American History

In the time when people were moving to cities to find their fortunes, there came the need to find employment.  These emigrants and country folk that moved to the cities created a large employee pool from which the manufacturers of the North were able to pull from to not only increased their own wealth, but give a little hope to those who worked for them.  At least that was the plan.  Depending on who was discussing the point, the ideas about wage labor varied as much as the ideas about slavery.  In some cases, wage labor was considered a type of slavery, but in the end wage labor won out.  Slavery was abolished, but slaves to wages were created.

The idea of slaves to wages was not the belief of everyone.  In fact, Abraham Lincoln in his speech in Cincinnati, Ohio in 1859, talks about his views of wage labor and those views that are held by others.  Lincoln believed, from his own experience, was that men offer themselves as wage laborers in order to gain experience, and money to create their own life and in that be able to hire some young man and get him started in life (Lincoln 84).  However, Judge Douglas and many of the southern citizens viewed wage labor as horrendous and believed that slavery was better.  Their basis was the idea that the slave owner cared for all the necessities of the slave throughout life, while the wage laborer never got ahead and remained in service to the business owner, until he was no longer useful and then was laid on the public for support (Lincoln 83).
From the white mans view it is obvious that there are two sides to this debate of which is better than the other.  However, for most slaves, the idea of wage labor is a much better life than that of a slave.  Frederick Douglass explains this very fact in Chapter 11 of the Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass An American Slave.  For Douglass there was no option.  Being free was a much better way of living.  He tells that as a slave, his owner hired him out, but the wages that he received for his work had to be given to the master at the end of each week.  He tells that if he made 6 or more, his master would give him six cents for his work (Douglass).  Eventually, Douglass got his freedom and worked for himself.  Even though the work was hard, he was happy to do whatever task was given to him, for he worked for himself and his family and not for the wealthy slave owner that could really care less about the conditions in which the slaves lived.

Both Lincoln and Douglass found that wage labor was a step up for all prospective employees.  The employee worked for the employer and was given wages in which to live.  Unlike the slave, who was forced to work for no wages, but was given food and housing.  This is one of the major problems with deciding which type of employment was most effective.  One factor that is laid out as being detrimental to both types of employment is burn out.  While not called burn out in the evidential documents, the industrial aspects of the wage laborer and the slave wanes as the activities associated with the job become more robotic than thought invoked.  Tocqueville states the art advances, the artisan recedes (FIU).  This is a powerful message and fairly accurate in that many employees over the years lose themselves to their jobs. They become the job and when they retire they lose a part of themselves in the process. 

Unlike Tocqueville, Hamilton in his Report on Manufactures sees the concept and life of a wage earner in a different light.  In fact, he laid out the new concept of wage labor in light of the industrialization and the use of machinery in manufacturing factories.  He saw the wage laborer as important.  Age and gender helped to define the type of work that the person could perform in the best manner (Hamilton).  For example, many children worked with cotton machinery and cloth weaving machines because they were small.  Should a full size man try to do the job and he would be unable to fit in the areas that are required for the job.  In contrast, a woman would not work as a physical laborer digging holes and such.  She would work in the more refined areas of the manufacturing plant as with the children.  

There was also talk of a new aristocratic governing body created by the capitalists and business leaders of the time.  In an aristocracy, the employee was reliant on the aristocrat for much including protection. This was expected for the work the peasant did for the lord of the manor.  However, the new aristocracy was only the leadership of those with money.  They did not feel any responsibility to their employees for anything but the cheapest wage that the employees would accept.  The business owners bought supplies cheap, and paid their employees a pittance, and kept the rest for themselves (FIU Orestes).  Then they ran the state governments and the actions of the governments were in the interests of the wealthy few rather than the poor many. 
   
In any event, for many the concept of slave labor was not the permanent answer and Lincoln even says as much in his Speech in Cincinnati when he mentions that slavery was to be used only for twenty years and then ended.  Of course the Constitution did not say that slaver would end, but the purchasing of slaves from Africa.  Of course, those in the slave states fought this as long as they could, but eventually they lost their cheap labor and were forced to pay their labor wages. 
Slave owners wanted to believe that wage labor was not permanent and in this sense, charged their employees to live in the shacks that were once provided to them at no cost in a way to keep their money.   Even in the north men and women of color were forced to work in specific jobs. Even if they were qualified, many of the white men did not want to work beside a black man, free or not, thereby creating an invisible barrier between the races (Douglass Lincoln).

This barrier was not just between color but gender and age as well.  The new concepts of wage labor created a new abuse of the employee.  While the employer could not whip the employee, he could pay little in wages and make the employee work long hours in less than sanitary conditions.  The fact is that to keep the wages low, the family, all ages, had to work, from young childhood until old feeble age.  Each faction of the family worked in specific jobs.  The children usually worked in the cloth and clothing manufacturing plants, while the men worked in more physical jobs.  Even with the family working, very few lived up to

Lincolns belief of getting out of poverty and living the American dream.  If anything the wage laborers in the northern cities were pushed deeper into poverty to ensure that there would always be laborers. 
It seems from the evidence that those people who truly embraced the concept of wage labor, did not truly understand the basis and the actual ways in which the laborers were treated.  Lincoln believed he had been a wage laborer.  While he did work for wages it was not in one of the major cities in the northeast, but in Illinois.  His basis for comparison was skewed from the beginning.  Even though his utopian view was believed by many, the truth was obvious to many in the northeast where they worked for little and often owed more than they made. 

Douglass, too, lives in a bit of a utopian society in regards to working.  He does acknowledge that he was unable to find a job as a caulker, which was his trade.  He was kept from the job because he was black, but he did find other employment and did actually make a good living and prospered.  But again, he had the help of others that led him in the right path. 

Hamilton mentions the division of classes in employment and the use of immigrants as cheap labor.  Women and children have already been discussed, but the use of foreign labor actually caused more problems to wage laborers in the long run.  The emigrant workers from Europe were excited about receiving pay for work, and would undermine those people that were Americans creating a lower than needed wage for employees.  In many cases, the wages and work were not equal and the positions were more or less free slave labor. 

