American History

1775 - 1783 was possibly the most important period in Americas history as it was the beginning of its struggle to become a nation, the United States of America.  The country gained independence, established a federal government, drafted and ratified its constitution and saw a political revolution that resulted in revolt against the British, namely the War of Independence which upon victory saw the US becoming a sovereign state on 2nd July 1776.

Then the Declaration of Independence on 4th July 1776.  The Declaration was drafted by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingstone and Roger Sherman and was adopted by the Second Continental Congress.  The Declaration listed grievances against King George III of Great Britain and affirmed rights including the right off revolution.  The second line of the Declaration is a line that has set a standard that generations of Americans would uphold and refer to throughout the US history.

On July 8th the Liberty bell rang for the first ever reading of the Declaration, and July 9th saw the statue of George III being toppled over by an angry crowd in New York.  All of this was going on amidst a country that was in the middle of a war.

August of this year saw the return of the British to the shores of America landing in New York and the Battle of Long Island began.  New York was eventually captured and General Washington marginally escaped capture.  The city was held until 1783 upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris.   The battle of Long island was the first battle the independent army of the US had fought and was the longest in the war of independence.
On the 22nd August British troops left Staten Island and landed on Long Island there were some 4000 British troops and my midday there were 15000.  General George Washington had been told it was 8000 to 9000 and only sent 1500 extra troops which totaled 6000.  On the 24th August British troops totaled 20000.

On the 27th August Washington arrived and realized they were outnumbered and ordered more troops.  British ships had tried to sail up the East River but the wind prevented them from doing however Washington and his men were surrounded on Brooklyn Heights.  It was the bloodiest battle fought on American land with America suffering the greatest loss, 300 dead and 1000 plus held as prisoners.  The British also advanced upon and took New Jersey but to their surprise Washington crossed the Delaware and won battles at Princeton and Trenton and retook New Jersey.

It is estimated that 40 to 45 of the population supported the rellion against the to gain independence and 15  25 reamined Royalists with the remainder of the population being neutral (Calhoon, 2000).

African Americans those that were free and enslaved also fought the war on both sides.  African Americans prior to 1776 had been banished from enlisting in the Continental Army but due to a lack of fighters lifted the ban enabling them to enlist.  All Black units were formed and some were promised freedom from slavery at the end of the war as an incentive to enlist and fight for independence.  The numbers in difference on whose side they fought are staggering some 5000 fought with the Continental Army as apposed to 20000 Loyalists who fought alongside the British.  Approximately 13000 native Americans also fought for the British army.  

April 1782 saw the British Commons vote to end the war and a peace treaty was signed in Paris in November of the same year.  The war however was not officially over until the formal signing of the Treaty of Paris on the 3rd September 1783 and British troops left had left New York by November 25th of the same year.   The United States Congress finally ratified the treaty on the 14th of January 1784.

The United States of America were finally free and independent.  An important part of its history was over and a new nation was set to begin with freedom being their priority.

The end of the colonial era in America opened new opportunities. From 1815 to 1860, there was a drastic change in the manual labor system. Traditional commerce became obsolete, as there was a dramatic improvement in transportation and communication. Increasing industrialization, isolationism, and regionalism became dominant in North America. During the early national period, New England fared well. There was an increased in overall commercial production. Many of them participated regularly in commodity trade. Manufactured goods were purchased on a regular basis. Indeed, trading ports became the immediate markets of both manufactured and commercial goods. Many farmers became rich  owning large tracts of land and farming machineries.

The Boston merchants conducted business as usual. With the advent of steam engine in the early part of the 19th century, there was a resurgence of ship-building in the city. Steam ships carried goods from the Atlantic to the city port. The merchants then distributed the goods to other Atlantic cities like New York, New Jersey, and Washington. Some Boston merchants began to shift their investment to the manufacturing sector which made headway in the North.

For Frances Lowell, the Market Revolution was an age of opportunity. With the invention of the spinning jenny and the power loom, Lowell was able to establish the Boston Manufacturing Company  the first textile mill in America. The companys first mill (the Waltham Mill) became the role model of the 19th century American factory. He also pioneered the employment of women.

