American History

Cold war was the period that was characterized by conflict between the democracies led by the United States against the communist states led by the Soviet Union. The war was characterized with political propaganda, military crashes, economic rivalry and diplomatic bargaining. The war was fought any where, in the space and in the neutral states in Africa and Asia. The war has had far reaching economic, social and political effects on different societies of the world.  

The reelection of President Harry Truman in 1948 was greatly influenced by the events of the cold war. It is believed by the historians that the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union started in 1947 when President Harry Truman declared his anti socialism policy. President Truman had experience in warfare having served in the military. He had also led the Americans to victory against the Japanese and the Germans in the just ended Second World War. Initially, public opinion indicated very few chances of Truman winning the presidential elections. However, the increased tension among the Americans over a possible war between the two world supper powers influenced the voters in favor of Truman. His come back is attributed to the fear that inexperienced president was likely to mislead Americans in case of war with the Soviet Union.

Another effect of the cold war was the rise of McCarthyism in the 1950s. McCarthyism was a response of the prevalent anticommunism policies by the United States. The accusations against sympathizers of communist were led by Senator McCarthy and targeted the states officials and the entertainment industry. McCarthyism activities were carried out through the House of Un-American Activities Committee. The HUAC required all the suspected communist sympathizers to testify before the committee by naming their allies failure to which they were sent to jail.

Ethnocentrism is considered as one of the most sensitive topics when it comes to analyzing and identifying cultural and racial differences of people. According to the book entitled  Sociology in our times,  which is written by Diana Elizabeth Kendall, ethnocentrism is defined as   the practice of judging all other cultures by ones own culture  (Kendall 94). More so, ethnocentrism is solely driven by the notion that ones personal way of life or culture is superior compared to that of the others. As a well renowned sociologist and author of numerous books, Kendall states that racial and ethnic minorities are regarded as the target of ethnocentric practices.

In this regard, the paper would primarily discuss the role of ethnocentrism in the early settlement of British people in North America and in the overall development of United States, as a powerful and wealthy country. More so, this would analyze the role that ethnocentrism plays in the area of politics, reform movements, expansion, daily life and economics for all people, regardless of gender and race.

British Settlement in North America
The settlement of early British people in North America has been very tragic and sorrowful. Despite of the persuasive campaign of England to establish a British colony in the Northern part of America, they still failed in achieving this goal. Given that during the early centuries England is regarded as a well dominant empire, the Americans have been really determined to face their opponents and those people who have plans of exploiting their land and harming their culture.

Aristotle once said that the person who contemplates things in their first growth and origin be it a state or any other thing for that matter, would obtain a most clear view of them. The period between the years 1789 to 1840 is important for this consideration. It has been observed to be a period when the development of the National idea in the United States took place.

George Washington was elected the first President of the United States in 1789, the only man to ever be unanimously elected in the history of the U.S. He had previously served as Commander in Chief of the American Revolutionary Forces and had presided over the Philadelphia Convention responsible for drafting the American Constitution. He was thought to be such a suitable candidate for the job that the framers of the Constitution gave broad powers to the presidency being certain that he would be elected (Axelrod  Philips, 2003. 57). Washington thus laid the foundations that would govern the exercise of executive power in the fledgling democracy, setting precedents for future occupiers of the office. His universal proclamation of neutrality was made in 1793 to prevent the U.S. from being embroiled in the conflict between Britain and France. This proclamation laid the basis for which the new country would henceforth avoid getting involved in foreign conflicts. His refusal to serve a third term established the policy of a maximum of two terms for Presidents which later was enshrined in the 22nd amendment of the Constitution. He signed treaties with both England and Spain and approved a bill that created the first National Bank. During the whiskey rebellion he called up 12000 militiamen this was the first time the Federal Government used military force to exert its authority upon the citizenry.

Although Washington did a lot to lay the foundations of the new republic, he was opposed to the formation of political parties. Washington had stood for republican virtues and opposed partisanship. The task of forming a party fell upon his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton formed the Federalist Party. It existed between 1792 and 1816, a period referred to as the era of the first party system. The party argued a system of fiscally sound Government policies and a strong National Government as it was made up largely of businessmen. Jeffersons group on the other hand was the Democratic Republicans. They insisted on the application of a strict constitution and favored the rights of States as opposed to the National Government. Unlike the Federalists they strongly opposed the Jay Treaty arguing for better relations with France and not Britain. The party later broke up, with one faction led by Andrew Jackson forming the Democrats and another led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay forming the Whig party. The Whig party was to later break up due to the slavery question in the 1850s.

The question of slavery had always been a divisive issue in the United States. In 1820 Missouri petitioned congress to allow it to be a slaveholding State. New York Congressman James Tallmadge however introduced an amendment proposing a ban on further introduction of slavery and the freeing of slaves in the new State once they were 25 years of age. The House of Representatives passed the amendment but the Senate rejected it. Senators from the North were of the opinion that Congress had powers to ban slavery in new states while Southern senators argued for the individual autonomy of each state. A compromise was needed to break the deadlock. The 2 part Missouri compromise was thus developed. Missouri was to be admitted as a slave state while Maine would be admitted as slave free state preserving the equal balance that existed in the Senate. A line was then drawn across Louisiana at latitude 36 degrees 30 min. Slavery would not be allowed henceforth north of the line. Although it never received universal support with John Adams describing it as the title page to a great tragic volume it succeeded in preserving the nation for another 30 years.

Andrew Jackson the founder of the Democratic Party was a well known National hero before he contested the Presidential election in 1824. He had achieved military distinctions during the War of 1812 both against the Indians and the British in New Orleans inflicting severe losses on them. Although he had won more electoral votes than his competitors garnering 99 over Quincy Adams 84, William Crawfords 41 and Henry Clays 37 none of the candidates received the majority (Axelrod  Philips, 2003. 83). When the election went to the House of Representatives, Clay gave his vote to Quincy Adams and Jackson lost. In 1828 he contested the election again and won. He was to win another subsequent term in 1832. His tenure was characterized by steps towards more democracy. The period of his presidency marked the beginning of the second party system. There was expanded suffrage. Unlike before ownership of property was not a prerequisite in order for a person to vote. Elected leaders began to act more like representatives of the people and a system of equal rotation in federal jobs was put in place.

On November 24th 1832, a special convention called by the State of Carolina legislature passed the Nullification Ordinance. This ordinance set to prevent the collection of duties after February 1 1833. The issue had first begun to rouse a storm in the South Carolina exposition and protest.  The State of Carolina held the position that it had the right to nullify the Tariff of Abominations Act of 1828. It also held that the state had the authority to prevent any Act that went against the interests of the State.  Jackson declared the States Action to be tantamount to treason and threatened to use the Army to enforce the law. The State afterward recapitulated.

What had started as an argument about fiscal policies however took a new twist. The status of the Union was now questioned. A debate took place between Senators Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne. This was to be known as the Webster Hayne debate. The debate served to highlight differences of opinion that existed in the South and in the North. Webster was for the idea of popular sovereignty. He felt that the constitution had guaranteed this for the people. Hayne on the other hand invoked the compact theory of the Union. This meant that each state had the right to interpret the constitution and the federal laws. The debate was never to be resolved until the North won the American Civil war, however it provided one of the finest pieces of oratory in the history of the U.S.

President Jacksons term was marred by the solution to the Indian problem. The policy was to remove them to new settlements. This was achieved albeit at great hardships to them in what was to be known as the trail of tears (Axelrod  Philips, 2003. 84). Jackson also succeeded in getting rid of the Second Bank of the U.S. He felt that it was largely foreign owned and wielded too much control over congress. He vetoed the banks charter and withdrew Federal funds from it setting the stage for its imminent collapse through bankruptcy. His legacy is the breed of populist politics that now bears his name Jacksonian democracy.

The 1830s were a period of sweeping changes. Society was changing just as fast as politics. In 1834 McCormick patented a reaper that was to revolutionize agriculture by allowing vast lands to be harvested. In 1830 it took about 20 hours to harvest an acre of wheat, by 1895, when the reaper was perfected it took about an hour (Axelrod  Philips, 2003. 93). John Deere invented the steel plough in 1836 which made hard soils tillable. It was these scientific developments that facilitated the market revolution which had begun in 1815 by completely altering the manual labor systems. The 1830s also marked the beginning of the underground rail road which enabled numerous slaves from the South to cross the north into safety. It was also in 1836 that the Texans defended the Alamo from the Mexican Army.

Before the decade was through the second awakening was still taking place. This was a period of renewed religious fervor that led to the establishment of such groups as the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists. The American Bible Society had already been founded by 1815. The temperance movement fuelled by this religious zeal was at its height during this period with groups formed to curtail the consumption of rum.

The era also witnessed an improvement in education standards with reforms instituted with regard to the training of teachers. Prisons were for the first time seen as places of rehabilitation and not punishment. Asylums and not prisons for the mentally ill were established and womens rights took centre stage.