It seems that more people between the years of 1790 and 1861 were not happy with the concept of wage labor.  Many wanted to keep the slaves at least in the slave states.  Even Lincoln agreed that the slave states should be allowed to continue in their way.  He believed that slaves were most useful in the agricultural states where their labor was best utilized.  Other agreed with this fact and was one of the reasons that new territories were often in feuds about being a free state or slave state. 

The idea of slaves in the north and many new territories however, was not accepted.  There were enough poor white people and free or escaped black people in which to employ in their factories, businesses and homes.  The wages were minimal and the workers gave their all.  They gave up their lives for the employers and employers made promises that many believed, but few actually obtained.  Wage labor was the new permanent wave of the future and even those that hoped it would go away could not have imagined the wealth that this type of work force could create for the businessmen of the time and in the future.

This essay is an attempt to investigate the approach towards Jacksons Indian removal policy offered by F.P. Prucha and to compare this approach to the interpretations of the events offered by other authors. Prucha explains his position in Andrew Jacksons Indian Policy A Reassessment published in 1969. I am going to compare his view to the concepts of of M.P. Rogin, R.N. Satz, M.E. Young and R.P. Longaker. The paper will review the position of author, and contrast them. The paper will argue that Pruchas approach is not so unique as he asserts when he writes of notable historians who adopted a devilish theory (527) of Indian removal. His main points were supported or interpreted by other authors creating a general complicated theory of Jacksons Indian policy.

Pruchas basic conclusion is that Jackson sincerely treated Indians as equal part of American nation and followed the paternalistic theory viewing Indians as unwise children who had yet to be civilized. His policy has been predefined rather by security considerations than by his anti-Indian ideas. As Prucha puts it, in assessing Jacksons Indian policy, historians must not listen too eagerly to Jacksons political opponents whose ideas continue to shape our view of the Indian removal.

Prucha offers several proofs for his arguments. He firstly examines Jacksons public statements and actions in respect of the Indians finding that Jackson distinguished peaceful Indians aiming to civilization from the hostile savage (530) tribes. The peaceful tribes could expect kind attitude and support of Jacksons administration while the barbarous tribes had to be brutally punished for any offence (528). Upon examination of Jacksons position and military career Prucha arrives to conclusion that Jackson was strongly influenced by his previous military experience including campaigns against unfriendly Indians and foreign enemies. Thus, according to Prucha, Jacksons Indian policy has been, to a great extent, predetermined by public security considerations and its ultimate goal was peace and protection for all (529).

With these assumptions Prucha puts his primary question was there a choice He answers that Jackson indeed had several options to choose from, including physical elimination of Indians, forcible displacement, removal, creation of Indian enclaves at their home territories and assimilation. Prucha argues that Jackson cant be recalled as anti-Indian President at least because he has not chosen one of the first two options. Attempts to apply the latter two options failed. Indian enclaves threatened the security of the settlers and the Indians proved to be reluctant to accept civilizational skills (532-533). Thus, the removal of Indians upon condition of government support and fair compensation appeared to be the only reasonable solution for Jackson, who observed that Indians are now placed in a situation where we may well hope that they will share in the blessings of civilization and be saved from that degradation and destruction to which they were rapidly hastening while they remained in the States (539). This Jacksons quote is Pruchas implied argument that Jackson planned his Indian policy with consideration of Indians interests same as interests of the whites.

The paternalistic view of Jacksons Indian policy is supported by M.P. Rogin in his Fathers and children Andrew Jackson and the subjugation of the American Indian. The book offers an analysis of Jacksons personal and psychological background leading him to paternalistic attitude towards the Indians. Rogin gathered significant evidence proving that Indians were commonly treated by the whites as children of nature (114) who could hardly be civilized in the foreseeable future. At that, the colonizers viewed civilization as an absolute value and consciously took up Kiplings white mans burden. Such environment could hardly turn Jackson into advocate of Indian rights, more than that, Jackson could hardly imagine that rights and freedoms could exist outside of the civilized society. 

Researching on Jacksons living experience Rogin finds out that his character has been shaped by orphanage and privation during his childhood and early youth. Later this caused Jackson to support parentless children (40). As a President Jackson spread this ttitude to the entire nation including Indians who had to obey Jacksons parental orders or leave the family. Thus the removal of Indians appears as a painful but necessary measure to avoid interfamilial conflict inside America and reconstruct paternal authority over the Indians (251). At this point Rogin has much in common with Prucha, most notably the idea that Jackson himself viewed his Indian policy as a benefaction for the Indians themselves.

This conclusion is supported by Satz in his solid treatise  American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Talking on Jacksons intentions in respect of the Indians Satz notes that Old Hickorys policy toward the Indians was a natural corollary of his conception of the nature of the American Union and its needs (9), yet, the tremendous energy and perseverance Andrew Jackson expanded in Indian affairs, however,  was apparently not related to any feelings or animosity toward the Indians (9). Satz examines Jacksons Indian policy as matter of cool and rational reason based on Jacksons previous experience. The development of the Indian policy, according to Satz, was a result of a choice Jackson made already before he entered the White House. Once more, this position correlates with the one of Prucha as Satz demonstrates balanced considerations standing behind Jacksons policy, including demand for new agricultural land, protection of frontiers, as well as uncareful fulfillment of than policy. According to Satz, Jacksons original plan was quite beneficial for the Indians, however, it largely failed as a result of administrative and managerial blunders.

