American History

The movie Good Night and Good Luck portrays the early 1950s when America experienced the threat of communism that created fear amongst Americans. There were even some who took advantage of such situations such as Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. But there was one person who knew of his scheme and did everything to expose his deception amongst the people, this was Edward Murrow. This film showed his and his producers pursuit to expose the truth. The bravery and determination of Edward Murrow to reveal the truth by the use of media made him known as the father of broadcast journalism.

The bravery of Edward Murrow to deliver only the truth to his viewers was one of the reasons why he was well known during the 1950s. This movie showed how far Murrow would go just to reveal the truth. He did not consider the danger that would come with his plan to expose the public deception of Senator McCarthy.  Being a journalist and a democrat, he had in him the drive to let the public know the truth no matter what (MURROW, EDWARD R. U.S. Broadcast Journalist). Because of this dedication, people saw him as a person who upholds public service at its best until now, he is known for his bravery in exposing the truth.

The pursuit of Edward Murrow to expose the truth about the public deception of Senator McCarthy showed his determination to reveal the truth and save his fellow Americans. Murrow made use of his resources to uncover the truth behind the communism threat to America imposed primarily by Senator McCarthy. When chaos was dominating the society, Murrow knew that he had to do something to bring back the peace among the people. He served as the voice of the people, exposing information after information of the truth behind the red scare that started chaos all over America (Jeff, n.d.).

Edward Murrow not only served as a journalist who wanted to reveal the truth, but most importantly he served as a hero for the Americans in their time of crisis. He did not think of the danger that he would encounter in his pursuit to expose the truth. He believed that the people deserve to know the truth and, him being a journalist, he knows that it is his job to deliver the truth to the public. Because of his bravery and dedication to his work, he was acknowledged by journalists as a person to look up to and an epitome of journalistic excellence (MURROW, EDWARD R. U.S. Broadcast Journalist). These and many more are the reasons why Edward Murrow is regarded as the father of broadcast journalism.

The civil war is one of the many controversial events in America that have had a constant conflict with the democratic principles of freedom on which America is founded. Of the events leading on to this war, slavery played a key role as it was the basis for many of the differences between the states. Slavery began with the 1619s arrival of Africans as indentured servants in Virginia. In 1641, the Body of Liberties passed by the U.S legislature made servitude legal giving the white masters the capacity to buy and solely own slaves (Lawrence 169). The Americans notion of persecution and black peoples sin was used justify servitude. The rapid increase in demand for coffee, tobacco, sugar and cotton intensified the demand for slaves as source of cheap labor.  This demand led to a thriving Black Gold (slave) trade which prompted for the establishment of more stringent rules to govern slavery. For instance, according to the law then, blacks had no right for legal representation in any of the federal courts. The Dred Scot case, which was of great importance in the abolitionists movement activities, was ruled by the Supreme Court basing on this argument. This intensified the tension between the pro-slavery south and the anti-slavery north even more.

The U.S philosophical and political Manifest destiny belief played a key role expanding U.S territories through to Pacific Ocean region so as to accommodate the rapidly increasing population as well as furthering its interests in slavery. In 1820, U.S passed the Missouri compromise to define the free (north) and slave (south) states especially for their admission into the union. Later, the compromise of 1850 was formulated to establish more slavery laws as well as barring the trade in slaves in Washington, D.C (Lawrence 203).   This compromise led to the entrance of California (neither a free or slave state) into the union as a free state. However, the Fugitive Act passed alongside the compromise of 1850 enhanced slavery by allowing the slave states to reclaim their runaway slaves in the free sates. This Act promoted brutality on both free blacks and the slaves as bunky hunters got in the trade. The 1840s doctrine of popular sovereignty gave the settlers in the new territorial lands the capacity to determine whether these states would be free or slave states. This idea was popularized by the 1854s Stephen Douglas Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lincolns 1860 election prompted the formation of a separate union-the Confederate States of America as a rebellion to Lincoln (Lawrence 245). This was due to slavery issues enhanced by leadership failure. Struggle for control over federal forts especially Fort Sumter initiated the civil war. Both the south and the north could have done better to avoid what became one of the bloodiest U.S wars. A number of laws such as the Fugitive Act could have been reviewed or avoided for the sake of unity.  

The South States of the United States dependent upon agriculture as a source of foreign and domestic exchange and therefore held a negative feeling about abolition of slavery. Nevertheless in order to save the image of the constitution as a legal binding document that granted freedom to all Abraham Lincoln together with the support of the Union states felt that liberal source of labour was much more profitable both to the economy and civilization of the United States. The cotton and tobacco producing states felt oppressed by the antislavery tactics of the federal government and promptly seceded since the federal government was acting beyond the provisions of the constitution in abolishing slavery and therefore in response decided to secede from the Union for independence since they considered the Unions constitution less supreme to individual states constitution. Therefore the American civil war was about the issue of different views about free labour against slavery and the subsequent supremacy of the Unions constitution over individual states independence.