The decade closed with the election of William Harrison in 1840. The period 1789 to 1840 had laid the foundations for subsequent decades. The whole structure of American democracy and American Union had both been laid and undermined. Precedents had been set that would govern American life for eternity. America was never to be the same again.

Unit

High School (11ht grade)  Holocaust

Aim

What was the response of America to Holocaust

Goalsobjectives

Read the reading resource with understanding.
Develop comprehension on the details of Holocaust.
Identify and analyze the response of America to the Holocaust.
Draw conclusion on the response of America to the Holocaust.
Examine the causes and effects of Holocaust to the peace and security of the world.

Main ideasunderstandings

Holocaust was initiated when the World War II began on September 1, 1939-the time when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland.
Holocaust caused the violent death of a large number of people.
Holocaust served as the key of Hitler in initiating the World War II against the Allies Power.
America response to Holocaust was war against the Nazi government.
America responded to the Holocaust because of the attack in the Pearl Harbor.
The response of the American government to the war initiated by Hitler through the Holocaust and World War II was a way to help the Allies such as the Great Britain.

Materials

Historical timeline chart, journal, American History book

Motivation

With the use of the knowledge on the movie Schiendlers List (the Holocaust part) and the primary textbook, the students will be asked to list down all the events happened during the World War II particularly the Holocaust that caused the violent death of millions of people. The students are encouraged to use historical timeline chart to organize their work. Likewise, the students will also conduct brainstorming with the group to further discuss the effects of Holocaust in the social, economic and political aspects of the world.

Activitiesquestionstransitions

If Japan did not attack the Pearl Harbor, do you think America will not respond to the Holocaust
 The involvement of America to Holocaust contributed to spare of millions of life of people involved in the war. Do you think Holocaust will not be put into its end if America did not intervene
Holocaust caused the death of a large number of people. Do you think World War II will not be considered remarkable without the occurrence of the Holocaust

Summary

Based on the readings that we have done, what do you think is the most essential response of America to the Holocaust

Application

Do you think Holocaust will not stop without the intervention of America

Homework assignment

Answer the following questions in your journal. Be creative in answering the questions.

If you were Adolf Hitler, would you use Holocaust to ignite war in the world
You travel back in time and you met Adolf Hitler at the age of 3. What would you do Are you going to kill him so that World War II and Holocaust will not happen in the future Explain your answer.
 
To demonstrate literacy in the classroom through this lesson, the teacher can use the activity writing reflection in the journal about the social, economic and political effects of Holocaust in the world.
As to the inclusion of the lesson, the teacher can use lecture-discussion method in the further elaboration of the topic, Socratic Method (question and answer) to validate students learning, and writing activity for the application part.

Unit

High School (11ht grade)  World War II

Aim

What were the motives of America in entering to World War II

Goalsobjectives
Read the primary document with understanding.
Develop understanding on the details of World War II.
Identify and analyze the involvements of the United States to World War II.
Draw conclusion on the interventions done by the United States about the war.
Examine the causes and effects of World War II to the political, social, and economic aspects of the world.

Main ideasunderstandings
World War II began on September 1, 1939 when Adolf Hitler invaded Poland.

Although it was the Soviet Union and the Red Army that turned back Nazi troops at Stalingrad over a year before the US launched its invasion of Normandy, the involvement of America to World War II somehow contributed to the downfall of Adolph Hitler.

Provisional Neutrality Act mandates that America should stay neutral to war unless its territory is directly affected or threatened.

This Neutrality Act put America to neutrality and isolationism for a very long time.
Isolationism was finally put to an end with the Lend Lease Act (1941) which states that America can sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article.

Even if the United States would like to extend help to Allies, the Neutrality Act blocked them. The US governments only help given to Great Britain during the war was selling weapons for their battle against the Nazi Germany.

America was triggered to join the war because of the surprise attack by the Japanese Airforce to Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941.

Materials

Historical timeline, Journal, American History book

Motivation

The students are encouraged to use historical timeline chart to organize and summarize what had happened during the World War II. Likewise, the students will also conduct brainstorming with the group to further discuss the effects of World War II in the social, economic and political aspects of the world.  Their observation can be written to their journal.

Activitiesquestionstransitions

America was triggered to join the war because of the surprise attack by the Japanese Airforce to Pearl Harbor on December 6, 1941. If Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor, do you think America will not join in the war

The involvement of America to World War II contributed to the downfall of Adolph Hitler. Do you think the war will not be put to its end if America did not intervene
Neutrality Act put America to neutrality and isolationism for a very long time. Without this act, do you think America will have its immediate involvement in the war

Summary

Based on the readings that we have done, what do you think is the most important role of America in the World War II

Application

Do you think America had spared significant contributions to the World War II

Homework assignment

Answer the question below in your journal

If you were Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, would you allow Neutrality Act to hinder America in the World War II Explain your answer.

In order to demonstrate literacy in the classroom through this lesson, the teacher can use the activity writing reflection in the journal about the movie watched in the motivation part. Aside from using it as a motivation, this could also serve as a spring board to promote literacy in the lesson.

As to the inclusion of the lesson, the teacher can use lecture-discussion method in the further elaboration of the topic, Socratic Method (question and answer) to validate students learning, and writing activity for the application part.  

The Stamp Act was passed by British Parliament in order to offset the costs of British military defending the colonies.  The act required that stamps purchased from the British government be attached to all government documents and advertisements, pamphlets, newspapers, and playing cards were to be printed on stamped paper sold by the government. The Stamp Act was widely opposed by the American colonists.            

In a letter dated December 19, 1765, Samuel Adams wrote a personal letter to his English friend, John Smith, voicing his opinions on the Stamp Act.  In An American View of the Stamp Act Samuel Adams refutes the claims of the British ministers justification of the Stamp Act.
         
Samuel Adams identifies the rights of free subjects of Britain to be the right to representation and trial by jury.  Adams claims that both of these rights have been denied by passing the Stamp Act. Colonists could be put on trial without a jury which infringed on the rights of the colonists as British subjects.  The major argument that Adams presents in his letter is that if the colonists are viewed as free British subjects then Parliament does not have the right to tax them without proper representation in Parliament.
       
Adams objections over the Stamp Act would be characteristic of the American colonists from 1765-1776 when the list of violations against the American colonists grew and eventually led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  Adams letter reflected two of the most significant grievances that were present in the Declaration of Independence.  As opposition grew in the colonies over issues like taxation without representation and being denied a trial by jury, a revolutionary spirit spread across the colonies and led to the American Revolution.
           
One of the first industries to flourish in America was the textile industry.  Many textile factory jobs were held by women.  Some textile mills were fully staffed by women. One such mill was in Lowell, MA and was known as treating the workers at the factory in a very restrictive atmosphere in the factories and in their personal lives. In Early Days of Lowell Lucy Larcom discusses her experiences in the Lowell textile mills.
           
Lucy Larcom describes her fellow workers at the Lowell textile mill as being active, interesting girls who were not solely defined by the role they played in the mill. The girls are described as being principled, earnest, and capable of doing anything and gave Lucy a stronger ideal of womanhood.  While the women were confined to the work inside the mill and lived under many restrictions like a prison, the independence that came with working in the mill and being exposed to other admirable girls was a liberating feeling to Lucy.
     
Larcom metaphorically discusses the waterwheel and how its power is used to move the mechanisms that run the universe.  This statement can be viewed as a perception of the impact that industrialization has on a nation.  The Lowell textile mills employed girls that were free but had few rights and privileges while the mill owners prospered from their hard work.  Industry in the 19th century dominated the United States.
           
Larcoms recollection of her time at the Lowell textile mill is characteristic of factory life in the sense that it consumed the lives of the workers and the atmosphere was loud and unpleasant.  Before women were working in the mills they typically were housewives who did not have much contact outside the domestic sphere. The social sphere was for men until mills necessitated women to enter the workforce.
           
When the United States started to expand into the West, white people were coming into contact with Native Americans.  The relations between the United States government and the Native Americans were characterized by the establishment of treaties that were agreed upon to legally transfer some Native American territory to the United States government. As time progressed, the treaties were commonly broken and Native were forced off their land. In A Sacred Reverence for Our Lands, Black Hawk discusses how he was removed from the land that had been taken over white people.
         
According to Black Hawk, the principal chief, Ke-o-kuck , made a treaty with the white men  and agreed to move to the west of the Mississippi River. The white people were not met with resistance when they moved onto the land because when they moved in and fenced in the area and the Natives were permitted to still plant small patches of the land.  In addition, the white people brought whiskey with them and used it to get the Native Americans drunk and cheat them out of their homes, guns, and beaver traps.
         
