American History

That everyone of us is more often than not fierce in the dominion and defense of ones property ought to emphasize how central a concept property and its various aspects must be in the patterning of civilized life under collectively accepted and politically enforceable laws. To quote from Second Treatise on Civil Government (Locke, 1689), Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself. Hence, it follows that one owns ones own life, and thereby, the products of ones life, and one may trade these in free exchange with others. Moreover, Locke viewed property to be so important that, The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property.
    
Indeed, so precious did Locke view property that he justified even murder for its defense a value that modern law has institutionalized worldwide. Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. (Chapter 7 Section 87).
    
Oliver Wendell Holmes had in The Common Law described property (Holmes, 1885) as containing two intrinsic aspects, viz. possession, and title. The aspect of possession signifies control over the resource, and renders it practically difficult for others to oppose the aims of the owner. The trait of title implies the expectation that even when not being exercised, others will recognize the right of the possessor to control the thing. In more recent times, Atlas Shrugged informs us (Rand, 1957) that Just as man cant exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate ones rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means the right of property.
    
Section 34 of Second Treatise on Civil Government includes Lockes reflections on land, which are quite interesting and significant, and may be viewed as pertinent in todays times of rapid development of real estate. I can merely add my own musings on how insightful Lockes writings had been, and how property development in modern industrialized nations might appear through Lockes lens.
    
To quote Locke, God gave the world to men in common but since he gave it them for their benefit,  it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. So, Locke advocates a condition away from the pristine, barren, and public state of land as it existed when God had given it to Adam, as per biblical accounts. Locke appears to be obviously for the land being rendered of more use and benefit to people. Locke regards the very institution of property to have evolved from the investment of a persons labor upon land, or other common resources, with such labor getting to be accepted as conferring a right of that laborer to either the fruits of his labor, and perhaps by extension, to the common resources on which he had expended his efforts. As he observes, Thus, this law of reason makes the deer that Indians who hath killed it it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labor upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. (Section 30).
    
Locke believed that God intended land to be used by industrious and rational, and not for the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. This section of Lockes treatise on property lends itself to varied interpretations. The some might perceive in it a gentle admonition of the rapid pace of urbanization, the virtual defilement of vast stretches of natural scenery, and the unbridled mushrooming of real estate ventures for commercial purposes. They might regard their cause to be mere fancy or covetousness. However, I would tend to disagree with this conclusion being derived from Lockes words. Indeed, it would not be logical to fondly apply his words in the present context of property development. Locke does insist on the common and uncultivated land getting converted into fertile regions, and variously owned by others. I would be inclined to read in this section Lockes tacit support for any investment of labor by one that renders the public area as of greater convenience to others. This enterprise ought to include the efforts by the modern real estate developers to make available affordable housing to people who wish to relocate there. It would be simplistic to sympathize with the underprivileged, and be apologetic about large-scale colonizing plans. The issue is primarily of the market economy, of the respective demand and supply of such variables as capital, idea, labor, and finally, the resultant profits. It serves little purpose being judgmental over urban progress, and assuming that old represents gold.
    
As Locke affirms in Section 26, God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience  for the support and comfort of their being. So, who is to say that a residential colony being constructed by a real estate company is bad To the umpteen buyers who move in, property development must come as a boon. My submission is that in the modern market-determined economy, there are natural checks and balances that effectively guard against anyones wanton fancy or covetousness. If a property scheme sells, it means there are buyers for it, and that proves that it has benefited them. The market economy not only enables, but also compels, fair exchange for value. An outright capitalistic, monopolistic, venture that infringed upon the rights of any other section of society would be just unable to take off, or be challenged in the consumer courts for its unethical and unfair provisions.
    
I should, therefore, maintain that Locke has not explicitly committed himself to be opposed to property development, so it might not be a grand idea to read this stance in his writings. I choose to believe Lockes sanction to exist for all honest efforts invested to render land of more advantage to others.  we see how labor could make men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel. (Section 39). Why should there be any doubt or dispute over property development, which entails substantial investment of thought, money and industry by the real estate developers, and which does definitely promote the comfort and convenience of several other buyers Locke does extol land being used  to the best advantage of life, and convenience (Section 2).       
    