The Union established the 13th amendment act that abolished slavery by allowing all men to be free and at liberty to and in order to preserve the constitution that formerly paradoxically upheld slavery, Abraham Lincoln had support the Unions war against the pro-slavery south (Cornell University Institute, 2010). The federal government had its quarters at the Washington D.C. while the Confederation has it headquarter at Virginias Richmond. The Unions economy was organized and well established through the promotion of industries and use of immigrants as industrial workers and the general population while the south cotton and tobacco states derived their economic subsistence from agriculture with over five million slaves. The Republican Party believed in democracy and justice regardless of ethnicity as a fundamental right under the auspice of the constitution-consequently in order to protect the supreme constitutions aspirations to promote a coherent and democratic America the Union had to fight the southern  militia that were against the Union control and abolition of slavery (Stampp, 1981, 144).Religious, cultural and intellectual freedoms were being undermined in the South against the Union governments principle of the 13th amendment act and the allowed slavery was denting the image of US in Europe that widely perceived the presence of slavery to as a sign of inability within the Unions government to act.

Economically, the Union benefitted from the Union government economic policies and taxation more than the confederation. Therefore it was a mandatory economic issue that the United States had to be kept together despite the civil war through proper conflict resolution that would see the economic models of the North America spread to the south in order to end the former economic disparities between the two regions. The economic value of the United states in the international market was dependant on the union more than a divided America that would soon enter into worse civil unrest realities and fierce interstate rivalry of ideologies and religious views that would have torn American into pieces as the American enemies projected as a mechanism to further colonize and control the economic power of the vast continent. Lincoln as the president had the right to preserve the Union from disintegration due to diverse political views in order to look in control.
Military aggression of the southerners was well advanced to inflict damage in courage and sustainable conquest tactics due to the recently concluded Mexican war experience to use the horse and the gun more effectively. Also, the North as the government knew that they were disadvantaged in military action and therefore the war had to be fought with a common ground that would help in enlisting more soldiers to defeat the south (McWhiney, 1984,170). Therefore the Union was aware that in any case the southern aggression had to be suppressed if the power of the Union government under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln was to be recognized with respect as a legally binding Union. Therefore President Lincoln referred to the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation as the last card, and I Lincoln will play it and may win the trick. And therefore we must make that proclamation effective by victories over our enemies. Since Its a paper bullet, after all, and of no account, except we can sustain it (Don, 1862)-thus the president and the union were exercising a crucial and political will by suppressing the southern insurgency that threatened to break apart the United State into meaningless defragmentation that would soon shrivel up in economic and political disparity. The south secede was politically seen as a form of annexation against the United States and Lincoln would have gone down the history as the president who broke the Union. Consequently, the Union had a political right to protect the US from becoming desolate in the face of the determined southerners who believed in offensive wars that have many advantages purely defensive ones will always end with submission and that the greatest minds in the South are coming to the conclusion, that our liberties are to be won by the bayonet. Those regiments or companies that most distinguish themselves in bayonet charges will march on the true road to honor and preferment (McWhiney, 1984, 144) such propaganda in the general media put the Union government into task of either preventing the escalating confrontation by the Confederation or face imminent alienation. Therefore the preservation of the Union was quite dependant in the military power of the Union over the south as the civil war was already in progress.

The south seceded from the war after the election of Abraham Lincoln as the president of the United States. The southern economy was dependant on agriculture. With the large scale growing of cotton, slaves and land conservation was necessary. The slaves were needed since they were a source of cheap labor on the white farms. As opposed to the south, the norths economy dependent on industrial production of finished goods thus the slaves was not needed in the production. This meant that the southern life was based on the plantation and firm system while the northern life was based in the cities. The southerners who benefited from agriculture were pleased to go to war with the aim of attaining independence as they thought the war would take a short time and they would come out victorious as they were better skilled fighters than the northerners. However, since the war showed no sign of coming to an end while the northern seemed to be taking all the advantages, the northern felt the need to guard and conserve their land against any force especially the northern thus leading to most abandoning the fighting to and protect their properties at home.                                                                                      
The war of states versus federal rights led to the emergence of two camps within the government whereby each wanted to be in control over the other. After the American Revolution, a weak federal government formed by thirteen states called for a strong constitution since problems were on the rise. The frequent problems led to the secret creation of the US constitution by the leaders. Due to the absence of some key leaders like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry during the constitution making, it was felt the constitution had failed to put in mind the states rights of acting independently whereby a state would decide whether to accept or refute federal rights. This led to the idea of nullification that would see the freedom for states to rule the federal act as either unconstitutional or not. The southern states were for the option of each state making its own law instead of the central government. This was nullification as campaigned for by people such as John C. Calhoun who greatly advocated for the nullification. When nullification failed to succeed, the southern states felt disrespected and uninvolved in the government issues. The southerners then opted for the secession as an option.                                                                                    
Land gained from the Louisiana Purchase and Mexican war saw the Americans posses vast tracks of lands.  This led to the big debate as whether the new states acquired could be treated as slaves or Free states. The 1820 Missouri compromise solved the issue by proclaiming that slavery was illegal while other alternates suggested several awareness programs for the slaves as the federal government was to compensate the slave owners. The south was left to rethink its alternatives on the issue of slavery where it picked on benefits versus cost in deciding the fight. (Michael 1996)Another conflict arose as to what would happen to the conquered lands after the war. The 1846 Wilmot Proviso by Wilmot David proposed that the land should be slave free a move strongly opposed in a debate. Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 that caused the freedom to have slaves or not in the two states led to a lot of blood shedding to the states. The wrangles led to the south withdrawal from the government as they felt they were being ignored.                                                                                                                                          
The growth of the abolition movements by the northerners against slavery while proclaiming the negative impacts of slavery led to the increase in number of anti slavery supporters especially from the outside nations who sympathetically joined in the slavery abolition movement thus favoring the north against the south to the extent of supporting the south in war that eventually saw the south loose over the north.                                                                                                

