appointments (Nelson, 1926).

According to Nelson (1926), the treaty of Paris that was accepted and signed in 1783, had a great impact on the new constitution since important documents on governance were handed in to the former colonyGreat Britain and this brought a peaceful atmosphere for the adoption and the operation of the new constitution in the United State of America. It helped to reduce tension on territorial boundaries that had been a stalemate in governance for instance, Spain and France on the ownership of the Islands such as Minorca and Bahama Island. As a result, there was peace after the signing of the treaty.

Conclusion
The Unity that was forged by the thirteen States contributed greatly in the formation of a Unified State and good relationship between the thirteen States. Even though the draft constitution of 1777 was not fully representing different ideologies, it provided a leeway to proper governance and helped in forging unity between the States and even the British government, hence played an important role in unity of the states. The treaty of Paris also helped a lot in creation of new terms of agreement among the warring states and promoting conducive atmosphere for political development in the United States of America.

The term Gilded Age was coined from a novel The Gilded Age A Tale of Today by Mark Twain and Charles Dudley Warner in 1873. The book though fictional, gives a critical assessment of US politics and the corruption issues that were evident during 19th century. It was during the Gilded age that raging corruption was very common in economic and political arena in United States. There were large political payoffs in order to secure government contracts.

Corruption was so rampant during the Gilded Age that even big political parties like the Republicans were divided into two. The Gilded Age is a social satire name that was given by Mark and Charles, this era covers the period from the 1870s-1900s. Many people are inclined to perception that during this era, the legacies of the Civil War and modernization were key providers for the transformations that revolved around the very last three decades of the 19th century.

Label of American society from 1875-1900
Gilded Age is labeled as a progressive era for industrial revolution in America society. It was at this era when America experienced both industrial and technological advances, for example it was during Gilded Age that products from manufacturing industry in America exceeded the sum of products from key countries in Europe, namely, Britain, Germany and France (Larson 251). In the Gilded Age, it is estimated that ten million immigrants came to the United States. This era is known by some as the new migration. Many of the immigrants came to America in search of great prosperity and religious freedom.

The Gilded age in America was marked by the emergence of a new nation with boundless economic growth. The country already had a reputation for being a country that offered opportunities for the poor immigrants as well as for adventurous. Yet, during this period the rapid change from a mercantile and agricultural economy to an industrial economy brought with it unprecedented opportunities to outgoing entrepreneurs and economic speculators. As the economy transformed in America opportunistic industry leaders like Vanderbilt, Morgan, Gould and Rockefeller emerged as new tycoons who led the growth in the economy.

The Gilded Age in America was rooted in industrialization. Roediger (97) affirms that heavy industries like coal mining factories and railroads emerged around America. During this era deep new natural resources and access to American Indian homelands became the raw material for corporate and economic expansion. After the civil war the American government coerced treaties between the tribal nations and the American federal government that gave the government access to fisheries, arable land, mineral deposits and tribal timber. A short period after the civil war the rail system was completed and this greatly facilitated the massive export and military presence across the country

Twain articulation of paradox
The fiction serves as the insights of Mark Twain, given that he was born and brought up in American society at that time. Twain had invested in a number of business ventures, however none had prospered, and later on in his life, he turned out to be more sarcastic on American society as he narrated his story throughout United States.

The novel explores the deeply rooted corruption in US economy and politics. The protagonists (key characters) in the novel are Colonel Beriah Sellers and Senator Abner Dilworthy. The two are coupled jointly in a regime railroad corruption plot. Mark and Charles portray a paradox on an American society that, regardless of its manifestation of assurance and prosperity in fight against corruption, is riddled with the same vice and disgrace.

Broad themes of the Gilded Age
The two broad themes that appeared to cause nervousness for the period of the Gilded Age are

Laissez-faire
This meant that government was to relinquish its interference on both economic and political affairs for the sake of peace and property rights.
sharing of powers

It was anticipated that government could limit the concentration of its power to itself. Power was to be spread to all its levels, that is, from local, state as well as federal. But it was during this era that government assumed more authority, mainly by escalating its bureaucratic operation and power. Main parts of power increase by government authority comprised land, tax, immigration and Indian policies, and railroad subsidy.