If Lockes statements seem to indicate anything subtly, I can definitely discern palpable affirmation for the biblical precept of For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money,  and pierced themselves with many sorrows. (Timothy 610). I can gradually trace the progression of this dim realization in Lockes writings. It begins with an understanding of the raison detre of the institution of property, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. (Section 26). The unease grows in  had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh,  (Section 37). The lament is unmistakable in Right and convenience went together for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labor upon, so he had no temptation to labor for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed. (Section 51).  

The American society, like any other society in the world, is subject to change. Sooner or later, in a faster or slower pace compared to other societies or compared to other eras when social change happened, the society will change. The proof of change is the shift in characteristics of the society, including popular sentiment of the people or masses which is a powerful factor in social characteristic and social change. The publics sentiment is always affected by a particular individual who is reacting to the status quo and is preaching and acting for change that the society in general is in approval of. This paper understands the significance of this phenomenon and focuses on discussing and analyzing how and why American society changes from different decades and different presidents, and its impact on the people and the next cycle of social change.

Discussion
American society  how it evolved from the conservatism of the 1950s to the counter-culturalism of the 1960s and 70s

One of the ways in which analysis of the change in the American society can reflect the characteristics of the said change is by viewing this topic via the analysis of the eras and decades. Because the American history has been too long to be encapsulated in a few pages of a paper, it is important to determine what exact points in time in the history of the American society will be tackled particularly. For this paper, the focus is the post-World War II, America beginning at the 1950s and its conservatism all the way to the counter culture decades of the 1960s and 1970s, and why the decade was identified as such and what factors affected such characteristics of the decades and eras. Conservatism has long been felt in the American society. It was magnified during the 1950s with how the politics and culture was responding to the continued emergence of conservatism in politics and culture, like the tenets and belief in God and the ideal American socio-economic and socio-political characteristics of strength based on economics, capitalism and military, among others. While the conservatism persists today and is still influencing the country and the characteristics of the current society, the decades following the conservatism of the 1950s was the counter culture era of two decades  the 1960s and the 1970s.

The transition did not mean the complete removal of the old and the replacement of something totally new. What happened was in the process of change, the new features was a product of how the people was reacting to what was already there, like how its reaction to conservatism allowed for the entry of the dominant counter culture era of the two decades. Counter culture was a reaction to and development from aspects like conservatism. For example, conservatism was one of the reasons why the role of America in the Vietnam War was pushed by those who believe that America should flex its muscles outside of its territory to fight communism at all costs. Those who did not agree to this form the arm of the counter culture era that is particularly against the Vietnam War and the involvement of America in this conflict. There are also other characteristics like the rise of the consciousness of the womens rights and other civil rights movements as well as the tackling of sexual mores and other new things that was introduced to the society. In these three decades (50s, 60s and the 70s), the rise to dominance of conservatism and counter culture strongly influenced what the society is today and how it is characterized. The effects of these two movements are still felt significantly today in the society despite the changes that it underwent after the three decades has passed.

Change in American society and the role of the president
There are also noticeable changes as part of the evolution of the American society based on the tenure of its highest ranking political leader  the United States President. From Ronald Reagans era to that of Bill Clinton and to the era of George W. Bush, the analysis of the society and how it changed is noticeable in this perspective (Aberbach, Peterson, 2006, p. 399). This is not surprising at all. Political leaders, particularly the US president, have the ability and power to change the American society because of how it influences the political sphere, which in turn translates to its impact in the other cultural sphere. For example, the Reaganomics, the local and international issues Reagan has addressed, his position against communism was the key features of his era that influenced the society, and which, over the years, was changed by how the politics of other presidents like Bush and Clinton handled similar and related matters during their term. Reagans position on international affairs and communism affected the way the American society was shaped at the time. It was changed by how the American president that served after him handled the issues. For example, the new enemy as perceived by the people is no longer communism but terrorism.