For the Charleston slaves, the Market Revolution was an age of terror and opportunism. Charleston became as busy as before, operating legally as a slave-trading district. With legal approval, badges were attached to slaves to indicate that they were legally purchased. As the demand for labor intensified in the South, slaves became commodities of exchange. Slaves were employed in large plantations of the south. In the North, they occupied the bottom of the social ladder.

The Market Revolution had many dimensions  each depended on particular perspectives.

The movie, being based on a true story tells of what happened before, during and after the gunfight that took place at O.K Corral. There have been western movies that talked about the famous gunfight at the O.K Corral and Wyatt Earp. Films such as My Darling Clementine, Hour of the Gun, and Doc, and The Town Too Tough to Die all shared a certain theme about the gunfights but Tombstone is believed to be one if not the most accurate films that tell of the real historic events. One of the accuracies that can be found in the film is that it really documented how Bill Brosius tried to kill Wyatt from point-blank range but missed three times before Earp, with a shotgun, finally killed him. Another accuracy in the film would be the fact that it showed how McCaurys and Clantons were Earps huge rivals or enemies. The film showed how Wyatt was only present in one real gunfight prior to the events of the story which truthfully happened in history. A surprising accuracy was the shootout at the O.K Corral since it was filmed at the exact location that the courtroom proceedings dictated them.

However, as it may have presented a lot of accuracies, there are still some parts of the film that were different from the actual events in history. An apparent inaccuracy or flaw would be in the beginning of the movie where the Cowboys were dressed in red sashes and crashed a Mexican wedding celebration. In history, no Mexican wedding celebration happened and the Cowboys never wore red sashes. In the movie, Wyatts wife, Mattie was an opium addict which in reality is not. In Tombstone, it was hot during the shootout but in history the ground was actually spotted with snow since it had snowed the day prior to the shootout making the temperature cold. Another flaw is when Sheriff Behan was surprised when Wyatt arrived in Tombstone. In reality, Wyatt was actually invited by the sheriff to take over his job. At the final moments of the movie, another inaccuracy can be seen. Doc was portrayed to have died in a sanitarium and Wyatt visited him in a moment before he died. In real events, Wyatt found out Docs death after eight years and Doc died in a hotel.

Kurt Russell plays the role of a retired peace officer, Wyatt Earp, which has a legendary reputation. Wyatt reunites with his brothers Morgan and Virgil (played by Bill Paxton and Sam Elliott respectively.) explored and then decided settle down to a small mining town called Tombstone. In town, they encountered a longtime friend of Wyatt, Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer). Doc was a gambler, gunslinger, and not to mention a crooked character inflicted with tuberculosis and the desire for relief from the illness from the drier environment of Arizona.

Mattie Blaylock, played by Dana Wheeler-Nicholson, became very reliant on Opium while the brothers gain benefit from gambling emporium and saloon. Then, they encountered in town the feared band of outlaws, the cowboys, led by Curly Bill Brocious (Powers Boothe) and were only a spark away from conflict with Wyatt and others. Wyatt only insisted that he wanted no trouble and that he had retired from law enforcement. Doc also met a competitor as the fastest guns in the west in the character of a psychopathic Johnny Ringo.
Though no longer an active lawman, Wyatt still was pressured to help eradicate the town of the Cowboys as the band emphatically create trouble and tension. When Curly bill visited a Chinese opium house, he loaded himself up with drugs and go on a shooting frenzy. The town Marshal Fred White decided to approach Curly and confiscate the guns after his display of craziness. But Curly decided to shoot the marshal, infuriated and tired of the Cowboys trouble to town, Wyatt decided to take Curly forcibly into custody. The other Cowboys were infuriated as well, only to Wyatt and decided to threaten him and his family.