This rational theory of Indian removal is undermined by M.E. Young in an unexpected manner. Researching on agricultural considerations behind Indian removal, especially those concerning land allotment she observes that a considerable number of Indians was already involved in farming when Jackson started implementing his policy (34). Thus, the removal of those settled and relatively peaceful Indians appears to be illogical in the light of the rational theory. Young offers an original explanation. According to her idea, American government and Jackson himself sincerely erred in their perception of Indians. The only dominating image of an Indian was brutal savage, an uncivilized son of nature whose presence prevented white farmers from utilizing the fertile lands on the Western frontier. Failure to accept the fruits of civilization was attributed to Indian chiefs, so Jackson and his administration believed that migration will offer the Indian people an opportunity to free themselves from tyranny and begin a new life in a new land (35). Combined with frequent conflicts  between the Indians and white settlers this lead the government to a futile conclusion that most of the real Indians were anxious to emigrate (42). In the light of this, it can be assumed that the government simply saw that what it wanted to see and thus fanatically enforced its erroneous policy, resting assured that this policy was the most rational solution. The conclusions made by Jacksons administration were indeed rational, however, they relied in faulty assumptions.

This position has been further assured in the disputes between Jackson and US Supreme Court. Longaker points out that the idea of removal fastened in Jacksons mind after rulings issued by the Supreme Court in the cases like Kendall v. United States (353), United States v. Kendall (356), Kendall v. Stokes (356), Mississippi v. Johnson (359), and, most importantly, Cherokee v. State of Georgia (343). Those cases clarified the powers of the President, the government and the Congress concerning their powers and relations with the Indians. In the latter case Chief Justice Marshall concluded that Indian tribes cannot be viewed as separate nations, and thus the law of relations between nations is not applicable to them (354). This conclusion provided Jackson with moral and ethical grounds for the removal as well as, probably, with moral justification. At that, Jackson once again accepted only that what he wanted to accept, refusing, however, to accept Marshalls conclusion that the Indian rights are not dependent on the state authority (345) or that he had to respect for Indian rights so long as they are exercised on the western bank of the Mississippi (347). It appears thus, that Jackson attempted to utilize judiciary as an instrument to legitimize the Indian removal. This hardly corresponds to the theory of irrational hatter mentioned by Prucha, however, corresponds to the rational theory.

It can be concluded that various theories reviewed in this essay come down to a single rational choice theory. Thus, Pruchas idea is hardly outside of historiographical mainstream. Rather it is just an another interpretation of rational theory which can be called no other choice theory. The no other choice theory does not contradict Rogins paternalistic theory. It is paralleled by Satzs rational reasoning theory. Youngs good reasoning, bad premise theory complements Pruchas concept and perfectly explains the failure of Jacksons removal policy and the resulting sufferings of the Indians. And finally, Longakers notion on legitimization of the Indian removal by the Supreme Court provides additional justification to Pruchas assertion that Jackson acted in good faith during implementation of the removal policy.

Neither of the considered profound historical studies supports the primitive irrational hatter approach. In contrast, each of the scholars proves that Indian removal has been fostered by the ideas, which appeared to be noble and reasonable to Jackson. Combined together they suggest a complex theory of the Indian removal policy.

The Market Revolution of the early 19th century which began around 1815 up until 1846, no doubt rocked America and brought with it opportunities for prosperity, freedom, and the realization of  a concept called theAmerican Dream. In the American Dream, first expressed by James Truslow Adams, it stated that citizens of every rank feel that life should be better and richer and fuller for every man, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement However, a lot of youth who went to far lands to peddle goods, came back to show off their new found wealth to the admiration and envy of their peers who were still tied to their fathers farmland. As a result, this  influenced many of these youths to go full time into peddling in the believe that peddling was a get rich quick scheme. It also shifted focus and interest from farming to peddling (Guild, 1937, p. 250).   

Mr. James Guild was a Tunbridge farm boy who in the year 1818 barely three years into the revolution, and having reached the legal age of adulthood (21years) was deeply unsatisfied with his situation, which he referred to in his journal as a long confined situation. He was also determined to escape the controlling hold and unpleasant treatment mete out to him by his master, (Mr. Hutchinson) and the apron strings of his aunt, (Aunt Jenush). Aside this, he had an overwhelming resolve to change his job title from a mere farm boy into something more glorifying (though he wasnt exactly sure what this was going to be). So it was that Mr. Guild set out on a journey to nowhere in particular, in search of greener pastures living his family and loved ones behind.   

The historical report of the metamorphosis that the career path of Mr. Guild underwent from being a Peddler in 1818 to becoming one of the most sought after miniature painters in London six years later gives a peek into the gradual process brought about by the Market Revolution that culminated in the brighter prospects offered street peddlers and others engaged in similar trade. But being that many of these peddlers like Guild, had to travel far and wide with little or no money and into strange lands where most times they met with a lot of hostility, were homeless, and sometimes lonely, this exposed them to a lot of risk like terminal illnesses, theft of goods and money, and harassment.

Another issue that was prevalent during the peddling era was the tendency for peddlers to buy anything from buttons, hair combs, needles, wrist watch, etc. at almost give-away prices and then resell at unbelievably exorbitant prices. For instance, Guild got an opportunity to buy about five dozens of scissors at 3 cents each, and actually attempted selling at a ridiculous 12 cents each with the intention of making a crazy profit of up to 300 To survive in that era, a peddler needed to be flexible and display his Yankee smarts.  This Guild displayed when he ventured into potentially more lucrative businesses like cutting profiles, drawing likenesses and actually starting a writing school as a response to the losses he was continuously making as a peddler of petty goods.

As a result of the industrial opportunities brought about by the market revolution, manufacturers produced far more than was needed to cater for their local market. This popularized the idea of peddling across boarders to dispose of these goods and make huge profits in the process.The transportation system available then was not far reaching enough and also was very expensive. So, in the absence of an effective and affordable transportation system, the peddling entrepreneurs cashed in on the independent, energetic, ambitious and maybe ignorant mindsets of youths within legal adult age who were fed up with the prospects of farming, by entering  into business contracts with them that involved payment by way of wages or commision. On the contrary, Mr. James Guild had no master nor did he enter into contracts with any entrepreneur. Instead, he was more or less an independent peddler who plied his trade across many towns and cities all by himself. This independence, as it were, actually came at a cost, because in the many times that Guild experienced untold hardship, or was ill, or homeless, he craved the protection and loving care of his family which were not forthcoming due to this independence.