What single factor, in your assessment, accounts for these shifts in popular sentiment
All in all, in the analysis of the changes in the society, either by means of characterizing it under the era of a president or by characterizing it by the decade based on its characteristics, it is noticeable that there are continuing shifts in popular sentiment which in turn is the main factor in the changes happening in the society.

That single factor is this  the cycle wherein the society, in one way or another, brings to the fore an individual or a group of individuals who will contribute significantly and affect the popular consciousness of the people. This is an elite group. Often, this is not a politician because politicians and the politics are always expected of this role. Thus, this is not surprising or outstanding at all. And often, the individual from this group can be more powerful than the political leaders of the country. Whoever can change public opinion, can change the government... Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes (Wilson, 2006, p. 145).

This group can take from science, although the individual who influences popular sentiment and consciousness is never always a man of science. While scientific endeavors influence popular sentiment, it is hardly as moving and as emotional and as powerful as what the individual from this particular group can bring. Inside the society, this individual or the group of individuals appear one at a time, often acting as a catalyst for the much-needed change that can only be brought forward through the radical changing and alteration of the social status quo through the leadership and inspiration of this particular individual. As explained in the analysis of change in the American society in the previous two sections of the paper, the noticeable characteristics alluding to the change in American society is attributed to this kind of individual. Individuals like Russel Kirk and William F. Buckley Jr. were instrumental in how conservatism was shaping during the 1950s. During the counter culture era, there has been no bigger person than Martin Luther King himself although there are many equally significant individuals who lead the way for social change during that time and era.

The changes in the society can be reflected based on the analysis of the characteristics of the society per decade or based on the characteristics of the society per president. Regardless of these two factors, what remains constant is the fact that in the overall analysis of social change, social features and the public sentiment and consciousness, the investigation will always look upon a particular individual or group of people that is responsible for such impact. In the decades that came and went and under the many different US presidents that came and served, there are always selected individuals and groups of individuals that can strongly impact public sentiment and consciousness. Along the way, these individuals impact social change by triggering it and dictating the new features of the society after the change. The changes that happened over time have always left lasting marks on the society. Some aspects disappear at the introduction of new features as a result of the change, while some persist. These are strong characteristics to which the people can identify to, like the ideals of conservatism taken from the 1950s, to the attitude of the counter culture movement that was espoused as far back as the 1960s and the 1970s.

The Equal Rights Amendment continues to be an interesting source of debate because of its underlying implications to social and cultural concepts of gender. First introduced to Congress in 1923, support for the amendment has shifted from for and against it which ultimately its failure to be ratified by its deadline in 1982. However, there is still a continuing effort for ERA to be ratified which is being spearheaded by New York Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat (Office of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, 4). The motivation is to ensure the constitutional protection of womens rights and to simply leave it to the discretion of individual states or prevailing social norms. There is no denying the value of the ideals behind the amendment and even its strongest opponents recognize the need for legislation to support social equality more strongly.

However opposition to the ERA point out the actual provisions of the ERA can give rise to further inequality or the circumvention of other statutes of protection in industries, military enlistment, divorce settlements as well as reproductive rights (Ruether, 190). Critics suggests that many of the rights that the ERA seeks to confer to women are already afforded to them thus making it redundant or worse, create the means by which women can be marginalized. The argument is that the ERA seems to have only in mind white-collar female workers and will put blue-collar workers at a disadvantage because it will negate the protective labor laws for women particularly in industries. Pro-life supporters have also seen the ERA to support pro-abortion movements, thus the amendment has had received limited support from conservatives. Moreover, because the ERA has the potential to remove any distinction between genders, it will also circumvent provisions that are designed to protect or seen to give preference to women such as exclusion from required military enlistment or favor in alimony and custodial cases. In essence, the ERA will not be sensitive to the social conventions that usually are considered limiting to womens ability to represent or empower themselves (Baldez et al, 277-280).