Probably because of the slipping marriage of Wyatt, he found himself really attracted to Josephine who was straightforward with men. But it was overshadowed by the violence and tension created by the continuing wreckage brought by the bandits. The lack of law enforcement in the town forced Virgil Earp to step up and be the new town marshal. He immediately imposed a weapons ban within the city limits which led to a showdown with the Cowboys. The battle at the O.K. Corral found both Virgil and Morgan injured, but killed three Cowboys in the showdown. They then found out the evil collaboration of Sheriff John Behan (Jon Tenny) with the Cowboys. Thirsty for revenge and retribution, the Cowboys ambushed Wyatts brothers resulting to the death of Morgan and the impairment of Virgils arm for life.

A shocked and disgusted Wyatt decided to leave town via train. But followed by the Cowboys, Wyatt let his family ride the train. To their assassins surprise, Wyatt killed one of the two assassins and let the other live to send the message that he became a U.S. Marshal and is on the hunt for anyone with a red sash. Vengeance was Wyatts overpowering emotion as he joined up with a reformed Cowboy McMasters, friends Texas Jack and Turkey Creek Jack along with Doc to become the justice enforcers of the town.

But Wyatts group was ambushed in a riverside forest by the Cowboys. But Wyatt strides to finally seek out Curly Bill in a single combat. The combat was worse for the latter, as he was killed in the gunfight. As the Cowboys leader died, Johnny Ringo replaced him as the new leader.

But Doc found his condition to be worsening the group was accommodated by Henry Hooker in his ranch. Then they stumble upon Josephine once again, only to give the news that Mr. Fabian (Billy Zane) was shot dead by the Cowboys after trying to steal Josephines watch. Infatuated, Wyatt realizes that he wanted to be with Josephine but to no avail as he was on the midst of a fight against the Cowboys.

Ringo then sends a message to Wyatt as he dragged the dead body of McMasters. He wanted to have a final showdown with Wyatt, obviously on the advantage of Ringo. Realizing his disadvantage but had no choice, he decided to accept the challenge. Doc was a better match to Ringo but was apparently ailing at the time.

Wyatt was on his way to the showdown, without knowing that Doc will beat him to the site. Ringo was surprised to see Doc, and at first didnt want to fight him. Doc says that they wore only finishing their game to play for blood. Ringo finally accepted as his desire to kill overcame him. The showdown began, both men circling the other. But Doc was the winner of the contest as he was the first to pull his gun off and shoot Ringo in the head. As Wyatt approached the place, he was alarmed of the sound of gunshot and afraid that Doc was on the unfortunate end of the bullet. To his surprise, Doc killed Ringo in the showdown.
Doc after not only surviving a showdown, but also killing one of the fastest gunners in the west succumbed to his illness. Dying from an illness and not from a gunshot, the idea made him muttered the humorously. He peacefully passed away after the visit of Wyatt. Wyatt was finally able to pursue Josephine, and the story ends in a narrative to their long marriage and finally Wyatts death in 1929.

One of the most shocking political events in the history of the United States of America is the assassination of US president Abraham Lincoln. Watching a play inside Fords Theater, Lincoln was shot at the back of his head by John Wilkes Booth, the single shot rendering a mortal flesh wound from which Lincoln would never be able to recover from.  The many witnesses present when Wilkes shot Lincoln easily established the crime itself. What captured the imagination of the people are the many different possibilities regarding the background of the assassination. Today, this is more popularly known as the conspiracy theories behind the assassination of Lincoln. Set in the backdrop of the American Civil War which was about to end, there were many political, cultural and economic considerations that many different groups are trying to protect as they anticipate the possible result of the victory of Lincoln in the American Civil War. This fueled the possibilities surrounding speculations as to who or what group was actually behind the assassination. Was Booth a determined assassin and a fanatic who, personally, has resolved to killing Lincoln because of his own personal political views Or was there a greater hand that had a significant role in how all of these things were planned, undertaken and executed What is important is that all of the theories were created under the consideration that the president, regardless of who killed him, was doomed for death for political reasons. The assassination was strongly influenced by social as well as political and cultural conditions at the time. Over the years, there were many theories behind the assassination of Lincoln. Although none were strongly proven as the true reason for the assassination, the mere fact that such cannot be dispelled just as easily allowed for the theories to persist and be of significance until today. For this reason, the paper will be examining, analyzing and discussing such theories.