Though the victory of Lincoln in the elections saw the south in the state of South Carolina declare a secession thinking that Lincoln was  who was a presidential candidate from the north was elected so as to favor the interests of the anti slavery  people from the north thus he could not serve their interests .The southerners further thought that they could lose their land to the northern who were now in control of the whole state thus causing some men in the battle ground feign excuses to get back home and manage their possessions. States like South Carolina stated the reason for secession being constitutional violation under Lincoln to which the Union saw as a form of political annexation against the presidency and the founding fathers view about America.
In conclusion the war that was sparked off by the issue of slavery in order to protect the supremacy of the Union constitution against the literally annexation of the United states by the South was won and the servitude done away with. Remarkably, President Lincoln preserved the Union and established a better platform that allowed the integration of the economic value of the United States as one nation.

In the American Civil War (1861-1865), the North outnumbered the South. However, local knowledge may have offset this. If numbers alone explain the Norths victory, the question arises why did it take four years for numbers to achieve this Why would debate continue about whether the North won or the South lost the war, if superior numbers unambiguously won the war Southerners were determined to fight for states rights and for their way of life. There is no evidence that Southerners lacked fighting spirit indeed the opposite was true. Gifted and skillful generals led their military. However, other factors hindered the south, including rivalry between the executive, the legislature, the states and military officers for control of the war. In the North, there was a clear delegation of military leadership to the field commander. Slavery, which the South wanted to preserve, became a liability as the war continued, with the possibility of slave revolts across the south. Yet if the South had managed what resources it had with greater efficiency, it might have won. Internal political squabbles weakened the South, making a Northern victory inevitable. The Souths failure to win foreign support was also a contributing factor. After discussing why the war began, who was involved and why, the course of the conflict is briefly sketched. After analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, the conclusion is drawn that the South lost rather than that the North won.

The Civil War causes, actors, course.
The Civil War began April 15, 1961 with President Abraham Lincolns Declaration of War against the seven states that had seceded from the Union. All southern states, they complained about how Northern Aggression imposed high tariffs on them, that the North was determined to destroy their way of life and their rights as sovereign states. Their honor, safety and independence could only  be found in a Southern Confederacy, said Jefferson Davis, elected president of the breakaway nation. Eventually, eleven states joined the confederacy. The issue of slavery divided North from South, with Northern states opposed to slavery, which Southern states supported. Lincoln denied that ending slavery was an aim or cause of the war, initially fighting for the restoration of a slaveholding union. Lincoln believed that the Constitution represented a guarantee of slavery in the states (p. 264). Although he hated slavery, he did not think that legislation could abolish it. Given the number of slave states, a Constitutional amendment would never attract enough votes. By 1862, as the war progressed, he was convinced that the war must end slavery while the Southern states remained determined to keep slaves (p. 270).

The actors in the Civil War were the two presidents and their field commanders, Ulysses S Grant for the Union, Robert E Lee for the Confederacy, their armies and general citizens. The number of people killed over the next four years would be almost equal to those who died in all wars fought by the US put together (McPherson, 1992, p. xix). The idea that the North occupied the moral high ground compared with the less than moral South, says Current, is unconvincing, the two sides must have been about even in virtue and vice, devotion and disloyalty, human strength and weakness (1960, p. 20). After hostilities began, the North moved quickly to neutralize the four border states, Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, Missouri preventing them from joining the Confederacy (All were slaves states). West Virginia split from Confederate Virginia, joining the Union.

For the first two years of the war, a stalemate developed with the Confederacy winning some important battles. The Battle of Shiloh (April 1862), the most ghastly bloodbath in the history of the Western Hemisphere this far saw the Confederates retreat but only after appalling losses on both sides (McPherson, 1992, pp 228-9). By July 1862, the Unions failure to push beyond Richmond, VA and the high loss of life plunged Northern opinion into the depths of despair (McPherson, 1992, p. 250). After 1862, the Union pursuing the total war concept, which involved scorching the earth, burning crops, infrastructure, towns and cutting off enemy supplies, the Union began to advance through the South. It became a total war  a war of peoples as well as of armies (McPherson, 1992, p. 193). Such as war, says Williams, was bound to be a rough, no-holds-barred affair, a bloody and brutal struggle (1960, p. 35). Finally, April 9, 1865 the Confederacy surrendered.