Considering these criticisms, some would argue then that the motivation of extending greater protection to women thought the ERA will not be realized, worse it is insensitive to the concerns of most women. However, there is also denying that without a constitutional foundation, whatever concessions that women have gained can be reversed or voided. As pointed out by Rep. Maloney, In the past several decades, women have made extraordinary strides toward achieving equality  but this progress is not irreversible.

Without the ERA, women have often been denied the ability to seek justice when they have experienced discrimination (Office of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, 5). Either side has valid arguments, the real challenge is how these opposing views which both are concerned with protecting not only the welfare of women but society as a whole can be equally recognized and valued. In conclusion, regardless which side of the debate one is on, there is a need to remember that the objective is to not only ensure that women are not victimized by their gender but to create a society that recognizes the unique contributions of either gender brings into society.

Thomas Jefferson crafted the Declaration of Independence and meant every word he wrote, particularly the phrase that all men are created equal.  He owned and kept 200 slaves in Montecillo but the fact is not enough to paint him as a hypocrite who preached one thing and did the opposite. One must check on how he treated  his own slaves and how he stood about the issue of slavery through what he wrote to his public and to his friends.
   
There are several documents that will prove Jefferson was a defender of equal rights.  In his Notes on Virginia, he did touch on the Negro slaves.  It was with kindness and positivism that he looked at the plight of the slaves.  If those against Jefferson find his reference to the Negro slaves as this blot in our country derogatory, they must consider that Jefferson was a man with an extraordinary gift in prose.   He uses certain words to mean another.  One must not always take the literal meaning of his words but the figurative sense that he would like to impart.  In the case of the Negro slaves as this blot in our country he meant that what use to be minority is now becoming a majority.  The entire sentence where in he had used the phrase must be taken in the right context.  One must use caution in his interpretation of Jefferson.  Similarly, in the same document, Jefferson described the mild treatment of slaves.   He cited the assembly that repealed a law on the imposition of duty on the importation of slaves.  Without such law the importation of slaves became rampant. 

He was optimistic with the Prohibition Law passed by a republican congress that slavery would be forever banned.  To his opinion slavery which he found as a political and moral evil would be abolished in the opportune time when minds will be conditioned and ready for Emancipation.  These documented pronouncements support the belief that Jefferson saw the slavery issue in a perspective that was not contrary to the maxim that all men are created equal.
   
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson of the Continental Congress pushed for freedom from British rule.  In his original rough draft of the Declaration equal and independent  had been used together.  He referred to the whole thirteen states wanting independence from Britain.  He emphasized that the colonies and Britain were equal and independent from the other, neither inferior nor superior of the other.  Slavery was not an issue in the Declaration, neither was it between the colonies and Britain.  His crafting of the Declaration had little to do with his stand on equality among men with  reference to slavery, but it had on his position of equality and independence between men and their governments.  There was no specific mention here of the African-American, precisely because that would mean that they were a favored or disfavored sector, all men should appropriately suffice as it did not distinguish by race.
   
In his letter to William Burwell in January 28, 1805, Jefferson invited Burwell to visit Montecillo.  He expressed his concern on the plight of slaves and his hope for the day to come when they will be released in their own way.  This shows that he welcomed people to his home where his guests would have seen the real situations of his slaves.  He had not released them even if he was convinced of the moral question in holding on to them because he wanted them to go in the proper time, in the manner they wanted to. The preparedness and willingness to face a strange and new life ahead must come along with the moral rightness in their release. This was a choice the slaves must make for themselves and Jefferson recognized and respected that right of choice. 
   
If Anti-Jeffersons think that the colonists to whom injuries were committed by Britain meant only white colonists can be explained by his encompassing words we, all, our and us.  Those who define which of the colonists, white, red or white, free men or slaves are the ones guilty of hypocrisy.  Without question and beyond doubt, Thomas Jefferson was not a hypocrite in declaring that all are created equal.

Since the beginning of the Twentieth Century the blacks in America were already agitating for equality in social, political and economic spheres and this struggle was met with inhuman suppression at home. The geopolitical developments that followed later in the century help shape the success of civil rights agitation. Most important amongst them was the Second World War (WW II), which offered a fundamental opportunity for blacks in America to overcome discrimination and class difference.