When Black hawk was told that the land was to be sold and the treaty that allowed them to use part of the land would be null and void Black Hawk claimed that the ground was sacred because he was born on the land and his friends and relatives were buried there. Black Hawk and the rest of his friends and relatives were forced off their land despite their sacred reverence for the land. In the eyes of the United States government it was their manifest destiny to expand their borders to the west coast.  The Native Americans who had ties to the land were removed from the land after white people saw that they may be able to benefit from it economically.  As the 19th century progressed more and more land was ripped away from the Native Americans and they were forced onto reservations.
           
During the Civil War, the North and South fought over the Norths attempt to bring the Confederacy back into the Union.  The Union had seceded, in large part, over issues like slavery and sectional differences between the North and South.   The Norths Anaconda Plan was a strategy to suffocate the South into submission by surrounding the South on the Eastern and Western fronts and having a naval blockade on the Southern coast. General Shermans march to the sea was an integral piece of the plan to defeat the South.
           
In Shermans March Through Georgia Dolly Sumner Lunt recalls the havoc Sherman reaped across Georgia. Lunt describes how Shermans troops came in plundered the land and took all the food and resources they could mange to take during his march to the sea and wantonly desolated the land. Lunts description highlights the destructive nature of modern warfare. Sherman destroyed everything in his path to assure that his opponent would be defeated.  Sherman destroyed the foodstuffs and other things deemed necessary for survival so the South would be forced to surrender. The same tactic is used by bombings and blockades today destroy everything that could be useful to the opponent so they did not have the resources to fight back.
       
By looking at the date of the document, it was written November 17, 1864.  The South surrendered at Appomattox courthouse approximately 5 months later.  With the North controlling the East as well as the Mississippi River and the Southern Coast, the Anaconda Plan had been executed and the North successfully suffocated the South by blockading any supply lines into the Confederacy.  With General Shermans march to the sea, the South was dealt a terrible blow that they would not be able to recover from and were forced to surrender and the Confederacy was brought back into the Union.

Unit
High School (11th grade) - What were the main causes for Stock market crash

Aim
What were the main causes for Stock market crash

Goalsobjectives
(These include social and academic skills as well as conceptual goals)
Read a primary source document with understanding
Recognize the continuing importance of ideas and documents
Place the stock market crash within philosophical and political contexts
Recognize connections between ideas in different historical eras
Draw conclusions based on historical decisions and evidence
Understand the benefits and problems of economics and government economic controls, and how they fail
Examine the meaning of concepts of change, human rights, economic controls, and equality

Main ideasunderstandings
(These are from the main ideasunderstandings for the entire unit. They will be developed and reinforced in other lessons as well)
1. Post World War I prosperity stemmed from the creation of new industries, new technologies and government support of big businesses
2. The economy was geared to credit and big investment and was over geared towards credit and investment
3. Higher wages prompted higher investment in the economy by normal people
4. When the economy started to have problems public confidence in the stock market was low, as people did not know how they could regain their profits, and were worried about losing all their investments
5. The stock market crash prompted people to try and sell everything they had invested, however due to supply and demand there were more people selling than buying, therefore the price dropped, and people lost their money
6. A combination of all the above led to consumer over confidence and high levels of credit and investment in the stock market
7. Many investors confidently purchased stocks on margin and engaged in speculative trading. Therefore when the trades went bad they had to try and get some money back
8. Banks that had loaned to speculators and invested depositors funds lost their cash reserves. They were then not able to loan more money to those who needed it as they had lost their savings and had no capital to help secure a loan.
9. An uneven distribution of income left most families with little expendable income. When Americans cut back on spending, manufacturing slowed production, which in turn led to lower wages and unemployment.

Materials
Video footage of the day of the crash and subsequent weeks of stock trading with appropriate equipment
Do now
Read the passages from Chapter 22 The Great Depression Begins, 19291932

Motivation
How did the government react to the crash in the stock market and how does this compare to todays economic regulation of the economy

Activitiesquestionstransitions
Use the internet and other resources to see if you can find out how much money was lost after the stock market crash

Summary
Based on the examination of the materials, outline the main reason for the stock market crash of October 1929

Application
What was the most important cause of the change in the economy after the stock market crash and how was it resolved

Homework assignment
Think about what you would have done if you had lost your savings in the crash.

Introduction
America has had a host of Presidents since they gained independence from British colonialists. President Obama the current President is the 43rd President while George Washington was the first President of independent America. Andrew Jackson came seventh in the long list of all the people who have had an opportunity to be President of one of the most powerful countries in the world. This discussion focuses on life and times of Andrew Jackson.

Childhood
Andrew Jackson a son of a Scotch colonialist was born in 1767 in Ireland. Andrew however did not get to meet his biological father as he died a month before Andrew was born after he sustained an injury and died a month before Andrew was born. Jackson was the youngest of three Jackson siblings (H.W. 107-111).

Jackson went to school when America was having the Revolutionary war and thus did not have a stable education. Nevertheless he managed to attain a formal education and at the age of thirteen Jackson was a member of a regiment. In 1779 the infamous Stono Battle claimed the life of his eldest brother Hugh who dies as a result of excess heat. In the same year Andrew together with his brother became prisoners after they were captured by British soldiers. They were held in captivity where the conditions were quite horrible and they almost died of starvation.

Career
After the American Revolution Jackson got into teaching but he did not enjoy it much. Throughout his life even as a young man Jackson had always wanted a challenging career and one that would help him seek justice for his people. He thus left teaching after a few years and practiced law in North Carolina. H completed his law studies in 1787 and was admitted to the bar. It is then that he began his career as a prosecutor in one of the courts in North Carolina (Rogin, M. 87-88).

Political Career
Jackson practiced law for about ten years before changing his career direction. In 1797 he was elected Senator of Tennessee apposition he held for term before tendering his resignation. After his resignation Jackson served as judge for a period of six years in the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Military Career
His military career began during the American Revolution took a notch higher when he was elected to head the military in Tennessee as the Major General. After holding this position for close to ten years he was later promoted to head the United States and would later be appointed as leader of a troop during the war in Florida.

It was during the war in 1812 that Jacksons heroism emerged as he led the US troops to a massive defeat against the British during the New Orleans Battle (H.W. 125-128).

The real personality of Jackson became visible when he became fully active in politics. While he remained a loyal and true friend to those that were close to him, he was a fierce and indeed tough enemy to all who stood in his way of liberating his people. 1824 was a very significant year in the life of Andrew Jackson. This was the first time he attempted to become President of United States America. Although he won the presidential elections with a landslide he lacked the majority votes as was the requirement and thus could not as yet be declared President. This made Jackson quite bitter as he believed that his enemies were behind his troubles. All his opponents teamed together and Jackson did not win the elections. Instead John Adams was declared President leaving Jackson wit h so much hatred towards Adams and all his other opponents.

During the administration of Quincy Adams Jackson was very vocal in critiquing the administration citing uncountable flaws in the manner in which Adams governed the country. Jackson continually reminded people that their votes for the previous election had been stolen and that they should not agree to have a President forced down their throats in the next elections. This tact proved to be successful and in the 1828 elections Jackson won the Presidential elections with landslide, defeating Adams with a big margin of votes. Again in the 1832 elections Jackson emerged the winner year again defeating his opponent Henry Kentucky.

It was not only the rigging of the 1824 presidential elections that made Jackson develop hatred towards Adams. It was also a defamatory law suit that Adams and his camp filed against the Jacksons (Andrew and his wife) with an aim of defaming him and spoiling his reputation so that he would lose the favor of the people. According to the suit Andrew and his wife were accused of being involved in adultery a rumor that was manufactured and maliciously spread by Adams camp. The defamation was quickly spreading like a bushfire and before the results were announced Jacksons wife Rachel died. Jackson argued that his wife died a premature death because she could no longer handle the news that were being spread about her and her husband being involved in an adulterous relationship. All these events all the more added to Jacksons rivalry and bitterness towards Adams.

Achievements
Besides being the seventh President of United States of America, Andrew Jackson has quite a number of achievements to his name. First he was the first president to be elected with a landslide victory by the common people and who did not hail from the class of aristocrats. It is also during his reign as President that his vice-president stepped down. He is also widely known for having married a divorcee a practice that was widely frowned at during those days.

One major thing that Jackson always believed in was presidency that was strong so as to ensure effective governance. He therefore scrutinized all pieces of legislation to ensure that they were of importance to the citizens of the United States of America. It is also his belief of a strong and united union that brought him into loggerheads with leaders from the south who wished that the two regions, north and south, remain independent.

When President Jackson clashed with many a people because he always put the interest of the company first as opposed to the interests of individuals and this did not impress many.

RETIREMENET
After two terms in office as President of the United States o America, Andrew Jackson retired party on age grounds and partly because of his health. Even way back when he was in the military Jacksons health was never quite good and it is only his determination to liberate his people that kept him going. As a matter of fact there are times during his term as president that doubts were cast as to whether he would be able to complete his term in office due to his increasingly deteriorating health (Rogin, M. 122-126). Upon his retirement he went back to his big plantation in Hermitage with his wife.