Argument that the Norths superior numbers won the war
Some historians argue that the Norths greater numbers and economic strength wore the South down over time, making the Confederacys defeat inevitable. Certainly, the North had a larger army. In 1861, when the war began, the union states had nearly three and a half times as many white men of military age as had the Confederacy (McPherson, 1992, p. 184). The Norths economy was considerable stronger than the Souths, more than three to one in value and real estate and more than ten to one in value of products annually manufactured. As the war proceeded, the Souths capacity to produce, already so small by comparison, was made even smaller by a disproportionate reduction of her labor supply which was fighting the war. Some argue that the North managed both the war and the economy better than the South did, making Southern defeat all but inevitable. In this view, although the South may have had a home advantage of fighting a defensive war on familiar territory, even better trained if not better-equipped troops, this was insufficient to compensate for numerical and economic weakness.

Argument that the Souths political culture lost the War
Against the Norths economic and military strength, the South had the advantage of superior animation, knowledge of geography and actually produced more food than the North.

Despite problems of supply, McPherson says thatb It could be argued that history sided with the South, since in previous struggles for liberty, the Dutch had beaten the Spaniards, the Russians had repelled the French, and the Americans had won out over the British against odds as bad or worse than those the Southerners faced in 1861. If the Norths numerical advantage was what won the war, the question is why did it take so long McPherson suggests that the average Southerner probably was a better soldier than his enemy since they grew up hunting, riding and shooting and did not have to be taught to shoot while many Northerners did. Although less well armed than their enemies, Confederate soldiers says McPherson did not suffer from ordnance shortages after 1862 (p. 2000). Lee was able to keep fighting for four years. Did other factors hinder the Souths ability to capitalize on their advantages Arguably, Lincoln was a more competent leader than Davis, leaving military strategy to his generals, while Davis could not resist interfering despite his experiences at West Point, the Military Academy.

Yet in terms of civil rights and democratic values, Davis may outrank Lincoln. Lincoln restricted press freedom, which Davis did not. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, which Davis did not. In fact, democracy may have cost the South victory. Too many institutions, the central legislature, the states and the executive, competed for power. No single polity emerged. Dissent was not silenced. Democracy even extended to electing officers in the army. In civil rights (except with reference to slaves) the South had an astonishingly libertarian record preserving throughout the war the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from arbitrary arrest even thought the government was itself debilitated by these rights many of which Lincoln suspended. By suspending some liberties, the North could focus on the war without distraction the South did not do this. Since people were fighting for freedom, they asked, why should they start abridging it.

Conclusion
Despite the Norths numerical and economic superiority, it was the South that lost the war, not the North that won. The South, unlike the North, did not aim to capture enemy territory their aim was to defend their own. It therefore fought a defensive war, which meant that troops had to be constantly moved from one threatened point to another and supply lines established. The better tactic might have been a concentrated mass offensive but this was contrary to Southern culture which focused on the local, not wider situation. If other factors had been equal to the task, given the advantages of local knowledge, high motivation and better troops, had the Confederacy better managed its resources, Southern independence might have been won.

General George McClellan was the Union Armys first commander in the early part of the American Civil War.  Because of how the Union army was faring under his leadership, McClellan was regarded as an ineffective general, if not a failure.  As a result of how he commanded the Union army and prosecuted the war, he was replaced by President Abraham Lincoln until he found a much more abler leader in General Ulysses S. Grant who carried the Union to total victory which led to the eventual surrender of the Confederacy and the end of the civil war in 1865.  This study intends to look if General McClellan has been fairly judged by  historians and if his incompetence was valid.

In his book, George B. McClellan and Civil War History, Thomas Rowland attempts to give an impartial view of McClellan.  Based on other accounts he has read from other historians who discussed McClellan, history has not been so kind to the hapless general.  McClellan had served as one of the benchmarks on how modern-day American generals would take action such as the case of General Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation Desert ShieldStorm and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell in response to the troubles in the former Yugoslavia.  The reason why McClellan was brought up in comparing him with these two modern-day counterparts was both nearly made the same mistakes he did in being indecisive or vacillating in taking the proper course of action when they were facing a similar situation as he did (Rowland, 1998, p.10).  McClellan had a superior army at his disposal compared to the ragtag forces of the Confederacy, yet his issues led them to be mismanaged and what could have been victories for the Union in the early battles ended up in defeat.

Another inference Rowland made was that one of the reasons why McClellan was probably not effective was he had psychological problems that would explain why he was not an effective commander and it was rather unfortunate for him since his counterpart on the opposing side was General Robert E. Lee who was undoubtedly one of the best generals the Confederacy had among its ranks.  One historian pointed out that McClellan

Alternating between fits of arrogant confidence and wretched self-abasement, the adult McClellan revealed an indulgent insolence displayed by those who are congenially incapable of acknowledging authority because it would make them feel inferior (cited in Rowland, 1998).

If one were to base McClellans leadership on this case, it would appear that McClellans psychological issues was the root cause for his incomptence.  Rowland would go on and enumerate other flaws McClellan had as told by other historians.  McClellan had tendencies of being vain, unstable, undisciplined, dishonest and had a messianic complex.  Besides being incompetent, he was even said to have problems with authority, particularly with President Lincoln who was his commander-in-chief.