The set of conspiracy theories that were created as a result of the guessing game surrounding the bigger picture involved in the plotting of Lincoln allowed for the surfacing of many different ideas. Above every other theory, the first one to be explored was the argument on whether the assassination was Booths personal plan as a result of his own political perspectives or was Booth merely one of the characters in a more complex assassination plan that involved more people. In the end, there is no direct evidence to support a larger conspiracy theory. Unfortunately, this will never be known considering the fact that Booth never got the chance to even be put to trial. He died shortly after being shot while being pursued and asked to surrender. What was certain already is that Booth, along with other identified conspirators like Powell and Atzerodt were involved in the conspiracy. This only heightened the passion of theorists to put together ideas regarding the assassination.

The first theory was about the involvement of then vice president Andrew Johnson in the assassination. There are many reasons for people to believe this is true. First, the death of Lincoln automatically gives Johnson the presidency. Second, Johnson and Lincoln have had some personal unpleasant moments with each other a few days before the assassination. Third, Booth was associated with Johnson. There are many ties that link the two together, like how they were connected during the war, the relationship of the mistresses they both have, and the fact that Booth was trying to communicate with Johnson after his assassination of Lincoln. The next theory to surface was the theory that the assassination was a plot that was hatched by the Confederate leaders. This is strongly military and political, considering the role of Lincoln in the war, the victory he was about to achieve and the impact of such victory for both the Union and Confederacy states. Many people believed that Lincoln was targeted by the Confederacy for assassination because his death can change a lot of things and this includes changing some political and military conditions.

Another idea that was being explored was the role of the British bankers particularly of Rothschilds in the assassination. This time, the reason was economic and financial. The British bankers have already designed a way on how to profit from the conditions that they predicted would result from the Civil War. However, it turns out Lincoln had other plans, which included restrictions in tax and the actions of Lincoln on slavery, all of which considered by British traders as moving against their own personal and business interest, reason enough for them to remove Lincoln in the picture, hiring Booth to do the task.. There were also beliefs that the Catholic Church was behind the assassination of the president. The catholic conspiracy theory of the assassination, for example, might furnish material to the historian to measure and analyze anti-Catholic sentiment among groups that believed the theory. For his part, Lincoln was not a proclaimed anti Catholic although in the past, his defense of a particular individual led to what was perceived as a defeat of the Catholic Church. The defeat was a result of Lincolns intervention, which some view as reason enough for the Church to have Lincoln assassinated.

The Secretary of War was also seen as a suspect in the plotting of the assassination of Lincoln. It was believed that Edwin Stanton was not in favor of Lincolns post-Civil War Reconstruction plans and had designed a plan to kill the president. As a Secretary of War, it was convenient for him to make Lincoln vulnerable during the assassination day by having prospective guards and protective measures weakened and by creating alibi to make sure that his end was protected. Many historians have seen many different reasons to believe that Stanton maybe guilty of plotting the death of Lincoln.

In the end there was no clearly established and strongly proven theory on the plot to kill Lincoln. Until today, what was known is the role of Booths and the other people arrested and tried shortly after the attempt. As to the nature of the plotters and if there were indeed others besides Booth, particularly those who are socially significant like politicians, military leaders, religious organizations, etc, everything remained as a theory. There is no proof sufficient enough to clearly pin the plotting of the assassination to one of the theories presented by historians and analysts. Lincolns death is one of the saddest times in the history of US, and is also one which is shrouded with a mystery that is still to be uncovered until today.