Though many peddlers where able to improve their financial situations and those of their families through the returns or proceeds made from peddling or other very innovative ventures like painting likenesses, starting a writing school, and painting miniatures (in the peculiar case of James Guild), it was not without its problems or consequences. For instance, pre market revolution, young adult men were contented with working on their fathers farm even into their late twenties in anticipation of eventually inheriting land and independence from their fathers when they must have come of age. But with the advent of the market revolution came a craze for pre-mature independence, impatience, and unhealthy aspiration for sudden wealth. This mindset shift caused youths to view the influence their fathers had on them pre-adulthood as restraining. As a result, children became unruly, insurbodinate and even the servants attitude and respect for their masters nose-dived. With time, more and more young adultmen left their fathers farm to live out their early adulthood  fantasies in a state of semi-independence in the market place.


Interestingly, even the few sons that were ready to work on their fathers farm, having caught the entrepreneurial or capitalist bug as a result of the affluence displayed by their peddling peers demanded payment for work done on their fathers farm This became a shocking deviation from pre-revolution era when sons worked for their father more out of a sense of love and duty in return for food, shelter and clothing than for personal financial gratification.

One can even liken the frenzy with which youths embraced peddling as their link to wealth, freedom and independence in the market revolution of the early 19th century to the California gold rush between 1848 to1855. For example, by the time James Guild finished applying his assorted skill sets in Boston, New York, and Charleston, he had amassed a total of 13,000 in profits He later travelled to London, and established himself as a professional painter, dining with the high and mighty in London society, and getting invited to join an exclusive club of fine artists. This success story, plus other stories of formerly penniless youths who went on a peddling expedition and returned wealthy thereby advancing in social status, became the fuel that drove many youths wishing for same fortune to engage in peddling without a care in the world for the inherent dangers.

From a Farm boy in 1818, the Journal of James Guild chronicles how Mr. Guild became one of the greatest miniature painters winning several medals for his superior portraits and miniature paintings in Europe. For a better part of seven years, he met with great misfortune in the course of his travels. Consequently, he despaired, cried, fought, got sick (many times), but managed to struggle through in the hope that if he tries hard enough, he may achieve for himself a respectable status.

But it is very important to note here too that, as it was with Mr. James Guild, many Americans during the Market Revolution of the early 19th century, hoping to turn their fortunes around for the better had to travel long distances, dwelling with complete strangers, endangering their lives in the process. By virtue of these travels, they became disengaged from their friends and family and this caused them great emotional turmoil.

In my opinion, I feel that this era brought much danger to peddlers, strained father-son relationships and caused many of these youths to be alienated from family, friends, and society. A price I think was too high to pay for the good that the freedom, opportunity, and prosperity of the early 19th century presented.

When engaging in any type of design project, it is essential to have an open dialogue with the client regarding the issue of privacy.  Different clients will have different needs and desires, and it is essential to take into consideration requirements for privacy in regard to the needs of the unique clients and their particular behaviors (Menconi  Stewart-Pollack, 2005).  Engaging in design projects always deals with the subject of privacy, and the ways in which clients want to limit or increase exposure to human and environmental elements is a necessary component of the design process.
   
Client behaviors are always able to be influenced by the actions taken by the designer.  In regard to privacy, it is necessary to know which elements of the design need to be formulated in particular ways in order to satisfy the needs of the client in relation to the environment (Menconi  Stewart-Pollack, 2005).  It is possible that in an urban area, clients may desire more of a boundary between themselves and other people in the busy environment.  If the environment is a sunny region, clients may desire to limit sunlight, or perhaps the opposite, making use of the benefits of sunlight by allowing it to enter.  There will always be sensory considerations to make in regard to having a comprehensive overview of the privacy needs of clients.
   
The relation of the individual to the environment is always a balance of stressors, and it makes sense for designers to take into consideration the ways in which clients are particularly affected by environmental stimuli.  If proactive privacy measures can be taken beforehand in regard to beginning design projects, then the happiness and satisfaction of the clients are more likely to be ensured (Menconi  Stewart-Pollack, 2005).  The level, thickness, and type of boundary between clients and other people and situations in their environments have to be crafted as an essential element of the design project which matches the complete desires and requirements of the client.

If you suspect that your family came to the US and entered through Ellis Island - use the search on the home page. If you find something and are comfortable with sharing, please let us know what you found.

1. I attempted to search for my mothers family on the Ellis Island home page but did not have enough information for a proper search. I believe my family entered the United States through other cities.

2) On the links at the top of the page, scroll over Ellis Island and look that the top three (Immigrant Experience, Timeline, History). Look especially at the peopling of America section - what do you note about the composition of immigrants in the 1820-70s timeperiod versus the 1880s time period

2. The majority of people immigrating in between 1820-1879 came from western and northern Europe. During this time, immigration was being strongly encouraged by the government, despite some protests from anti-Catholic groups. More people were needed in the United States, not just to work, but also to fight in the Civil War.

By 1880, things had changed. The famine in Ireland had ended, and the leading immigrants were coming from eastern and southern Europe and the Middle East. More people were coming to the United States to escape religious persecution.  No immigrants from Asia are reported during this time, largely due to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.

3) I also posted a link to some Ellis Island video clips. These are interesting to watch (this is not required, but is highly recommended). If you watch these, what are your thoughts about the processes used to allow people into the US during that time

I watched the clips of the arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants being detained on the island, and passing the medical and legal inspection. My first thought is that I cant believe people made this journey without a guarantee they would actually get to enter the United States.  Next, I find it unfair that the doctors conducting the medical inspections began the inspection as the immigrants were walking up the steps. The immigrants had just spent weeks on a boat I cant imagine anyone was able to walk steadily and appear robust at this moment. During the clip about the legal inspection, it is amazing to me that the most important question was What is your name and if answered correctly, the immigrant was almost guaranteed clearance.