Some even went to the extent of comparing McClellan to Napoleon not in terms of brilliance but in terms of vanity and ego, a trait both commanders appear to possess and this dated way back in his childhood and somehow carried over throught his life from his cadet days at West Point to his various military postings  as he rose through the ranks(17-18).

Besides these issues, he also exhibited a tendency to be cautious in terms of the tactics and strategies he employed which proved to be ineffective when faced with a highly competent enemy commander in Lee who had a very distinguished military career as well as having combat experience from the Mexican War that made him an even more capable commander besides other subordinate generals such as Thomas Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart and James Longstreet, to name a few.  Because of his apparent incompetence and despite having a seemingly superior army at his disposal, he squandered the chance to give the Union an early victory and made it easy for the Confederates to win, thus prolonging the war to four years.

In one book, Crossroads of Freedom Antietam, written by James McPherson, McClellan is depicted more kindly.  Where other historians depicted McClellan as having issues with authority since his cadet days at West Point, McPherson saw him differently.  McClellan graduated second in his class at the academy in 1846 and served with distinction in the Mexican War and was one of the few foreign military officers who were observers in the Crimean War.  During his hiatus in civilian life, he was a manager in a railroad company where he was considered an exceptional manager (12-13).  Clearly, one can see there appears to be some sort of discrepancy in the way McPherson depicts McClellan compared to Rowland and others.  Contrary to depicting McClellan as a problematic commander vis-a-vis his subordinates, McPherson depicted him as someone who was charismatic and a capable motivator of his troops.  In a letter to his wife, McClellan said that I never heard such yelling...I can see every eye glisten. (cited in McPherson, 2002) It can be inferred here that McClellan was hardly the man who had a psychological problem, the sort that would not allow him to assume command of the Army of the Potomac when the Civil War broke out.

But later, McPherson would take a different turn when McClellan assumed command and this was following the defeat of the Union army in the Battle of Bull Run.  Whereas writers like Rowland found McClellan to have psychological issues, McPherson depicted McClellan as a brilliant officer facing what was probably the most challenging commnand of his life and it was the kind of challenge that he could not meet and this eventually resulted in his eventual relief as the war went on.  McClellan, as McPherson saw it, was a perfectionist almost to the point though it may not be in the same line of thinking as Rowland and others that he had a case of obsessive compulsive behavior.  He was a perfectionist in a profession where nothing could ever be perfect. His army was perpetually almost ready to move, but could not do so until the last horse was shoed and the last soldier fully equipped. (cited in McPherson 2002)

Despite his different approach with other historians, there are some aspects where McPherson agrees with them  that McClellan was too cautious and tended to be on the defensive most of the time.  This was manifested partly by his obsessive-compulsive behavior and his tendency to overestimate the strength and capabilities of the Confederate forces on the account they were led by more capable commanders such as Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, etc.  This led him to have disagreements with hiws subordinate commanders,  leading to their defeats.  Because of his attitude, some speculated that McClellan might have sympathies towards the Confederacy owing to his ties with Democrats (13-15).  But in fairness to McClellan, he was not always a loser.  He did indeed score a victory for the Union and that was at Antietam in 1862. Despite this victory, it was a very costly one as the Union army suffered heavy casualties in this battle.  Beyond that, McClellans command of the Union army was dismal and he was eventually relieved and replaced by a more capable commander in Grant.

What made Grant different from McClellan, and this is what all civil war historians agree upon, especially Rowland and McPherson, was that Grant was the opposite of McClellan in the sense that Grant was a risk-taker like his Confederate counterpart Lee.  What made Grant willing to take risks was that he was not afraid to fail.  Because it was part of learning and his initial defeats made him wiser in subsequent battles and this was proven time and again.  Grant did suffer some defeats when he took command but despite these setbacks, he was not relieved.  He learned from his mistakes and redeemed himself in other encounters and this mattered the most and he eventually led the Union to victory and presided over Lees surrender at Appomatox Courthouse in 1865.

In conclusion, history has not been so kind to George McClellan.  Had he been decisive and willing to take risks, the war could have been over the moment it started and history could have judged him differently.  But it turned out that his personality was his undoing and this cost him not only his career but the conduct of the war which had to run for four years.  If it is any confort for McClellan, his apparent incompetence (for lack of a better term) proved to be a blessing in disguise for future American military leaders.  He would often be referred to or invoked whenever his modern-day counterparts were about to make the same mistakes he did and whenever they would think about him, they would completely do a complete turn around and rectify it, thereby winning their wars and avoid being placed in the same spot as McClellan on being one of the (unfortunately) worst American military leaders in history.  In a rather crude sense of irony, McClellans mistakes provided lessons for his future counterparts to learn and improve on and it was rather fortunate for McClellan that he have lost battles but his replacements did win the war but unfortunately for him, he could not partake of that victory because he was  not involved in it.

The book Three Lives for Mississippi by William Bradford Huie is an account of the investigation that revolved around the disappearance of three young activists who were later on found dead in Neshoba County. It took place in 1964, which was referred to as the year of Freedom Summer by the civil rights movement. The three lives were those of James Chaney a 21 years old, black American from Mississippi and the other two were Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, both from New York. It was a book that shows the dedication of three young men who at a very young age were persecuted because of what they believed in and what they were fighting for. A young black man and two Jews, one from the South and the others from the North they joined forces in their efforts of alleviating the minorities condition.