The article, the Caning of Charles Sumner Slavery, Race and Ideology in the age of civil war, by Manisha Sinha discusses in details the various reactions to the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. The caning took place on May 22, 1856 in the Senate Chamber and evoked widespread reactions from people on both sides of the slavery debate. Sinha starts her paper by mentioning the actual incident and Brooks boasting of his actions in a letter to his brother. This is followed by an account of the background which led Sumner to give his provocative speech which incited Brooks to take this unprecedented step. The paper goes on to discuss in details the various reactions to his actions and how they shaped the subsequent policies. As she mentions, the attack on Sumner, further widened the divide between the pro-slavery South and the anti-slavery North since after the attack, even those Northerners who did not advocate black rights felt that violent proslavery men like Brooks were threat to the norms of republican government. The paper even includes the viewpoint of African Americans to the caning. Sinha starts with first discussing the reactions from the people from South, who saw the Abolitionist agenda as a threat to their way of life. Here, Sinha discusses in details how many Southerners supported the caning and felt that the incident taught the pro-slave Abolitionists a lesson, while congratulating Brooks. To highlight the North South divide, she mentions how the South saw Sumners reaction to the caning as unmanly and cowardly while the North attacked Brooks for his cowardly actions in attacking a defenseless man. She then switches to the Norths viewpoint which saw the caning as a blow against representative government. She rounds up the paper by giving details of the consequences of the action for Sumner, Brooks and anti-slavery rhetoric in American politics.

The paper, All Southern Society Is Assailed by the Foulest Charges Charles Sumners The Crime against Kansas and the Escalation of Republican Anti-Slavery Rhetoric, by Michael Pierson, describes in details the circumstances which led Sumner to give the Crime Against Kansas speech. After a brief discussion of the existing literature which sees the incident as a reflection on the personalities of the two men, Pierson goes on to discuss the political background of Sumner. He first establishes the political credentials of Sumner, mentioning how he was elected to a full term in the US Senate despite his party being in minority. According to Pierson, Sumner felt strongly about his anti-slavery stance and was afraid that he would not be able to pursue his fight if he lost the elections. He was seeking for a credible platform to get re-elected and decided to escalate his anti-slavery rhetoric to this end.

Pierson than goes on to describe how the politics between 1851 and 1855 shaped Sumners actions, discussing in details all the behind the scene activities which led to the incident. He talks about the various anti-slavery speeches Sumner had given in the past and how he had often alluded to the illegitimate relationships between the slave owners and their slaves. By the end if 1955, Sumner was looking to further push up his anti-slavery rhetoric as he started feeling a rising urgency. According to Pierson, the Crime Against Kansas speech was prepared over several months with Sumner deliberately resorting to insults while keeping within the decorum of the Senate House. Pierson next goes on to carefully interpret the speech which, though insulting to Southerners, was carefully clothed in decent language, in keeping with rules of the House. The paper ends with a general reaction to the speech and Sumners denial that he had intended to provoke a physical assault with his speech.

The article,  After The First Northern Victory The Republican Party Comes to Congress, 1855-1856, by Joel Silbey, goes into the details of the rise of the Republican party in the congress. The paper discusses how a number pf people, from different parties, with only one common anti-Democratic Party agenda came together to form the Republican party. The Party did not officially come to power until 1860 and the period leading to this victory was full of internal fighting within the Republican ranks. Silbeys paper focuses on the period between 1855 and 1856 and goes into the details of the voting trends to show the serious divide among the republicans. It started with the appointment of Nathaniel Banks as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Although his election as the speaker could be regarded as the first major republican victory, it did not come easy, and according to Sibley, Banks won only because his rivals were seriously fragmented and because of the downfall of the Whigs Party.

After giving the background, Silbey moves to the congressional dimensions of the Partys rise to power. He lists the voting trends of the Republicans on some of the crucial votes to highlight how severely the party was divided on most issues. His aim in this paper is to show that the formation of the Republican Party was not an easy one as in the initial years, the party was highly fragmented. The only thing common between the various people representing the Republican Party was their stance on issues which was largely different from those of the Democrats. The paper ends with mentioning that at the end of 1956, the Republican remained divided and just one of the many protest movements, which could not yet be called a Party.