Even after his retirement he was still vocal on political matters and his influence was still felt many years after he left the presidency. An example is the presidential election of 1840 which saw Martin Buren elected to power as Jacksons successor. This was pretty much Jacksons doing (H.W. 147-151).
 A few years later Jacksons health became really bad and in 1845 his health was at its worst and he died at his home in Hermitage. During their marriage the couple had no biological children but Rachael has adopted one of her nephews who came to be known as Andrew Jackson Junior. In his will Andrew Jackson bequeathed the Hermitage to Andrew Jackson Junior. However in his old age Andrew Jackson had incurred many debts some of which he had not managed to pay by the time of his death.
Rachel who was also old at the time of Jackson death was not in apposition to repay the debts incurred by her husband. As a result the Hermitage was sold so as to recover some of the money. Today the Hermitage is a historic site and is open for view to the public. The life and times of Andrew Jackson are memorable especially because of his many achievements and the great role he played in the liberation of the American people.

The British North America colonialism started in 1606 when James I supported the establishment of colonies along the coast of America. A charter for the southern section is given to a land for Englandcompany of London merchants (called the London Company, until its successful colony causes it be known as the Virginia Company). ( Historyworld.Net , n.d.) The Virginia Companies compete to get a land for England, trade and return a profit. In 1607, There were more than 100 English men who attempted to live in Jamestown. However, the local Indians attack them thats why the number of British men were downsized. As a result,  the British government sent seven appointees to serve the colonys council. John Smith became the leader of the community. In 1609, famine killed a lot of people and when John Smith was injured, they needed to go back to England and not until 1610 when reinforcements came and persuade colonization amidst of the hardships that they encountered. British successful colonization of North America proves that Ethnocentrism can help you gain your motivation in proving to other culturescountries that you are superior to anyone else.

According to the History of the British Empire in History World that In 1629 a Puritan group secures from the king a charter to trade with America, as the Massachusetts Bay Company. On board to the vessel was the royal charter of the company. Winthrop, the leader of the expedition declared Boston as the capital of the colony after two years since it was selected as the site of the first settlement. Massachusetts system proved to have an efficient way of settling new territory since it produced successful enterprises. Harvard was founded in 1636 and that was the basis on how high the education and literacy there were at the time that in 1640 almost 20,000 settlements arrived. As the population grows, colonization extended. In 1662 Connecticut emerges as well and after the first attempt failed in colonizing Carolina, it was settled on 1670 as New Hampshire in 1679.

In the 18th century, James Oglethorpe established the Georgia Colony as a solution to then problem caused by the tension between Spain and Great Britain. The first colonists arrived in 1733.
In 1776, there were three forms of colonial government which were provincial, proprietary, and charter. They were under the feudal system of Great Britain and were subordinates to the monarch. (Donaldson. 1881). This relates to ethnocentrism that the Britain had once again exercised its power over its colonies to influence the political system that they have.

After the French-Indian War that lasted from 1754-1763, France surrendered its vast North American empire to Britain. Before the war, Britain held the thirteen American colonies, most of present-day Nova-Scotia and most of the Hudson Bay watershed. Following the war, Britain gained all French territory east of the Mississippi River, including Quebec, the Great Lakes, and the Ohio valley. (Marston, 2002).The war largely removed the colonists need of colonial protection however, when they won, they celebrated and their loyalty to the mother country was stronger than ever before.
In A Midwifes Tale The Life of Martha Ballard, Based on Her Diary, 1785-1812, it showed that women in the late 18th century also worked hard just like men to provide the need of their family. She had weaving and midwifery as her businesses. Her diary somehow relates to the  feminist ethnocentrism  the belief in superiority of the feminist movement in that they speak for all women, which in reality, proves to be very different. However, since the diary was published, justification regarding  how women lived in the late 18th century was exposed.

According to the book called A History of Jonathan Alder His Captivity and Life with the Indians, Jonathan Alder was affected by ethnocentrism for when he adapted the native American culture and their patterns of thought, he did not want to go back to his white family and hence decided to stay and soon married an Indian woman. However, tables have turned when he had forsaken the Indian culture in 1811 when the life of the Indians became increasingly difficult for the Indians in Ohio. It just showed that he was an ethnocentric person when he revoke his loyalty to the native Americans because white Americans were superior at that time.

The New England residents were small farmers and almost all of them were farmers. Their livelihood is based in farming. There were a lot of slaves at the time and most of them were African slaves who worked on the indigo, tobacco and rice fields. Slaves in America was very oppressive and it was passed from generation to generation. The rapid expansion of slavery began after 1800 and that fuels in starting the civil war.  In the book Ohio Slave Narratives, Ben Brown, one of an ex-slaves described  Yes suh I wuz a slave in Vaginyah, Alvamaul (Albermarle) county an I didnt have any good life, Im tellin you dat It wuz a tough life. (Work Projects Administration,2004) Julia King, another ex-slave said, The slaves left the plantation because they were sold and their children were sold. Sometimes, their masters were mean and cranky. (Work Projects Administration,2004) Meaning, the lives of the slaves were not very well aside from the fact that they were called slaves. On the other hand, there were other slaves who had been treated good by their owner just like Charles H. Anderson who described his owner to be an exceedingly good owner not cruel to anyone.
Despite of being colonized, by the time that Spains Reconquista gave its colonization efforts to America characteristics of centralized governmental control, military conquest and religious missionary efforts. In contrast, northwest Europes experience with early capitalism and much less government control. (Notestein.1954). Americas history regarding its economic stability can be traced when we were still under British Colony.

British North American Colonization gave America a chance to have a massive population and also attracted immigrants that helped us boost our economy. The Reform Movement which aims a gradual change in certain aspects of society took place in America during the British Colonialism  such as the American labor movement that campaigned against successive hours of working  in the 1800s Frederick Jackson Turner said that the prescence of  the frontier  is the spirit and success of the United States is directly tied to the countrys westward expansion. This produced a new type of citizen - one with the power to tame the wild and one upon whom the wild had conferred strength and individuality.

The film Glory depicts the trials, victories, and exploits of the 1st black army regiment of the United States during the Civil War. This was a significant event in U.S. history and a high point particularly in African-American history since this marked the first time that blacks were enlisted into the Army. This move came about right after the Emancipation Proclamation, wherein it declared the freedom of all slaves in the Confederate States of America. Further, it changed the political and social landscape of the United States at that time since slavery was a hot topic and spawned a lot of controversies and debates. The enlistment of the soldiers was a turning point in the social and political landscape of the country since African-Americans were looked upon as social outcasts at that time and were considered inferior compared to the Colonial Americans (whites). According to the National Archive (n.d.), by the end of the Civil War, roughly 179,000 black men (10 of the Union Army) served as soldiers in the U.S. Army and another 19,000 served in the Navy. Black soldiers served in artillery and infantry and performed all noncombat support functions that sustain an army, as well. Black carpenters, chaplains, cooks, guards, laborers, nurses, scouts, spies, steamboat pilots, surgeons, and teamsters also contributed to the war cause. (para. 4)

On the other hand, this move caused more problems for the black soldiers in terms of racial prejudice. They were initially paid only 10 per month plus 3 deduction for clothing resulting in a total pay of 7 compared to white soldiers who took home 13 a month without deductions. In addition, the black troops were not used extensively in combat compared to the non-colored ones since their capabilities were underestimated.

Nonetheless, it proved to be a high-water mark in American history as it ultimately decreased racial prejudice and most importantly, doors were opened for the African-American people and for their future generations.

Howard Zinn in A Peoples History of the United States creates a unique type of analytical framework for recounting and for assessing important periods and events in American history.  The unique feature of his approach is that it is extraordinarily inclusive, looking at events as they unfold from the diverse people experiencing those events, rather than from an elitist academic or dominant economic perspective.  What emerges from such an approach is a more nuanced view of American history to be sure, rather than passively accepting conclusions advocated by elite and narrow interests, Zinn compels the reader to think about the conflicting interests and the competing options underlying American decision-making processes as it developed from a young nation to an eventual superpower.  This is especially true in the case of certain military conflicts.  Zinn carefully attributes a number of military decisions to elite decision-makers responding to specific types of political and economic interests.  To this end, the conventional notions of an oppressed group of colonialists acting purely in pursuit of ideals such as freedom and liberty become more questionable.  In order to illustrate how Zinn accomplishes a more nuanced point of view regarding American history, specifically with reference to political decisions made to engage in military conflicts, this paper will examine the origins of the American Revolution, the underlying causes of the Mexican American War, and how diverse people viewed these causes which were eventually relied upon to engage in military conflicts.