The tragic event happened at the night of June 21. The three went to Longdale to investigate on the burning of Mount Zion United Methodist Church, a church that was serving as a rendezvous for civil rights activist groups. They had just finished a weeks training from the Western College for Women campus in Oxford, Ohio, about the strategies that may be employed on how to have the blacks registered to vote. Chaney was a local activist for the Freedom Movement Schwerner was a volunteer organizer for Congress of Racial Equity (CORE) while Goodman was a Freedom Summer volunteer.

They knew that they were under close watch by the Ku Klux Klan and White Citizens council, which is why, they were keen in reporting to the Council of Federated Organizations about their itineraries in compliance with their standard security procedures. However, they were spotted and Chaney was charged for over speeding while the two were taken in for investigation. They were detained and were not allowed to make any phone calls. Later on, it was announced that they were released. However, days passed but no one has seen the three.

The disappearance prompted the search for the three which ended up with the authorities finding their bodies buried in Neshoba County. Autopsy reports showed how beaten Chaneys body was while Goodman and Schwerner were both shot to death. The situation caused an outrage by the people who sympathized and were angered by the death of the three activists. Then President Lyndon Johnson used their reaction to influence the passage in July 2 of the Civil rights Act of 1964 as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The author was able to show in the book a detailed account of what happened that night based on research conducted within the exact location where the incident happened. It can be said that compared to others, it was a quite more accurate account because the author had a real feel of the location and the situation and he had gathered first hand information about the incident from the witnesses. Thus, he did not just present and analysis based on the news or other secondary resources but extracted them on his own.

Although what happened to the three young men was tragic, it can be said that their lives were not taken in vain. There are good things that came with it including the passage of the laws stated above, which were actually a realization of what they were fighting for. The murders not only united the people in certain ways but they also resulted to the freedom of the Southerners from the white supremacy. The story is also inspiring because it shows how strong were the convictions of the African-Americans and the Jews in acquiring equality especially in terms of Civil Rights. Such part of history is very worthy of studying because it will show how much was sacrificed to be able for us to enjoy the rights and liberty we have today. It will somehow give us a chance to appreciate the courage of other people if that is the least that we could do to thank them. Thus, I give a salute for Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman, the three lives that were sacrificed for Mississippi.

The principle of Separation of powers is a governance technique, initially used by the Greeks but later adopted by the Romans. It simply means separation and division of power between, the three arms of government that is the executive, legislature and judiciary. The constitution under Article, one, two and three, make it possible for the principle to function. Thus the framers of the constitution adopted it in order to curb tyranny and preserve democracy. Madison is credited for the incorporation, of this principle, into the constitution, having been influenced by the ideas of Baron de Montesquieu.
Subsequently, the framers of the constitution, adopted another principle based on separation of powers, termed as checks and balances under which, each branch can partially limit the operations of the others, as noted in the powers of judicial review.

Background
Also known as trias politician, separation of powers is a governance technique applied by states or republics that are democratic. According to scholars, this form of governance bases its origin in ancient Greece. However, it was later adopted by the Roman republic in its constitution .Based on this technique, the state or nation is divided into branches, these branches include the executive, legislature, and judiciary. Thus according to the constitution, the government of America is fundamentally based on this model, in which powers and responsibilities are divided among the three branches, that is the executive representing the president, the judiciary representing the court and finally the legislative which comprises of the bicameral congress.

Thus, in order to understand the issues of separation of powers, its important to understand, the constitution. According to the concise dictionary of politics (2003), constitution refers to a set of rules that govern the politics of a nation or a sub national body. The American constitution is thus a document, which states the laws governing the state and lists the powers and duties of the government and the rights of people (Randolph, 2003). The first draft of the constitution was drafted in 1787 in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention but was not completely absorbed until its ratification in 1789 by the then 13 states, later it was accommodated by the other states. Up to date the constitution has been amended 27 times.
 
US constitution being the shortest constitution in the world generally comprises of the, Preamble, twenty seven amendments, Articles and a final paragraph that authenticates its enactment by the Philadelphian convention. The preamble, just illustrates the importance of adhering to the precepts of the constitution, and calls upon all parties to respect the constitutional authority.
                                   
The First three Articles of the constitution.
The Articles stipulate the powers of the three arms of governments, the rules governing elections and establishment of political parties.  The Constitution through the Articles defines every power and responsibility of Congress it reads All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.  The first Article defines the congress, which includes the Senate and House of Representatives. According to this Article, the two houses shall be equal. Also under this Article, the rules governing the election and qualifications of members of each house are laid down.  Section one, gives the Congress power to make rules governing its operation and power to control government. Section 8 establishes that, all powers are the general and exclusive right of the legislature. For instance the Congress shall have powers to make laws, which shall make it possible for other departments, the US government and individuals to execute the powers bestowed upon them. In the same Article, a total of eight limitations on the powers of the congress are stated.