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

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

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

The aftermath of the battle was one of the worst that America has had to deal with since their independence. The battle is estimated to have ended at about 5.30 pm on the 17th of September 1862. The Union side had a total of 12,401 casualties with at least 2100 reported to have succumbed to their injuries and died. The Confederate on the other hand had more than10,000 with at least a third people dead. According to the military history of America, this is the highest number that has ever been witnessed.
Upon the return of McClellan and his troops President Lincoln was not impressed by their performance. He felt that the whole performance of McClellan and his team was an underperformance and that there was no coordination. The President was particularly disappointed with the fact that McClellan did not pursue Lee when he withdrew from the battle claiming that there was shortage of equipment. Immediately McClellan returned from the battle he was relived from his duties as the commander of the army.
The Maryland campaign of 1862 has been ranked among the very most crucial operations of the military in all the civil wars that America has experienced. The battle of Antietam was not a full victory on the side of the Union especially in comparison to what President Lincoln expected. However this came up as an opportunity for Lincoln and his team to strike politically at the Confederacy. On the 22nd September 1862 President Lincoln issued the infamous Emancipation Proclamation which declared that the government which was federal in nature would consider all slaves that were held by their masters against their will free beginning 1st of January the following year.

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

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

The second phase of this war was at the center of Confederate and the troops of the Union group had not seen the Confederate group hiding. The Confederates without the knowledge of the Union troops opened fire at a close range. This struggle lasted for a couple of hours with both sides attacking and counterattacking one another. During this phase General McClellan got an opportunity to totally destroy Lee and his troops. However he did not take up this chance and Lee together with his troops managed to escape.  Slowly the battle began to move in the Southern direction and Lee and his troops found themselves at the center of two main commanders from the enemy side. The troops from the confederate side had hid themselves in a road that was sunken making it impossible for the other side to recognize or even locate them.
However as the Confederates were skimming their next move they were surprised to spot those from the Union side being on a hill. They formed a parade that was led by Major General William French as they approached the confederates. This marked the end of the second phase. As the Union side approached the confederates they were attacked unawares and most of their soldiers were lost. A second troop of soldiers from the Union side attempted a similar approach and were equally overwhelmed. For three hours there were massive attacks from both sides which resulted in practical slaughter of people with neither side seeming to overpower the other.

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

The victory that was garnered by members of the Union and also the declaration that was made by President Abraham Lincoln were seen as playing a key role in dissuasion of Britain and France as far as giving recognition to Confederacy was concerned. Some people from the North had always thought that Great Britain and France had the plan to give recognition to the Confederacy and that they were going to view it as a nation independent from the Union if the latter suffered a major defeat in subsequent battles.
The battle of Antietam is one of the most historical battles in the history of America because of its significance as many changes took place after or as a result of this battle. To begin with this battle has been considered as the point of turn for the Civil War as the aftermath was quite tragic. America has never witnessed such great number of deaths as they did on this particular battle. It was as a result that the Civil War in America was born. It is also one of the bloodiest wars that America has ever witnessed since its independence. Perhaps the greatest significance that is attached to this war was the fact that it was after the war that President Abraham Lincoln made the greatest declaration which came to be known as the Emancipation Proclamation that saw slaves declared free.

Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.) is perhaps one of the most important figures in Western political and military history.  A general, statesman, and historian, Caesar is credited with having established the very foundations of the Roman empire that one day was to stretch from the shores of Britannia to those of the Persian Gulf.  Numerous books have been  and surely will be  written about the man, his times, his almost mythical status, and his political and military exploits with the understanding that only by understanding this man, Julius Caesar, can we begin to fathom the forces of history that he unleashed one day when he crossed the Rubicon.

Zachary Kents Julius Caesar Ruler of the Roman World beautifully encapsulates Caesars life and his times in a relatively small book of a 150-odd pages.  Given the size of the book, it is certainly not an exercise in historical investigation to separate the myths normally attached to the man from the realities of his character.

The book, in fact, has been written to introduce Gaius Julius Caesar to the general audience, especially children and young adults, and hence the books classification as juvenile nonfiction.  Keeping this in mind, the author tries not to lose his young readers in a labyrinth of foreign names and abstract dates.  From reading this book, one can understand that its main purpose is to inculcate a love of history in young minds and by following an almost story-like pattern, the author attempts to bequeath to his readers an understanding of the Caesars life and his contribution to history.