The American Revolution, as an initial matter, is frequently portrayed as a legitimate uprising by an oppressed group of colonialists against an authoritarian British monarch.  This type of characterization tends to result in oversimplications to the effect that there were simply two sides to the conflict, the pro-British and the anti-British, and that choosing sides was as easy as picking one of the two forces.  Zinn argues that loyalties were not so neatly divided into two camps and that the conflict was rooted in an economic competition between the British elite and certain ambitious colonialists.  Indeed, with respect to the highly revered Founding Fathers, Zinn argues that Around 1776, certain important people in the English colonies made a discovery that would prove enormously useful for the next two hundred years. They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire (1980).  Superficially, at least, the American Revolution was to a certain extant spurred on by a competition between British elites and newly established colonial elites.  The British elites would most likely be against a large-scale outbreak of military hostilities.  The British elites, for example, were dependent to a certain extant on commerce and taxes derived from the American colonies and maintaining these benefits would be best served by maintaining social stability.  Some of the British elites might favor a selective type of military operation in order to impose order in a particularly rebellious area.  The colonial elites, on the other hand, probably favored a large-scale military conflict because this would serve several goals toward independence.  First, a large-scale military conflict would disrupt British trade while simultaneously imposing substantial war-related costs on the British.  Second, because the British were not willing to grant independence, a military conflict was the only feasible way to pursue full independence.  Finally, as Zinn notes, the colonial elites were busy pursuing their own political and economic goals and a military conflict would divert the poor in the cities and in the countryside from their grievances against members of the colonial elite.  It would seem fair to argue, in terms of the respective elites, that the British would have favored resolving disputes under British law in a non-violent way while the colonial elite would have view a large-scale military conflict as the wisest course in pursuit of independence.

There were many other interested parties, as Zinn notes, and some of these interests seem more difficult to assess with precision.  The Indians, for example, probably would have preferred a large-scale war that so damaged both sides that they could reassert their previous dominance.  The problem with such a statement, however, is that the Indian tribes were quite diverse and they had their own ambitions and territorial disputes with other tribes.  To some extant, they may have been against the American Revolution because of the perception that the British authorities could control the colonial settlers and prevent them from continuously expanding into Indian lands.  This type of thinking is evident in Zinns description of British efforts to constantly make strategic alliances with different Indian tribes indeed, he states that The British, wooing the Indians, had declared Indian lands beyond the Appalachians out of bounds to whites (1980).

The Indians had witnessed the British victory against the French and very well may have considered the British the superior force and the best means for controlling colonial settlement in the short run.  They were probably against the war to the extant that it posed a threat to British dominance and for British force to the extant that it was used to control the colonialists.  The views of the middle class and the lower classes are also quite diverse.

Zinn argues that the middle class was effectively co-opted by the higher classes primarily because of economic interests.  The economic interests of the middle class were as they are today precarious.  It would have been in the interests of the middle class merchants to avoid a conflict in which their commercial interests were threatened on the other hand, as groups such as the Boston caucus demonstrate, independence offered the possibility that these middle class merchants could ascend the socioeconomic ladder if the British were removed from the commercial calculus.  These conflicting considerations, between stability to maintain middle class status and military conflict to open up the possibility of social and economic mobility, probably explain why the middle class was at times in favor and at times against a full military conflict.  The lower classes, hardly sharing in the aforementioned economic benefits, were less enthusiastic about war than the colonial elites.  First, they would most likely be the soldiers dying in the greatest numbers if a war developed.  Second, they were treated quite poorly by the local colonial elites and did not share in the benefits of liberty in the same way as the colonial elites and the middle class.  Zinn notes this reluctance to support the war, discussing military service, he states that The rich, it turned out, could avoid the draft by paying for substitutes the poor had to serve This led to rioting, and shouting Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may (1980).  The poor therefore had compelling reasons to be against the war.  Women were not treated well and could lose husbands and sons in a war and slaves were being traded by the British and increased in umbers as plantations spread and developed.  Women would probably have generally been against the war and slaves might have tilted toward war in the false belief that the colonial elites references to freedom and liberty might somehow apply to them. In short, it would appear that the American Revolution was primarily desired by a small group of colonial elites while most other interests had some or many reasons for being against the war.

An additional example of an American military conflict that was primarily motivated by a comparatively small group of elite decision makers was the Mexican-America war.  This was a military conflict initiated by the American elite, most notably President Polk and his advisors, and it was primarily concerned with expanding American territory and power rather than more idealistic motives such as freedom and liberty.  From a Mexican perspective, this was a painful war because Mexican territory was effectively annexed and incorporated into America while other traditionally Mexican territories were at risk of being lost.  While the Mexican people were probably not enthusiastically in favor of war with America, it is likely that many Mexicans viewed the Texas dispute as the first step toward more American incursions into Mexican territory indeed, as Zinn notes at the end of the war, There were calls among Americans to take all of Mexico (1980).  Many Mexicans probably viewed this as a war of necessity.  American opinions again were heavily class-dependent.  A wealthier American elite sought new territories for business expansion and as a geopolitical buffer to European expansion in what is today the American west.  Securing these territories would create a demand for transportation, increased trade, and would yield substantial financial benefits.  For the poor, they probably had more incentive to support the Mexican American war than the American Revolution.  This is because the settlement of these new territories offered opportunities to improve their lives that were no longer available in the East.  Despite these new opportunities for the poor, however, they would still be against the war to a certain degree given the fact that they would be the primary source of the soldiers fighting and dying in the war.  The slaves may have had mixed feelings as they probably distrusted American intentions and at the same time the creation of free American territories might have suggested future lives as free men in the American west.  Indians were probably in favor of the war from a Mexican perspective because they knew that American expansionism would most likely mean more marginalization of Indian lands.  In some, this was primarily a military conflict favored by the elite, but it is likely that more people supported this conflict than was the case in the American Revolution because of the potential opportunities to make new lives and money in the new territories.

In conclusion, the decision to go to war is most frequently made by elites.  Dissenting opinions among other citizens are not nearly influential as elite opinions and this is clearly evidenced in both the case of the American Revolution and in the case of the Mexican American War.

My report follows the life of Ray Charles Robinson, better known as Ray Charles, in the 2004 film Ray. Jamie Foxx won a Golden Globe and an Academy Award for Best Actor in his portrayal of Charles from the musicians simple roots to his piano work to becoming a superstar. Along the way, he faced numerous trials and tribulations stemming from childhood blindness, the death of his brother and the constant racism. Charles inspired many aspiring singers to greatness and his musical influence lives on today.

The movie Ray portrays an accurate depiction of the life of Ray Charles Robinson. He is better known to most people as Ray Charles (his given last name was dropped to avoid confusion with Boxer Sugar Ray Robinson), a man who faced some incredible challenges to become a worldwide star. He was seen as someone whose drive made him famous despite the many obstacles put in front of him.

Acted by Jamie Foxx, who won a Golden Globe and a Best Actor Academy Award for his performance, Charles is seen growing up in a poor Southern family. His father left when the boy was young leaving mother to raise him and his brother. During the first several years of his life, Charles watched in shock as his brother drowned in a tub and losing his own eyesight.

The movie makes it factual by portraying both episodes (a little dramatic on the drowning, showing a young Ray watching the tragic events unfold but doing nothingnot even yelling to his mother for help).  Regarding his deteriorating eyesight, this mother tells him that there is nothing that could be done to save his vision (no health insurance to treat glaucoma). The film shows Rays eye slowly closing permanently from his front porch.

A little bit of dramatic license to be certain, but the effect is devastating. Charles will no longer see the world in the ways most people will. Instead, Charles will have to use his other senses to survive. In one scene, Charles is riding on a bus and one of the passengers asks him why he does not use a cane to walk. Charles told the passenger that he uses touch (tapping his foot to the bus wall, for example) and his other senses to understand where he is and what to do. Again, the effect is to show that Charles mother taught him to be self-sufficient in an unforgiving world. (Ray movie, 2004)
When Charles began in music, he endured the challenges of dealing with people who were not hiring African-Americans, let alone people with disabilities. Charles would not be denied as he understood the business and how not be swindled. He knew how much was supposed to be paid and demanded satisfaction.

His music was different from everything else in the 1950s and 60s. One change was his infusion of jazz, gospel and soul. The music, which he started listening to early in life, fueled his creativity.  When his Hit the Road, Jack became a hit, Charles soon realized his dream and all of the benefits that came with celebrity.

Charles was married but had affairs with his back-up singers, abused heroin and other questionable behaviors during his fame. Charles believed that he earned the opportunities that came with making music. The movie showed how he dealt with fameby showing him at his worst as well as his best. He created music for the masses, but off stage, Charles was a complete mess. He could not keep his marriage intact, his drug habit took over and he was not creating hits as a result.

Director Taylor Hackford shows Ray trying to exercise his heroin addiction with the withdrawal sequence near the end of the firm. He sees the error of his ways and tries to make right.  During one scene, Charles is performing while one of the back-up singers he had an affair with (played by actress Regina King) continually shoots him dirty looks.

It showed the audience that Charles (a) enjoyed his celebrity (b) was unapologetic about his off-stage antics and (c) proved he could play despite the distractions.