Though not the most powerful branch, the powers vested upon the Congress are enormous. According to the Constitution, each chamber of the Congress has specific powers. Some of the overall powers of the congress include, the power to declare war in case of an act of aggression or any other cause, the power to collect and regulate taxes, the power to promote technological development through encouraging science and technological advancement, the power to impeach the president, to establish courts, establish and maintain the navy, to make rules governing the establishment and functioning of both the navy and the army. The Congress also has power to collect taxes and to regulate the value of the countries currency. However the most important function and power of the Congress is the power to make laws.  Any legislation to become law should be introduced into the congress by a member of the congress and subsequently debated and passed by the two chambers. The first stage, usually involves the consideration of the bill by a standing committee. Moreover the standing committees are empowered to amend the bill. Eventually the bill, its debated in congress and if agreed upon, presented to the president, who signs it to become law.                            

Article two of the Constitution defines the powers of the executive. According to the Constitution this powers are bestowed upon the president. Under section one, the term of office is specified, both for president and vice-president, which is four years. Also qualification of presidential candidate and president are laid down, including the issue of succession.  Succession by the vice president can occur in case of presidents impeachment, death, inability to discharge duties and resignation. . In section two  the presidents powers are underpinned for instance heshe is Commander in chief of the armed forces, has power to give pardons, has powers to make treaties but with advice of the senate. In this case a two third majority is required. Through the advice of senate the president is also, given powers to appoint Supreme Court judges, ministers and ambassadors, these appointments should be during recess. The president also ensures that laws are executed, has power to adjourn the congress, if a stalemate occurs between the two houses on adjournment. Under section 4, the presidents conduct is addressed and hisher reasons for removal from power, which includes, on grounds of treason, bribery or through impeachments.

Article 3 describes the powers of the judiciary. Under this article there is only one court that is the Supreme Court. This court has power to hear petitions, cases of appeal and deal with all matters of constitutional conflicts.    
                                   
Separation of Powers in America
According to historians and lawmakers, the concept of separation of powers in the American constitution is attributed to Madison, who during the framing of the constitution advised the Framers of the constitution to adopt it. However the original ideas came from the great French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu (Vile, 1967). Having closely monitored the British model of governance, he presented the idea to the Framers of the Constitution, who were subsequently influenced by Madison to incorporate it.

So what influenced the framers of the constitution to adopt, separation of powers in the constitution Lawmakers argue that, the evils associated to monarchy might have influenced the then framers of the Constitution. At the time, they were aware of the monarchy system which is believed to have bestowed enormous powers to one individual, the king. Another reason might have been the desire to control human nature, (Vile, 1967), as Madison described, men are bound, to be dictated by their passions rather than reason, when excess power is bestowed upon them descanting any hope of justice. However the prime reason was to curb tyranny. Thus its upon this consideration that Madison and federalists took into consideration while seeking to convince the Framers to accept the concept of separation of powers.

However, there was a stalemate over the issue of separation of powers in that the anti federalist argued that, by allowing such model, the Constitution would render one branch more powerful to the other thus resulting to abuse of power. Madison, in countering their argument proposed that a model be adopted in which the branches would intermarry and have a partial influence over the acts of others through a system he called checks and balances. Thus federalism and bicameralism was instituted into the Constitution based on separation of powers and checks and balances. Checks and balance is a system of government under which the three separate arms of government are mandated to check and prevent actions by the other arms and are forced to share powers and responsibilities (.Campbell, 1952).

Its the statement of Lawmakers that, due to evils associated with concentration of powers to one branch, the Framers of the Constitution thus agreed, to distribute power among the three branches of government. That is the executive, the legislative and the judiciary as described in the American constitution. Through out the history of America, that separation of power has always been adhered to, though not to the fullest degree. For instance the case of Hayden in 1952 led to judges of the courts refusing to adhere to a directive by the federal government, in which they were supposed to review, the war pension scheme. In defending their decision, they held that since the task fell on the docket of Secretary of state, an official in the executive, they could not interfere, with the constitutional power bestowed upon the executive. As such, the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, state that, the powers of the federal government be divided among the three separate arms of government the executive, legislature and the judiciary branch.

Under the concept of separation of powers, the constitution defines that, each arm is independent, has a separate responsibility and function, and may not interfere or undertake the functions of another branch. Though cogently expressed, the branches cannot function without each other as they are interrelated. Thus they function together in the sense that, they jointly work and cooperate together in ensuring that each branch does not try to assume excess power. This relationship is described as one of checks and balances, where the functions of one branch serve to limit and change the power of another. (Diamond, 1981). Through this ingenious model and system of government, the Framers of our Constitution, sought to promote Liberty and safeguard the nation against any form of tyranny. However despite the framers decision, frictions have continued to exist between the three branches of government.(Campbell,1952)

Under the model of separation of powers, the three arms of government have independent and unique function. For instance this legislative arm of government makes all the laws through legislation of policies introduced into the Congress by members, having been drafted by lobbyists. The executive branch headed by the president is mandated under Article two of the Constitution, to implement the laws. While the judiciary which comprises of the court system, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets the said laws .The taxation system of the government, provides a good example of how powers are separated among the three branches of the federal government. The congress under taxation system passes all the necessary legislations regarding taxes. The executive, that is the president, appoints a director of revenue services, who is responsible for implementing the laws through tax collection. The courts headed by the Supreme courts rule on any legal issues arising from the carrying out of the tax laws.