Watching these clips make me feel very lucky not to have been an immigrant during this time period because the entire journeyprocess was so difficult I also feel fortunate not to have to immigrate to the United States today, because while the process is different, it is still very difficult.  you suspect that your family came to the US and entered through Ellis Island - use the search on the home page. If you find something and are comfortable with sharing.

Overview of the Eight Amendment Overview of the Fourteenth Amendment Overview of Southern Ohio Correctional Facility Supreme Court 
Personal Assessment 

The Federalist Papers, probably next to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in terms of importance, are a series of articles written to help boost the campaign to ratify the newly-drafted Constitution of the United States.  The principal authors of these papers were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.  To give the impression these articles were written by a single person, they all wrote under a common pen name, Publius alluding to the famed Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.  There were a total of 85 articles written between October of 1789 and May of 1788.  It is interesting to note that these papers were written particularly to sell the idea of accepting the Constitution in the state of New York.  Of all the existing states at the time, New York was one of the critical ones where the fate of the Constitution rests.  During the Constitutional Convention, New Yorks delegates walked out and its governor, George Clinton, strongly opposed the Constitution because it would upset the balance of power of the state by compromising its autonomy guaranteed by the Articles of Confederation making the state far more prosperous through the taxes and other duties it imposed on its neighbors.
   
It can be inferred from the Federalist Papers that Hamilton and Madison, who also happened to be two of the delegates to helped draft the Constitution, had faith in the peoples ethics in helping to establish a republican government as opposed to either maintaining the status quo of the unstable Confederation Congress or reverting to the absolute monarchy which they expelled in the war of independence.  Furthermore, they are sure nobody would want to go back to the latter.  In spite of the strong skepticism of the people, Hamilton, pin particular was very optisimistic that the Constitution will be accepted by all.  In the first essay, he made his case very clear.  Through the first article, he began by telling the people how a strong central government would still be beneficial to them (New York), inadequate the present government was (the Confederation Congress) and one key point was to compare the Constitution with their own Constitution to see that there was no conflict of interest whatsoever.  In addition, he stated that they had nothing to lose by being part of this Union.
   
In the the 8th article, also written by Hamilton, he further emphasized the need for this collective security to prevent any conflict from happening between the states as well as from any foreign invasion.  This collective security under the Union is sure to bring about peace and order making the United States conducive and ripe for economic stability.  He further cited the case of Europe where wars have occurred for centuries because of their division.  He made an inference that wars would not happen in Europe if only they were united under one government although during that time, it was wishful thinking and an idea of a united Europe was rather far-fetched during the 18th century.  He went to add that because of Americas geographical isolation, the Union is preserved from the troubles and chaos of Europe as well as any threat it may pose.  This insularity would be Americas best defense against any threat.  This was further complimented by the 10th article, written by Madison, which dealt with protection against internal conflicts. 

It can be inferred that while democracy was something people back then and even until now desire, it would be realistically impossible to practice given the diversity of the people of the United States.  It was for this reason the Constitution was created calling for a strong central government to help promote stability.  Madison cited that there will be factions and these factions would want to promote their interests and it would come to the point when their interests would clash with the interests of another faction of equal caliber.  When these two (or more) factions would keep asserting their own interests, conflict would ensure. 

The role then of a strong central government would be to regulate these factions, to keep them under control.  Realistically, it would be impossible to take away the causes of the conflict and to attempt to do so would mean suspending liberties which would make people decry a return to tyranny.  Furthermore, the role of this strong central government would also to serve as damage control to the problems these factions would cause.
   
In the 51st article, written jointly by Hamilton and Madison, it talks about the separation of powers of this strong central government guaranteed by the Constitution.  While they were selling the idea of having a strong central government, Hamilton and Madison somehow sensed the apparent skepticism, or fears of the people of having such a government with so many powers, especially if it would be concentrated on one individual or institution, thereby inviting tyranny to set in.  In this article, both Hamilton and Madison tried to allay these fears by stating the feature of the separation of powers among the different branches of government  the executive, legislative and judiciary.  They will each have specific powers and these powers do not overlap but rather serve as a check and balance to prevent one from becoming too powerful or prevent the usurpation of powers, thereby preventing any tyrants from emerging.
   
In conclusion, the authors of the Federalist Papers, were hopeful that the American people could be trusted in creating and maintaining a republican form of government.  They were very optimistic and about two centuries later, they were proven to be correct in their belief.  They admit that the Constitution has flaws but for them, it was by far the best they could offer for the United States of America and fortunately, the generations of Americans have made it work despite its deficiencies.

History tells that the Old State House is a building that played one of the most important roles in the history of Boston and of the United States of America in particular. It is the oldest surviving public building in the heart of Boston that was established during the colonization period in the New England. As a historic landmark, this building witnessed the Americans Declaration of Independence from Great Britain. The declaration headed by Thomas Jefferson which was read in 1776 gave birth to United States of America which was then composed only of thirteen states. Since then, the building was considered to be the most significant considering that it served as the historical center of New England during that crucial time in history.  The building itself witnessed the exchanges of opinion of political leaders as well as of the succeeding Royal Governors as it held several government offices for almost a century. Most importantly, it recorded events concerning the autocracy or domination of the British crown that led to the American Revolution and finally the declaration of independence. After the declaration, Boston raised itself to become the wealthiest and most influential city in 1760s.

Despite remodeling exertion done on the building, Boston retained its old features to commemorate the events that took place in this building. The bricks on the frontage were a new design after the wooden house was burned in the fire in 1711 the bricks survived after the building was succumbed in the fire for the second and third time in 1747 and in 1832. Several alternations were made especially in the interior part of the building making it as functional as possible to house different government offices. Originally, it contained merchants exchange office on the first floor, the Council Chamber and Chamber for the Courts on the second floor, and several other function rooms such as the public galleries. Other restoration efforts were conducted after some of its components crumbled or deteriorated due to the construction of subway underneath the building.