An important side note to the film. Hackford said he cast Foxx in the role hoping he could imitate Charles. That meant pretending to play the piano like the musician. Foxx said that unbeknownst to Hackford, he was already a classically-trained pianist. This meant there was no stunt double needed. No camera shots of Foxx acting like he is playing the pianobecause he actually is playing. In the movies outtakes, Charles and Foxx engage in a jam session that moved both the actor and the musician.

The movie took some liberties with Charles life (name me a movie that does not). Movies have to have a few moments that make the audience grasp or react to situations. That does not take anything away from the man who overcame great obstacles to become a music legend in the RB (Rhythm and Blues), soul, gospel and mainstream fields. There is no denying his talent and his contributions to music. Listen to his version of America the Beautiful and one will understand what his impact has on people.

Foxx researched his role well, even spending time with Charles himself, who gave his blessing to the movie shortly before he passed away on June 10, 2004. He got down every move, nuance and quirk of the late musician so that he could give an accurate depiction of Charles. Foxx deserved the Oscar (and Best Actor Golden Globe) for his work. Hackford should be commended for keeping the facts mostly in the movie. Charles should be remembered for the catalog of music he left behind.

World War II is the bloodiest and most destructive war in the history of mankind. The primary aggressor in this war is no other than Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler. One look at the massive number of global casualties in World War II is usually enough for anyone to condemn the war Nazi Germany started. However, the Nazis werent bent on evil for evils sake. In fact, experts today agree that there are at least two major reasons why Nazi Germany went to war. The first reason is that they feared the growing military power of Russia which they thought would likely attack them inevitably and soon. The second reason is that Adolf Hitler has a deeply entrenched hatred and racism against Jews who he says was conspiring to bring down Germany. In this paper, well show that while both these reasons made sense to many Nazis at the time, they clearly do not justify Nazi Germanys war at all, especially since it resulted in millions of innocent lives lost for a cause, which is irrational and inhumane.

Our chosen artwork vividly shows the horrors of World War II started by Nazi Germany. The painting shows a concentration camp where pale and emaciated male and female prisoners gathered around corpses in stretchers. Hooded men, who are apparently Nazi camp officials, seemed to have placed the corpses side by side probably after overworking them, gassing them, or killing them by other means.

The painting is very striking because it summarizes why Nazis were unjustifiable in starting World War II and treating it the way they did. They robbed Jews and other peoples of their human rights, such as what we can see in the painting, where prisoners can only look on helplessly as their dead fellow prisoners are laid side by side. Like animals, men are women are deprived of clothing food and proper shelter. The gray and brown tones of the artwork also drive home the overwhelming sense of resignation that permeates Nazi concentration camps. In a place where their only purpose is to die systematically, prisoners cannot do anything but watch helplessly as their murderers commit their horrific crimes.

We now turn to the man who has the most responsibility for all the suffering the world endured during World War II  Adolf Hitler.

Numerous writings on Adolf Hitlers beliefs and ideology, including Mein Kampf, highlight the fact that his drive for war and how it must be fought were heavily influenced by his racism against Jews. Somehow, Hitler truly believed that Jews were conspiring to bring down German culture and the entire country. This conspiracy was allegedly disguising as global Bolshevism with Moscow as its headquarters. Combined with the widespread fear of Russia mobilizing against Germany, Hitler decided it was necessary to draw first blood by hitting the Russians hard, thus, sparking a global war.

It is now evident that Hitlers fear and hatred of the Jews have no rational or logical basis at all. Jews residing in Germany at that time posed no threat to the government. Its also ironic that Germany would try to crush Jews supposedly thriving in Moscow when Jews in Russia were also persecuted at that time. Hitlers racism against Jews and Judaism was developed early in his youth and could even be described as pathological (Copeland 119). German society also supported Hitlers pathological racism with its harsh discrimination of Jews years before the war. Jews in Germany were racially isolated from the rest of the population and some of them were forced to work in ghettos prior to the commencement of the Holocaust. Thus, Jews had already died a social death in Germany even before they were literally murdered in the millions (Bankier 463).

The outcome of Hitlers racism against Jews and his power to drive the German army to wherever he wants it to be cant be more horrific. The Holocaust, or the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem as it was called by Nazis, resulted in millions of Jews in Europe dying horrible deaths. They were placed in concentration camps where they were systematically killed in droves in the most cold-blooded genocide in the history of mankind. Jews were already persecuted before the Holocaust but the racism and the inhumane treatment reached a fever pitch when Hitler made such acts official and a national duty.

The unbelievably huge number of deaths in concentration camps is not the essence of the unjustifiable nature of Nazis war and war activities. Conditions in concentration camps are enough to repulse any rationale being and make him condemn the war Nazi Germanys sparked. In some concentration camps, it is estimated that a prisoner cant live more than three months because of inhumane conditions. For example in Birkenau, there is no drinking water for prisoners. Both sick and healthy prisoners drank the polluted water channeled into the camp from the dirty swamps surrounding the area. Schutztaffel (SS) guards, who were the most criminal of Nazi Germanys soldiers, would make prisoners work to their deaths. There was only a single faucet for washing for eight thousand prisoners and the price of a bottle of water was equal to a half loaf of bread. Camp conditions were so terrible that on some days, as many as 225 prisoners died, many of them killed by Nazi guards for no reason at all (Yahil et al. 372).

Nazi Germanys occupation of Poland in 1939 is regarded by scholars today as the official start of World War II but the war didnt become global until Germany invaded Russia in 1941. In many ways however, Russias invasion has been one, if not the most important factor in Germanys decision to go to war. Russia was growing in military power and Adolf Hitler along with many generals at that time feared that once Russia mobilizes, Germany would be its first victim. Thus, Germany waged war for the same reason it did in the First World War in 1914, that is, it is afraid of the country with three times its population and forty times its land mass (Copeland 119).

Germanys military regularly investigated and measured Russias military power in the years leading up to its invasion. In February 1941, Hitler was shocked by the news of the skyrocketing numbers of units in the Russian air force, so he made it clear that war was now inevitable. When Hitler learned that the Soviet air force was not as far behind as they initially thought, Hitler even became more convinced that they had to launch an offensive immediately. Thus, Hitler and his army marched to Russian territory in 1941 and did very well in the first six months of the bloody war. In fact, Germany almost won if not for Hitlers mistake in not pushing forward to Moscow.

Other reasons for Hitlers decision to wage war on Russia are strategic. After assessing what the opponent had, Hitler came to the conclusion that if they attacked Russia, Great Britain would not have enough military strength to come to her aid, at least until the United States supplied its needs. Hitler therefore realized that to conquer Russia, he must do it in the swiftest possible time before Great Britain and the United States could interfere. If the attack achieves success, then all other conquests should follow (Commager 131).

While there is some reason for Germanys fear of Russias growing military power, the war still cant be justified especially since Adolf Hitler and the Nazis never planned to stop at conquering Russia. They wanted to invade all Europe and achieve world domination. Had they succeeded, more innocent Jews and other non-Aryan peoples would be subjected to their inhumane treatment and murderous intent. Thus, although the defensive purpose of Nazi Germanys war on Russia can be justified, the true motives behind it are irrational, inhumane, and essentially evil.

Perhaps, more unforgiveable than Nazi Germanys actual initiation of war is their treatment of war. Their war quickly turned to an excuse to torture and commit genocide against Jews and other innocent victims. Wars are inherently violent but Nazi Germany took its irrationality to a more terrifying level when they decided to murder millions of civilians.

President Kennedy and President Dwight were both very successful due to their charismatic leadership as demonstrated by the following discussion.

Discussion
President Dwight Eisenhover was the 34rd president of America and one of the most successful presidents to ever lead. He has been known to portray certain charismatic qualities that distinguish him from many other leaders in the world. These qualities are written by Philip Ernest (2001) and we are going to look at them to know why he became very effective and successful during his time as the preside

First and foremost, he was a good team leader. He learned this when he was a football coach and when he led the allied army in Europe, he is said to succeed in bringing together British and American generals together to work as a team. He motivated them to work together since he knew that solidarity and unity is the only way of succeeding because everyone feels part and parcel of the program.
         
The second quality that he had was that he believed in doing his best. He believed in doing more than the expected work. He insisted in doing the good work however little it may seem to be since this is a basis of greater work ahead. He is a president who believed in keeping his word. Every promise that he made it was fulfilled and this made him gain credit as a faithful president.
       
The fourth quality is that he knew his priorities and what he was expected to do for his country. He is said to have told his wife that she was number two after his country America. For that reason, he was able to devote a lot for the better of the American people making him famous and very successful.
                 
John Kennedy shares a lot in common with President Dwight. He also saw the need for working as a team, doing more than you are asked to do, showing compassion and being a good communicator. However, as Philip Ernest (2000) records, President Kennedy had other profound qualities that include the following.
     