According to Campbell (1952), the doctrine of separation of powers, also illustrates the difference in qualification, term of service and procedures for electing or appointing officials in each branch of government. Through the three articles, the term of services of each branch officials are stipulated. According to Article two of the constitution,  the presidents term of office is stated as four years, also under this Article the procedures and qualifications of a presidential candidate is specified, this is different from officials of the other three branches of government. The age limit under this Article is 35 years and above. Under Article one, the rules governing the election of Congress men is stated and also the rules governing the code of conduct of each member. The constitution thus distinguishes the time and qualification details of each Congress official. Article three also lays down the requirements of Supreme Court judges, the term of service and the reasons for impeachment of any court judge. All this is only attainable in a situation where separation of powers is stated.

Historians argue that for separation of powers to be successful, a system of checks and balance is necessary. Through checks and balance, each branch of government can limit and control the actions of the others. (Vile, 1967) For instance under the concept of judicial review, the supreme court of America ,uses its power to limit the legislative and the executive arms of government and thus ensure separation of powers. The judicial review powers, thus enables the Supreme Court to challenge any actions of the legislative and executive and decide whether they are constitutional or not. If the actions are unconstitutional, the court has the power to declare them null and void.

Since 1803, the Supreme Court has used its powers of judicial review to declare more than 150 acts of the legislative and the executive unconstitutional.  In a major historical and phenomenal ruling, the Supreme Court declared the acts of President Truman unconstitutional. In this case, the then president had used his executive authority to take control of Youngstown sheet and Tube Co, a privately owned steel mill. Campbell (1952) states the judicial branch must rule by categories in announcing a general principle that produces result, in a particular case (pg 21). In another case the Supreme Court used its judicial review powers to invalidate the actions of Congress and President Clinton, in which the Congress had passed a law allowing the President to invalidate or reject an issue in an appropriation bill passed by the Congress and signed by the president. In this case the Supreme   Court applied the issue of separation of power and argued that the passed bill would violate Article one of the Constitution.

Another aspect of checks and balance is demonstrated in the ability of the president to veto bills passed by the congress. The executive through its powers can decide whether to sign a bill passed in parliament into law or not. By so doing the president can check the actions of the legislative. On the other hand the Congress can make decisions that affect the actions of the legislative. For instance, the president is allowed to make treaties and appoints ambassadors however these powers are limited by the legislative, in the sense that, the appointments should be approved by the congress. Also the power to declare war is vested on the legislative, despite the president being the commander in chief of the armed forces.  For instance, during the Vietnam War, the Congress approved, the said war by providing the troops and funding them. Thus according to Campbell (1952) one way approach to easing institutional friction between the executive and legislative branch is legislative veto (p.15)          

Separation of powers and democracy
Democracy has often been termed as a government of the people, for the people, by the people. Thus democracy is achievable in the case where the citizens of a country are not oppressed and enjoy their freedoms and rights. Scholars argue that for democracy to prevail, the powers of government should not be vested into the hands of any individual or institution, department or branch of government. Thus under the principle of separation of powers, the principle core values of democracy are established.

The American government has often been praised as a true democracy that ensures liberty and often been called the land where dreams are realized. This has only been achieved as a result of distribution of powers among the different branches of government and by allowing the system of checks and balance. Under this approach and model the government becomes, excessively strong, and capable of carrying out its obligations to the people or citizens, without curtailing their freedom and liberty.
                                 
Undemocratic aspect of separation of powers
Critics of separation of powers, argue that, for democracy to prevail, its sometimes relevant to bestow a lot of powers upon one branch of government. They father quip that, sovereignty of one government branch, more so the parliamentary system of government brings power closer to the people, an aspect that the principle of separation of powers does not entail.

In the case of separation of powers where the policy implementation are sometimes influenced by party majority in the congress, the president representing the party with majority Congress members, might collude with the legislature to implement policies which are in favour of their  political agendas (Vile,1967). This might prove undemocratic and thus lead to death, of the very core values of constitutional democracy.

Another short coming of the principle of separation of powers is lack of accountability among the different branches of government. According to Vile (1967), separating and dividing the powers between different identities brings about a situation in which each branch cannot account for its actions. For instance, under the American constitution, the president is only responsible to the electorate who get to vote him or her after a period of four years. This is also reminiscent in the congress where members are accountable to the electorate. This is contrally to the parliamentary system where the prime minister has clearly defined powers, he or she is accountable.
                                                     
Conclusion
Its wise to conclude that, though the issue of separation of powers is not entirely practiced as demonstrated by the existing friction between the various branches of government, its incorporation by the framers of the constitution, helped avert gross abuse of power as demonstrated by some models of government. Thus through checks and balances the true seed of liberty and democracy was sworn into our system, and its these aspects, that have helped to define America as the land of opportunities and freedom.