What story does it tell, or should it tell   
Nowadays, the once reigned as the victory symbol of the United States independence is rarely recognized as it is surrounded by tall edifices in the busiest district of Boston. Its position serves no more than a busy economic district and a major public transportation connecting point between different directions. Its importance nowadays reduces to being a museum and a wedding venue. But the question of at what extent should people pay respect to this building as a historical landmark brings to ones consciousness its historical significance to the freedom and independence that the American nation enjoys. Primarily, the building tells about the humble beginning of America with its thirteen united states and at the same time, it should tell the young generation Americans how nationalism and patriotism creates possibilities for the country.
   
History can undeniably arouse peoples sentiments over the events that are associated with a given structure. For instance, Glazier cannot help himself but to utter these words out of high regard for his country.  He stated that the Old State House serves as  with a thousand and one other reminders of the citys brilliant historical record especially that the structure has very few alterations to preserve its original aura. The Old State House by description during the 19th century was  a large brick building, at the head of state-street, which runs east and west it stands about the middle of the city, has a copula, and looks venerable from age. As a government building, Royall (1826) noted several offices that contained in the building such as the legislature, the treasure of the state, office of the governor and its council, and the offices of the adjutant general and secretary of state Among popular buildings or structures in America, this edifice contained the largest and the most important records of events.

The site should tell about the heroism and bravery of the American people as well as the fulfillment of a dream that were dreamed by those great men who envisioned what independence can make of the nation. That historical site in Boston should tell that the progress and the economic prosperity that every Bostonian now enjoyed was the legacy of men whose vision and aspiration were not for their personal gains but for the interests of the American people in general.  The site should tell more than a mere history of the American struggle to gain independence but it should also tell about what unity and cooperation along with ideals and nationalism can do for a nation.

Unfortunately however, the site was only a shadow of the past. The flame of nationalism that of nationalism that motivated men to stand against the oppression which made them great men, and the visions that motivated them to laid down their lives for a common cause was drowned by the noise of economic activities and the individualism and consumerism that took the place of nationalism, of ideals, and of the vision of a strong independent nation. The site should continue to tell every Americans that what the American nations were the ideals, the visions, the nationalism, and the unity and cooperation of the early American for the sake of achieving the greater purpose, that of establishing a nation that is independent, progressive, and democratic.

What is the sites significance to the story of Boston in the Revolution
One of the most important events that ignited the Boston revolution is the Boston Tea Party in December 16, 1773. This event was supposed to be an isolated case in the sense that it was not planned as part of the mass uprising but merely in protest of the parliamentary decision to the East India Company a de facto tea monopoly that resulted to unfair taxation imposed by the British colonizer on the colonial America. Ron Chernow even described this event anonymous salvo The punitive measures imposed by Britain put Boston under the British military rules which implemented various harsh measures such as closing the Boston port and forbidding assemblies or public meetings. However these developments to ripening of Boston revolution as great men such as John Adams and the rest of the Bostonians united under a common cause, independence
   
The site was a silent witness to all these struggles. The site according to a book entitled Harpers Magazine Volume 34, was intimately associated with the men and the times of revolution The site served as the first main battle ground in Boston during the revolution. The Book contended that in the balcony of the old state building that the first President received the welcome of the men who had helped win the revolution and found the Government. The book further contended that it was in this site that that the encroachment of British imperial power were strenuously resisted. In the words of John Adams, it was in this site that the American Independence was born. The sites significance to the story of Boston Revolution is reflected in detail by Harper Magazine as follows

In this old building, were held colonial courts. Here also, were the Council Chamber, hung with the portraits of Charles II and James II, and the hall of representative of the colony, the body which was afterward known by the great title The great and General Court. In the old council chamber, said John Adams, American Independence was born. Here James Otis and Thatcher thundered against the writs of Assistance. Here, in his famous speech of February, 1761, Otis declared that the principles of the writs had cost one king of England his head and another, his throne and here he uttered the war-cry of the revolution, Taxation without representation is tyranny. The Boston Port bill says the advertiser of the city, in eloquent protest, was aimed at rebellion which had asserted it self in the Old State House. In its very shadow, the Boston massacre was perpetrated. (Harpers Magazine, Volume 34) p. 260.     
   
The significance of the site therefore to the story of Boston revolution was something that the present generation should not take for granted because it was there that the seeds of American freedom that every American enjoyed today were first planted. These historical sites bear the memories and the spirits of the great men and women who had offered their lives in order to gain independence from harsh colonial rule that afforded the freedom enjoyed not only by the American people but every freedom loving people all over the world as the United States of America continues to do its best to liberate people who are oppressed by tyrannical rule in different parts of the globe.

United service organization commonly abbreviated as USO is a non profit making organization that is private. It offers recreational and morale services to the US military members, with programs spread in more than one hundred and forty centers worldwide. Ever since USO was established in 1941, it has worked closely with the defense department and has offered entertainment and support to the armed forces of the United States. The organization mainly relies on private donations and on goods, services and funds from the defense department. Although it is chartered congressionally, USO is not an agency of the American government. During the period of the second world conflict, USO became very useful in entertaining the US military troops. American women involvement in USO was one of the several ways through which they participated in the second world conflict. One of USOs women who featured prominently in the WWII was Rita Hayworth she was one of the greatest pinup starlets (Vignola, 2004).

Rita Hayworth in the USO
The art of pinup reached its climax during the period of WWII and several experts in the field of art have a strong feeling that this art will probably never be the same again. Pinup refers to a poster representing the dream of every man in a woman who is considered to be perfect. American soldiers in the WWII displayed several pinups since they provided them with something alluring and sexy to look at and assist in getting off their minds with the violence graphics of the conflict they had gone through all day long. Rita Hayworth, a significant starlet of pinups of the 1930s and 40s had a long acting career that was also fulfilling. Rita immensely assisted in the efforts of war by selling the war bonds that were being broadcasted on radio shows. More than five million copies of Rita Hayworths photo in which she was in the lace and satin nightgown appeared on the cover of life magazine in 1941. They were later sent to sailors, marines and soldiers fighting in WWII. This lively redhead particularly did not like being called a symbol of sex, but if Rita Hayworths photos provided the American soldiers with courage and assisted them to recall what they were fighting for upon returning home, then Rita was certainly for it (Simmon, 1978).