Effects of technology, gender, region, race and class

Region
The laws of the Congress laid a foundation to many changes during this period, for example, the Homestead Act (1862) unlocked the West region for resettlement by various groups like farmers and cattlemen. More land in this region was also allocated to railroad and Mining Corporations. Indeed, the land policies by the Congress made it possible for land that was being held by Native Americans to be used for settlement and other economic purpose. However, this issue of taking native land for resettlement and farming was not accepted by the natives Americans and instead of uniting them, it divided them on lines of race and class (for the foreigners who were resettled and to fellow Americans (farmers) on class). Railroad policy was the matter of fact for westerners, as well as the farmers and business owners in other regions. Those who opposed railroad policy comprised the northerners, who were mostly business leaders.

Technology
Technological changes played a major role during the Gilded Age. The innovations in technology increased the number of manufacturing industries (steelmaking) and perfected the communication means-use of telegram and telephone. The rising population provided labor that readily available for the manufacturing industries. This fusion of growth in industries and population led to industrialization which later paved way for urbanization. Technological changes also led to the arrival of new immigrants who came from different parts of Europe (Roediger 136). It was also at this moment when rural-urban migration was experienced in search for labor and market as well as the emergency of economies of scale (many companies invested huge sums of money in their business so as to control the market- Larson 253).

The new technologies had also its side effects, for example, more production called for more distribution of products at the market. This yielded a decline in prices of both goods and services by big margin. On the other hand, politics placed limits on currency supply forcing the farmers returns and workers wages and salaries to be squeezed. According to Twain and Warner (302) this faced some resistance from workers and farmers leading to formation of unions to raise their grievances-its at this point that we deduce that technology united Americans in pursuit of common goals of better pay. On the other hand we can also deduce that the same technology also divided Americans on lines of class because workers and poor farmers were being frustrated by their seniors who were believed to belong to another class. It can also be argued that, both the workers and farmers joined unions on the grounds of a class-lower class people, since it was the only way their grievances could be aired.

Similarly, with the coming of more immigrants inform of businessmenwomen or as workers contributed to division of people on race. Roediger (145) Racism was experienced during this era, because many Americans feared that the foreigners will fight for equal opportunities on labor market as well as on business. Industrialization marked many changes and contradictions on the social and economic life of Americans, starting with the American Labor Movement.

Race
The Gilded Age era experienced the injustices and biasness of a society on racial and ethnic bigotry. This was evident during the institutionalization of racial segregation system by the southerners by use of crude means like imposition of poll taxes and literacy tests for African-Americans. Moreover, the racial system was also witnessed in where Indians were corrupted and discriminated on reservation of the West. It was also at this period when anti-Semitism came in place to fight the racism that was very rampant. The group focused it efforts on uniting Americans instead of dividing them.

Gender
Larson (238) started that the Gilded Age period united American on gender based issue. It was during this period that women were allowed to vote, something that was not there. The unification of Americans by gender was witnessed through the formation of associations like General Federation of Womens Club. Some women like Jane Addams rose up to help in bridging the gap between the immigrants and the natives. The efforts of women like Jane can be viewed as a way when gender was seen to unite Americans. The division among the Americans on political arena was more so witnessed where Republican Party allowed few women in politics while for Democrat, no woman were barred from politics.

Class
The issue of class was also experienced at this time of Gilded age, for instance the pursuit of middle class people by the capitalists. Some Americans were united and divided based on the level of their class. For example, the middle class people formed their groups to help them pursue their goals this was same with the lower and upper class people. In the Gilded Age several women from middle and upper class appeared to party in the one group.

Conclusion
We can wrap up by arguing that, money might or might not have been the cause of the entire wickedness however it undoubtedly played a key role within the political and economic arena of the Gilded Age (Roediger 168). Besides, this money came in through a certain means it did not materialize from thin air. On the other hand, the growth and development of the corporations contributed to prosperity of Gilded Age. The rise of US corporations throughout the last bit of the 19th century is an exceedingly interesting issue. The Gilded Age in Americas history can therefore not be ignored since major events happened within that period that influenced the direction Americas society, politics and economy took. This period in time though not very long witnessed the birth of modern day America with its sophisticated society, booming economy and very vibrant industries.