First, he learnt that it is good to make a mistake but at the same time learn from it to avoid future havoc. This was demonstrated when Russia was planning to explode a missile in Cuba. This according to him was a loop hole in his government which he worked out later on. He is said to have had a direct telephone call from White House and Moscow so as to see them stop the intended act. He also took that opportunity to sign a treaty meant to end nuclear tests on the planet earth.
     
Kennedy worked on the principle of setting a good example by becoming a good role model. He was apparently a smoker but many people did not know that. He smoked in private so that he could se good example especially to the youths who would be influenced to smoking if he happened to do it in public.
       
He believed in setting of high goals by sharing of a vision. In his speech of 1960, he told the Americans not to be satisfied by their then status quo but instead look at the gaps that needed to be filled in addressing the challenges that the world faced and also seek to answer many questions that remained unanswered. During the same speech, he told the Americans that they have to send people to the moon before the end of that decade. He was indeed a great motivator.
     
On the importance of direct leadership, this was first demonstrated by President Dwight who believed that delegating what a leader is supposed to do is not advisable. The leader should take full responsibility in doing all that is expected of them without directing it to the subordinates who might not do the work as expected.
       
Direct leadership involves face to face interactions with subordinates. The message passed by them becomes what the leader intended. The importance of this is that the leader is able to influence those that he leads since he becomes part of them and feels what they are going through and therefore during the formulation of the policies the leader will be inclined to support those that touch the people.
         
Another importance of direct leadership is that other effective leaders are born. This is because they have a chance to observe what the direct leaders do and for that they are able to also borrow from the example set for them.
         
Direct leaders are able to notice very quickly when the system is not working, how things work and how to address such problems (milum.net).They are held responsible for the outcome and therefore they are very keen on the policies that they adapt. This makes them very careful while leading.

Conclusion
Following the above discussion, it is important that the leaders work directly for the welfare of the people being held accountable for everything that they do. They will be motivated to change the tactics of their leadership styles for the benefit of the society in general.

Loyalists in the American Revolutionary War
There have been significant efforts, among history scholars, to assess the positions and roles that different groups assumed in the revolutionary struggle that gave freedom to the United States from their British colonizers.  This study is an effort to look back in history, evaluate the positions taken by American loyalists and make analysis of the roles that they played in the revolutionary wars. Loyalists refers to persons who maintain loyalty to an established government and in this study, they refer to persons who were living in the American colonies and supported the British rule during the American Revolution and thereafter fled the United States to avoid persecution (Stewart 3). The American Revolution constitutes the political upheaval that occurred in the last half of the 18th century in which the thirteen colonies in North America joined together to break off the British empire and combined to form the United States of America. The Revolution began in 1775 as a result of a conflict that occurred between the united thirteen colonies and Great Britain over the way in which Great Britain treated the colonies. Approximately, a third of American colonists were loyalists and they included office holders who served the British crown, large landholders, wealthy merchants, Anglican clergy and their followers.

Reasons for loyalty
The prevalence of loyalism is precipitated by a number of factors and as Flick (9-15) postulates, the loyalism evident in the American Revolution was deeply entrenched in political and religious reasons.  Its religious bearing was evident in the fundamental doctrines of Anglicanism in which obedience to the British law and loyalty to the ruler had a near-spiritual bearing. Flick (9) argues that Anglicanism was keen to instill the doctrine of submission to the parliament and the king and emphasized on religious obedience when it came to resistance of authority either by rebellion or acts of revolution.  In a typical show of how this doctrine was propagated, Stewart (6) cites Dr Myles Cooper, then the president at Kings College who claimed that God established the laws for governments, ordained the British Power, commanded obedience to authority and that the laws made for heaven and earth, by God, forbade rebellion. When such messages were passed on in such a manner, they created a near divine attachment to the crown and this was evident in most religious matters such as prayers for the king and the nurturing of the clergy, which Flick (10) postulates that were done in pure sentiments of loyalty.  The religious orientation is important in conjuring an image of the composition of the loyalists. Anglican followers and the ministers together with their social connections were ardent loyalists and their positions in the society did influence the laymen stand on loyalty.  Besides religion, a variety of other reasons abounded which made the loyalists prefer loyalty to the crown.  An analysis of some of the reasons indicates that a majority of reasons were based on the weakness of the colonies against the British rule while a few were based on opportunistic hopes pegged on the might of the British rule.

Understanding the socio-economic composition of the loyalists during this period is crucial in explaining the other reasons. First, a good number of loyalists had connections and aspirations within the British circles and as such, had little intention of spoiling their chances. There was also a class that rarely participated in active life, they were comfortable in their retirement and preferred to remain neutral (Sabine, 68).  There were also those who were just naturally timid and preferred peace. Still, a good number was inactive due to old age. These factors, albeit not exclusive played a role in the loyalists identification and loyalty to the crown. Some of the reasons admitted by the loyalists themselves, as cited by Sabine (67) included an effort by the loyalists to observe the rights of both persons and property, that is, efforts towards peaceful coexistence. This however did not last for long as they were opposed by patriot groups which did not approve their layback strategies. As protection against this opposition and as a self-defense mechanism, they resulted to royal protection in which they had to identify with the royal party.  In addition, some loyalists remained loyal on religious grounds that opposed propositions for war. A good number also remained loyal on the notion that they were enjoying enough privileges from the British forces and as such, saw little need for resistance. Other varied minor reasons included fear of change, political principles, emotional bonds and simple local incidents that had endeared them to the British principles.

Another major reason for loyalty was the strength and supremacy of England at the time.  Being the Supreme economic power at the time, England was the prime buyer of American raw materials and agricultural products.  As such, the American loyalists did not want to ruin the good relationship or else, they could ruin the market for their goods. As such, they were circumstantially forced to remain loyal. England was very strong militarily too and as such, the loyalists dreaded their strength and resources coupled with a strong conviction that successful resistance would have been impossible. It is prudent to note here that the loyalist colonies had neither means nor men to make war efforts and their loyalism was as such, more out of weakness other than submission.

In recognition of the protective powers that Britain wielded, the American loyalist colonies developed close ties them in the hope that the great British navy would protect their products from the many pirates and privateers who were preying on shipping lines used to transport their goods through different places. This reliance, in essence required identification with the royal party, consequently breeding loyalty.  Moreover, there was the issue of the frontier and the British troops who used to protect the colonies along the Appalachian Mountains and acted as security to the loyalists from being attacked by their enemies (Sabine 68). As a result of their British support, they were all enjoined in a commonness of opposing the revolution heralded by the patriots. In summary, loyalists had a common belief that their British connection guaranteed them a better life and security more than what the revolution would achieve.

Based on the diversity of these reasons, three categories of loyalist emerged during the time. The first one consisted of people who had a vested interest in the imperial establishment and whose positions depended on their loyalty to the king. Such included colonial governors, royal officials, judges and Anglican ministers. The second category were people who belonged to religious and cultural minorities who remained loyal based on  fear that increasing the American power could end up destroying them. As such, the British tolerance and protection offered them a chance for survival, they opted for British tolerance rather than the American freedom. This category included French Huguenots, Catholics, Quakers, blacks and the Native American Indians. The third category consisted of the Tory elites who opposed the revolution out of principle. They wrote pamphlets, organized regiments and drafted plans to defeat the rebels. They included men like John Johnson, Oliver Delancy, Alexander McKee and Mathew Elliot. They opposed the revolution as they hoped to maintain America as a stable part of the British Empire. Moreover, they also feared that once the rebels gained power, America would be ruled by the mob as it was evidenced in Boston in 1773 (Stewart, 12).

Loyalists Role in the Revolution
The roles that the loyalists assumed during the revolution are entrenched in the socio-political context of the time. First to note is that most of the roles they assumed were largely circumstantial other than out of choice. As mentioned earlier, a majority of loyalists, who comprised different walks and classes of life, had well established reasons as to why they supported British rule in the colonies. A good number are those whose livelihoods, status and wealth depended on the crown and as such, wanted to retain their status quo. Consequently, they took positions that would fight any efforts and ideologies that would destabilize their apparent success. Their composition varied from craftsmen to farmers, lawyers and laborers to clerks and clergymen, most of who saw little benefit of engaging in conflict with the already established and strong British forces. On the other hand, the colonists were opposed to the British efforts to assert political and economic control in its American colonies and were ready to use all available tools and resources to repel the British insurgence and in their efforts, combined their agitation against all the British sympathizers. The loyalists consequently found themselves in such a context, sandwiched between a forceful British force and apparently disorganized colonists, who showed them little sympathy due to their loyalty to the crown. Consequently, most of the loyalists formed militias and joined the British forces, not necessarily out of will but as a means of protection against the insurgence of the colonists.