It is in on doubt that Rita Hayworth is one of the greatest actresses of the 20th century. She is also one of the most celebrated movie stars in Columbia pictures. Born in New York City in 1918, she was taught how to perform and dance at an early age by Casino, who was her father. As she grew up and gained more and more dancing skills, Rita became a dancing partner to his father and together they traveled in circuit clubs where she was initially discovered by one of the executives of Fox Film. She started her career in the film industry at 20th Century Fox where she was performing in movies of low budget. She later signed a contract in 1937 with Columbia pictures. Rita made some few more pictures in this name, before changing it to Rita Hayworth, which she did by taking up the maiden name of her mother. In the year 1938, alongside Cary Grant, Rita Hayworth was cast in Only angels have wings this gave her the boost that she needed so much in taking her career to a higher level. This particular casting also brought about sharp attention from Harry Cohn, the studio head (Pettijohn II  Tesser, 1999).

Several of the key foot soldiers included in the mission of USO were American women who were charged with the task of providing the US troops with friendly diversion. Most of the US troops were teenagers or were in their twenties. The centers of USO world wide recruited thousands of female volunteers to dance, serve doughnuts, and chat with the US troops. Julia Carson, a USOs historian describes this as a nostalgic hour that was designed to comfort and cheer the American soldiers. Black American women rushed to rally the society around the American soldiers and created several programs for them. By the year 1946, the hostesses were serving more than two thousand American soldiers each day. They could also provide facilities for the soldiers who were wounded and convalescent to those on leave. The American women went to fraternal organizations and black businesses so that they could get sponsorship for the USO organization (Vignola, 2004). 

Women were the main entertainers performing at shows. Various stars such as Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth and Betty Grable had traveled for more than one million miles. In a single tour, Rita Hayworth managed to visit six US troops camps giving thousands of autographs before coming back from Texas, where she was reported to have nervous breakdown that was full fledged due to over enthusiasm. Lily Pons, an opera singer, after performing a serious song to the US troops serving in Burma, an applause blew off that ended up stunning even the performers who were most seasoned. In a letter that she wrote later, she said that each and every American woman puts on a halo, and those women who represent her should not put theirs off, they should instead keep it on (Vignola, 2004). 

Life at USO was very busy for the American women serving in the organization, they were charged with the responsibility of entertaining the military troops based both overseas and locally. In most cases, these entertainers placed their lives in severe danger as they either perform or travel under highly hazardous conditions in fact some of them lost their lives while in service. The nature of their duty involved a lot of traveling and spending sleepless nights. This could lead to exhaustion of these women who at times could get very little time of resting. The fatigue resulting from the nature of their work is one of the possible reasons that led to the break down of Rita Hayworth (Pettijohn II  Tesser, 1999). 

Women who served in the USO during WWII did a great job in making the American soldiers directly involved in the fighting to forget their worries and troubles for a moment and think about something attractive and appealing to their eyes. They entertained and took care of the US troops, and this gave the soldiers all the morale they needed to go on fighting and eventually win the war. For Rita Hayworth, just like the other starlets in performing for the US soldiers in different capacities, the task were at times overwhelming making them to be fatigued and break down. They however did not relent on their duty of encouraging the soldiers. WWII is therefore incomplete without mentioning the vital roles that were played by the American women through their USO organization.

On 6th August 1945, the first nuclear weapon was dropped by an American aircraft on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later on 9th August 1945, another nuclear device was exploded over the city of Nagasaki. Both cities were largely destroyed in the explosions the total number of causalities from the two nuclear explosions has been estimated at around 199,000. Since the nuclear destruction of non-military targets is such an obviously horrendous act, the supporters of the bombing have had to work hard to put a positive spin on it. The orthodox view in the United States is that the destruction of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the use of Nuclear weapons in 1945 was a military necessity in order to force Japan to surrender. President Truman, who gave the executive order to detonate the nuclear weapons claimed in his defense that had the Japanese not been forced to surrender through the nuclear bombing, a ground invasion of Japan would have been necessary, he had been advised by General George Marshal that a ground invasion of Japan could cause heavy losses among the US troops (Wainstock 1996).

Even if this conjuncture was supposed to be true, there is no way that the intentional killing of unarmed Japanese civilians, including women and children can be held to be of preferable to the deaths of American fighting men in war.

There was a lot of opposition to the deployment of the nuclear weapons within the American government circles even within the military, there were people who believed that the nuclear bombing was unnecessary. General Dwight Eisenhower wrote in his autobiography
   
Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our     government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan.... During his recitation of     the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him     my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and     that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that     our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose     employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It     was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a     minimum loss of face. (Eisenhower 1963)

A look at the primary sources related to the nuclear bombing shows that the American government officials knew fully well that the Japanese were seeking peace, their motivation for the nuclear bombing was a desire to be the top dog in the East Asian region and to deny the USSR influence in the post-war Japan. If the Japanese surrendered to the Soviets, it would give the USSR a great strategic and diplomatic advantage and allow them to dominate East Asia.

Walter Brown, an aide to the Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes records in his notes President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden (Brown 2010)

Based upon interviews with hundreds of Japanese military and public official, the US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the nuclear bombing was certainly not crucial to the Japanese surrender rather. it is the surveys opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all     probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic     bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no     invasion had been planned or contemplated.  (The United States Strategic Bombing Survey 2010)

According to General Henry Arnold of the US Airforce
It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse (Wainstock 1996)

The Japanese rejection of the Potsdam ultimatum, that was the immediate trigger for the deployment of the nuclear weapons, happened because the Japanese were not willing to surrender unconditionally without assurances that the Japanese monarchy would be allowed to continue (Wainstock 1996). Before the nuclear attack, the allied side continued to insist on unconditional surrender, but after the nuclear attack, they agreed to accept a conditional Japanese surrender which allowed a continuation of the Japanese monarchy. It is clear that the Japanese were looking for a face-saving way to give their surrender. Had the Potsdam declaration included a promise to allow the Japanese Emperor to remain upon his throne, it is likely that the Japanese would have accepted it. If the US were insistent upon displaying their might, a less densely populated area than the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could perhaps be chosen to make that demonstration. It is also possible that if the wording of the Potsdam declaration had been more explicit and it were made clear to the Japanese that the Americans intended to use nuclear weapons upon their urban centers, the Japanese would have been more inclined to surrender unconditionally.