One can almost see this book as a western counterpart of another of Kents works on an Eastern giant, Genghis Khan Invincible Ruler of the Mongol Empire.  Both of these men  Temujin and Gaius  were able to harness the forces of history at their disposal, and shape not only the destiny of their people but also that of the East and the West.  This is why Julius Caesar is such an important character in history.  He can rightly be seen as the moving force behind the concept of imperial Rome, the precursor of modern Western civilization, and it is essentially in this context that we can afford to ignore Caesar as yet another soldier-politician.
 
But before we go any further, it may be a good idea to pause and briefly consider the professional career of the writer in question.  Zachary Kent, the author of the book, holds a degree in English language from St. Lawrence University.  After working for some time with a literary agency based in New York City, Mr. Kent decided to become a professional writer and with children and young adults as his intended audience, he has so far written a multitude of books on history.  Mr. Kent has written extensively on American history on subjects as diverse as the American Civil War, World War I, and the crash of the New York Stock Exchange.  He has written biographies of many American presidents and luminaries, such as Alexander Hamilton, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, et cetera, to give the younger generation a better idea of their extraordinary contribution to history.  He has also successfully touched upon subjects of modern history, such as the Challenger disaster and the Persian Gulf War, et cetera, and even though most of Mr. Kents writings are centered around America and its history, he has also written on world history  writing about subjects such as Julius Caesar and Genghis Khan.

While writing Julius Caesar, one feels that Mr. Kent has tried to adopt the same approach that he has followed while penning down his other works.  Keeping in mind the mental age of his intended audience, he has attempted to faithfully follow the events in Caesars life, as chronologically as possible, to give the book an almost story-like feeling.  While this is not a work of fictional history, the book is most certainly meant to introduce Caesar to a new  mostly younger  audience, who have very little or no prior knowledge of the man and his importance in history.  Therefore, following a story-like pattern greatly helps in arousing sufficient interest and maintaining it throughout the book.

Mr. Kents work is certainly a much simpler account of Caesars life and his times, with him choosing to build his book around the more generally accepted facts about the mans life and his many achievements.

Choosing not to confuse his readers in the complex interplay of actors and forces that marked the transition of the Roman republic into imperial Rome, instead of concentrating on those turbulent times, Kent chooses to concentrate on the man, Julius Caesar, who was at the helm of the affairs at that time.  The idea is to understand Caesars time through his actions and their consequences.

As stated earlier, the book is certainly not a work of historical fiction and Mr. Kent has, therefore, done his best to make sure that the book is not viewed as such.  While the language used in the book is plain and simple to understand, he frequently refers to the works of other modern writers as well as ancient historians to support his arguments.  Once again, keeping in mind the intended audience, while the book is not loaded with footnotes and bibliography pages, it is as historically accurate as possible with the author occasionally relying upon archeological evidence and modern-day examples to make his point.

Despite its small size, the material of the book is very well organized.  With its focus on Julius Caesar, it moves swiftly between the various chronological phases of his life starting from his early formative years as the governor of Gaul and the hero of the Gallic Wars (58-51 B.C.) to his decision to cross the Rubicon and plunge the country into civil war, culminating in his rise to absolute power at the expense of Romes republican aspirations.  Kent offers a balanced and well-written account of Caesars life, carefully noting the strengths and weaknesses of his character, as well as his skills and acumen as a political leader and military commander.  In its final quarter, the book looks at Caesars famed relationship with Cleopatra, the political intrigues surrounding his rule and his unfortunate assassination, concluding with the rise to power of his adopted son, Octavian.

In my opinion, Julius Caesar  Ruler of the Roman World is a very well-written book that introduces to the reader one of the most important characters in Western civilization, the impact of whose achievements can be felt even in todays world.  Born almost a hundred years after Hannibal had passed into oblivion, Caesars Rome marks a turning point in the history of ancient Europe.  Without overwhelming its readers with a deluge of dates and events, Mr. Kents book successfully introduces us to the man, Julius Caesar, and his immutable contribution to history, the Roman Empire.