During the British forceful fight against the colonists, the loyalists role varied greatly. Some participated passively while others acted as spies, supplying information and fighting the rebels who in return branded them as traitors and hounded them all over. The conflict between the loyalists and the patriots was so great and in many instances, loyalists were severely punished by the patriots especially in areas dominated by the patriots.  The loyalists largely contributed to the formation of approximately 160 different militias from the year 1776 to 1783. During this period, the British commanders used them in various capacities. Some of them were used to protect lines of communication others joined battle formations with British regiments and the rest were sent on wide ranging missions to provide intelligence and guard the flanks regularly used by the British army units (Stewart 15).The loyalists rarely attempted any political organizations and they were often passive unless regular British army units were in the sea (Ward 40).

The British exploited the formation of the loyalist militias and actually organized them to do most of the fighting as evident in the battle fought at Kemps.  The battle at Kemps landing also known as the skirmish of Kempsville was among the battles in the American Revolutionary war that occurred on November 15, 1775 (Selby  Higginbotham 9-31).  The event leading to the battle were as follows first, the patriot Militia companies in Princess Anne County, Virginia, gathered at the Kemps landing to fight the British forces who had gathered there under the command of Virginias last colonial governor, John Murray Dunmore. Lord Dunmore had called in British troops to the landing to defend a large store of gunpowder that had been moved there from the nearby borough of Norfolk. Before this, Lord Dunmore had began a series of raids to recover the cannons, gunpowder and other military supplies which the patriots forces had been accumulating since the Virginia committee of safety began organizing a response to his actions (Selby  Higginbotham 61). The patriot militia had been alerted of Dunmores move and dispersed before he got there. When Dunmore learnt of them he decided to lead his force of 150 men (100 British regulars and 50 militias) towards Kemps landing the next day (Selby  Higginbotham 70). After an intense fight, the rebel militia was forced to retreat leaving behind three militia members in the retreat Joseph Hutchings a prominent land owner in Norfolk who was captured by the British after the fight Anthony Lawson, a prominent landowner captured by the British and John Ackiss, who was a farmer in southern Princess Anne County. Ackiss was killed in the battle and became the first Virginian casualty of the American Revolutionary war (Selby  Higginbotham 71).

Loyalists life after the war
After the revolutionary war, most of the loyalists returned to England and stayed there. Some of them opted to remain in the United States as the hatred towards them had subsided and were able to live a fairly peaceful life. Tens of thousands of loyalists moved to Canada where they settled. Majority of the white loyalists remained where they had lived during and after the war and as from mid 1780s, a small percentage of those who had left returned to the United States. Those people whose roots were deeply embedded in the new world (England) formed the majority of those who left. Those who had family bonds and had acquired friends, property and social respectability remained in the United States. Out of all those who left, virtually all showed an interest to return to what they considered their native home and after the last wave of anti-Toryism that was passed early in the wake of the peace treaty, a number of the loyalists made their way back to Massachusetts. On return, they were given a warm welcome from Americans and were able to integrate themselves into society. In addition, they were also able to reclaim their lost property, collect debts and to join the conservative, federalist political culture of the state .The richest and prominent loyalist exiles went to Great Britain to rebuild their careers while others took along their slaves and moved to the West Indies and Bahamas (Kermes 30).

About 46,000 loyalists went from British North America (the current Canada) and out of this about 34,000 went to Nova Scotia but they were not well received hence the colony of new Brunswick was created for them. 2000 loyalists went to Prince Edward Island and 10,000 to Ontario. A big number of the loyalists also went to Great Britain (7,000), 9000 to the Bahamas and British colonies in the Caribbean. Many of the settlers of Nova Scotia were members of the disbanded loyalist regiments and they were representatives of minority groups such as Dutch, Huguenots and Quackers.The loyalists did not mix well with the older settlers and they preferred to live in groups by themselves as far away as possible as they doubted the loyalty of these people who had called themselves Neutral Yankees during the war. They also resented their monopoly over government appointments (Clarence 361)
British Loyalists have sort of disappeared in the world of history and everything about them is slowly being buried in the pit of forgetfulness .This is because they have been misunderstood and even vilified since the end of the revolutionary war in 1783. In America they were perceived to be traitors during the war because they did not support their own people to fight for independence from the British Empire. They were referred to by use of intimidating and derogatory names. For instance, George Washington called them unhappy wretches and deluded mortals. In addition, there was a popular rebel expression that stated that a loyalist was a thing whose head was in England and its body in America and that the neck had to be stretched. Loyalists were also called Tories a term that labeled someone as a diehard supporter of the King and absolute royal power. As such, the loyalists have been suppressed and they are slowly disappearing from history.  History has not been kind or fair to the loyal Americans who fought, died and in most cases exiled from America during the revolutionary war yet like their patriot neighbours, they believed that they were fighting for a better and free America. This can be proved true because when armed conflict broke out in America, many loyalists formed armies of their own and the loyal militias together with fully armed loyalist provincial corps were raised to fight against the rebels.

In conclusion, much as the Americans have such a negative attitude towards the loyalist, I believe they played a big role in ensuring that the relationship between the two states was maintained in one way or the other because America needed England to support its economy through purchase of raw materials and agricultural products. If this relationship had been destroyed, there would have been possible future ramifications on the relationship between the two countries. The loyalists should also not be forgotten in history because they contributed in the British war by forming colonies to fight against the rebel group.Lastly, the loyal Americans played an important role in American colonial history because they were fighting for a cause they believed in just like their patriot friends and neighbors hence their deeds should not be subjugated in any way.

All deal with specific Programs created during the New Deal to create jobs. These programs also did much more in the areas of conservation, electrification, and preservation. Please take a look at the three programs. If you lived in the 1930s, which would havemost interesting to you and why

 I think it would be a real cool experience working with the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) for several reasons Being able to travel to new places and meet new people. Being able to make a difference, and start new things. The CCC was designed to aid the unemployed as a result of the Great Depression. Also at the same time, being a natural resources conservation program on Federal and state land, planting trees, picking up trash, and getting rid of water pollution. The public really liked the CCC because they provided economic relief, war rehabilitation for men, and work programs like reforestation. But unfortunately Congress Terminated the CCC on June 30th 1942 (Online Highways LLC).

I believe the CCC was a worthwhile effort and I understood why this program was implemented.  It did not only provide jobs for unemployed people like me, it also made me become more aware of the environment and I welcomed the opportunity it provided me in getting out of my miserable life in the city.  Working outside the city helped me appreciate nature even more and made me forget I was poor and miserable.  I appreciated the efforts President Roosevelt did on my behalf and I feel sorry that those in Europe did not follow our lead and instead chose aggression to solve the same problem we had.

I would have been interested in the Civilian Conservation Corps, even though I wouldn t have been able to join because I am a woman. For the young men that joined the CCC they were given great opportunities while they helped to battle the destruction of natural resources. I don t know what the reality of working for the CCC was but it sounded like it was appreciated by many and was a great success. I personally would have liked to be in a camp in Hawaii. The men of the CCC accomplished many successful revitalization projects such as planting an estimated 3 billion trees from 1933-1942, responsible for more than half of the private and public reforestation in the nation s history, improved forest activity, flood control, fire protection, and overall community safety. Along with the opportunity to travel workers with the CCC were able to receive vocational training and additional education. I would have liked to have been a part of an organization that game me opportunities and also accomplished so much good for the land.

It appears as though one of the limitations of the CCC was that it did not include women as part of the workforce here.  Although it was admirable on what it did for providing men with meaningful employment, should have taken women into consideration.  Women, particularly American women, were fast becoming a force to reckon with in society.  They were gradually gaining more rights and it was certain that they had earned the right to take part in it, not because they wished to invoke their gender but to prove they were also part of society and that they could also contribute to rebuilding a financially-crippled nation.

Pretend that you are the person involved in one of the following scenarios (of your choice).  Write a short letter using the language that you think the person would use.  You don t have to be formal, have fun (for this scenario, I select a young urban male applying for the CCC).

To whom it may concern
I would like to express my intention of taking part in the Civilian Conservation Corps the moment I have heard of it.

I have lost my job recently as an accountant and I have fallen on hard times and I thought I have lost all hope of getting another job.  When I heard of this program, I have decided to give it a try even though the jobs involved would be outside my specialization.  I am hard-working and open-minded.  Even though the job offered is different, I am willing to learn whatever job you would assign me to do and I can assure you that I am a fast learner.

I welcome the opportunity it brings as well as the challenges I face.  I have always wanted to travel to the countryside and I consider this a welcome break from the usual life I live in the city where I wake up every morning to the smell of smoke from factories and the noise of traffic as well as neighbors yelling and the rowdiness of kids playing in the streets.  I welcome the prospects of waking up breathing the cool clean air of the countryside and to be able to relax and feel at ease in the quiet atmosphere it provides.

I am confident I will be a valuable member of the group and to do my part in helping restore our country back to its place as a strong and prosperous nation as well as to help preserve our environment, something people in the cities seem to forget and I am hoping I can impart this experience when I return to the city and probably encourage others to do the same in caring for our environment because I believe this is part of our heritage.

I am hoping for your favorable response in the matter.  Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Doe