Throughout history, America has undergone numerous changes in its endeavors to become a more democratic country which promotes the progress of all citizens. The American society is founded on the believe that we were all created equal and therefore all the citizens regardless of their race, gender, religion or political affiliation are protected by the constitution. However, this was not the case between the late years of the 18th century and the early years of the 19th century. This was more so during the suffrage expansion when all Americans were not equal and factors such as the property owned, the race or gender were considered before an American was given some basic rights such as the right to vote. This paper discusses how these changes did not create equal opportunities for all especially the minority groups.
New Opportunities in the Early 19th Century   
   
The basic principle of a democracy is the ability of the people to participate actively in the ruling of the nation. The role of the constitution is therefore to unify a country that is made up of diverse personalities and create a sovereign nation. However, the process of accepting the role of all people in governance of a country has taken time in the United States.  In the fifteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States, the states were given the right to decide who has the right to vote and who should not be allowed to contribute in general elections. The federal convection on constitution argued that the issue of suffrage was a sensitive issue and the states were better placed as the judge on who among their people should be allowed to vote. This resulted in establishment of different qualification of eligible voters since different states had powers to come up with their own criteria. The federal convention did not establish a uniform qualification because they feared that their suggestions would not satisfy all the states. Lack of uniform decision by the federal convection brings a lot of question on who are the people of America and who qualify to be called an American citizen.
   
By the time the federal constitution was approved towards the end of the 18th century, almost all the states had rules that required eligible voters to have some specified amount of property to qualify as a voter. In most states, individuals were expected to own a freehold estate to qualify to be voters. The ownership of such properties indicated that the individual was independent and was permanently interested in the community where he lived. It was also assumed that men who did not own property were weak in the heart and therefore could not make an informed judgment.

Society is an association for the protection of property as well as of life, and the individual who contributes only one cent to the common stock, ought not to have the same power and influence in directing the property concerns of the partnership, as he who contributes in thousands, (Kent, p 4).

However, in the beginning of the 19th century, property was not the major factor for qualification as it used to be previously. The ownership of property was no longer viewed as virtue or an indication of independence in many states. Freehold qualification had already been eliminated by most states by the start of the second decade of the 19th century. However, this did not guarantee the basic rights in a democratic nation to all people in the country since the rich merchants as well as well off landowners controlled and hanged on to the political power in all the states. This rich land owners included the wealthy men who owned plantations in Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Connecticut. There were also property rights, which were separate from the personal rights which were intended to protect the wealthy at the expense of the poor. The property owners were given special privileges such as voting for representatives of the two houses. Ownership was also a qualification for holding any office and criteria for legislative apportionment.
   
According to Cogan, by the early nineteenth century, with a new market society taking shape, the property was not the stable force it once had, (p 477). These changes demonstrated the stake in the community and that any one who was allowed to vote had to earn his vote. Those who did not contribute in the development of the states had no voting rights. Although the privilege was not determined by the property owned, only those who were considered to have positive contributions to the society were allowed to elect their representatives. This came after the revolution that demanded fair representation for those who paid taxes. However, this did not create equality for all people in the United States.

Although it was not clear to many people how funds contribution to the state guaranteed political privileges, paying taxes was instituted in several states constitution as a qualification to participate in the election of a house representative. It was not clear why paying of taxes was a prerequisite for political influence while those who contributed to the society through personalized services such as military operations were not given such privileges. Some suffrage advocates argued that military men devoted their lives and energies to defending the nation and therefore should be accorded similar respect by being allowed to vote. It was argued that those who participated in defending the country and other military duties contribute more than the tax payers in the development of the community. This claim was extended to those who had the ability to be called to defend the society in the military service. The whole logic was that all men contribute to the well being of the society and therefore should be given the right to vote. This led to the development of the theory that the qualities of a person, independence and virtue, that was associated with wealth was inherent in all men. Therefore, the ownership of property and the ability to pay taxes or otherwise did not change the nature of man. Independence was therefore considered to be inbuilt in every mans mind and heart. The theory also suggested that patriotism and intelligence is not developed when one raises the social ladder but it is engulfed in the nature of all men. It was also argued that wealthy impaired the ability of a man to be patriotic that poverty does  wealth is the measure of respectability, and the foundation for that spirit of independence absolutely essential to unbiased elections, (Cogan, p 480).

Following this arguments, it was agreed that all men have a natural qualification as voters and political powers lies on all men. Paying taxes and ownership of property become less important as a qualification for voting. By the mid 19th century, mans suffrage was the American norm where it was believed that a man cannot be denied his right to vote under any circumstances. The circumstances under which a man was born made him poor or rich but that did not form the basis under which he could be denied his rights to elect house representative. This move to guarantee all men privilege to vote was a distance away from providing equal opportunities for all American citizens. The African Americans and women were still not allowed to vote.

In the early 19th century, it was assumed that the rights of a woman were conferred to her husband and were not allowed to own property. Even the unmarried women were not given this privilege and it was generally assumed by many that women did not have any desire to vote. It was believed that God created a woman being weaker and therefore placed him under the mans control. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master- the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement, (Seneca, para 1). In some states such as North Carolina, black men who were free were allowed to vote but in majority of the states, voting was restricted to white men only. It was assumed that black men did not have the same qualities that guaranteed white men voting rights. Although the blacks were later given the rights to vote, it only existed on paper since other methods of ruling out of the polls.
   
Several changes in the American laws took place in the beginning of the 19th century which allowed all white men to vote and later the African American men. However, these changes which were meant to give all citizens equal opportunities were discriminative and did not create any opportunities for the minority groups.