The Situation of African Americans before Second World War
Before the War, African Americans were at the lowest rung of the American society. They lived in poverty, lacked education and therefore faced the highest rates of unemployment. The year 1920 was in fact, the highest water mark of black employment in American industry but these gains were swiftly eroded by the Great Depression.

Changes during the Second World War
The War provided African Americans with the opportunity to get out of the crushing rural poverty. Many Blacks joined the military, escaping a decade of Depression and tenant farming in the South and Midwest. 2 This was a departure from the First World War, where the number of blacks conscripted was quite minimal. Arguably, this trend helped to create an avenue out of the penury that had characterized their social status.
Andrew E. Kersten, African American and World War II, OAH Magazine of History,
16, No. 3, (2002)13.

2.  Claudia Reinhardt and Bill Ganzel, Civil Rights for Minorities, Farming in the 1940s. (Data Base on-line) available from httpwww.cliffsnotes.comstudy_guideThe-Civil-Rights-Movement, accession number 25238.
 
Even though the Army enlisted blacks, segregation continued there were separate black infantry regiments under white commanders the Army Air Corp black fighter wing was completely separate with their training at an all black university at Tuskegee, Alabama. Segregation was also in the Navy where Negro units were assigned most menial jobs on ships whereas the Marine didnt accept blacks. Essentially, black and white soldiers were trained in different bases. 

Changes after the Second World War
After the War, the fight against segregation took a new dimension with more players agreeing with the oppressed minorities that there was need for change. In 1946, the Federal Council of Churches adopted a report that set the Council to advocate against segregation. This meant that American Protestantism was being challenged by the question of race. Before the Second World War, the denomination paid little attention to race as a social issue. But after the War, it was a frequent subject of denominational pronouncement and editorials in church press. And this suggests that the War was crucial in placing pressure upon white attitude towards blacks. 

At the outset, the era of the WW II was considered the forgotten years of Negro revolution. It was also considered a watershed in history, particularly with blacks making advances as workers and military personnel and communities around America witnessing a dramatic rise in black social activism and political participation.

1. Ibid, 13.
2. Ibid, accession number 25238
3. Edward Orser, Racial Attitudes in Wartime The Protestant Churches during the Second World War, Church History 41, No. 3, (Sept. 1972) 337.
This interpretation lost its strength over time, since the social, political and economic gains were lost in the postwar period, something that contributed to the disillusionment and upheavals of the 60s.1 When blacks returned from the War they found a country that still didnt grant them full rights, necessitating the formation of a movement to push for the expansion of civil rights.   

However, the importance of the War cannot be gainsaid it helped transform the economic and social status of not only blacks but also all Americans. This makes the War an unprecedented era that offered a platform for African Americans to seek for the Double V  victory over fascism abroad and apartheid at home.1 
On the other hand, the War provided education opportunities for blacks and exposed them to urbanization. Some black soldiers who had left farm jobs in the South decided not to return home. They moved to cities looking for work, similar to the knowledge they had acquired in the military.

Combating Segregation within the Army and Society
The experience of the First World War was instrumental in the formation of the racial policy in the Army in the Second World War. The policys architects were veterans of the first war and demonstrated the prejudice of that era in their judgment. Civil rights activists on the other hand, sought to eliminate the segregationist practices employed in the mobilization of First World War and win a fair representation of blacks in the

These radical changes were resisted by traditionalist Army staff, citing their evaluation of the poor performance of black units in the first war. The policy however, increased the number of types of black units and provided a wider distribution of those units to arms and services Army Air Forces and Signal Corps, without explaining how the numerous skilled Negroes could efficiently be used within the limitations of these ranks. For the sake of efficiency, the Army had devised a social rather than a military policy for employment of black troops. 

The concern about the troop morale and discipline and the attendant problem of racial violence did not lead to a substantial revision of the Armys racial policy. On the contrary, the Army staff continued to insist that segregation was a national issue and that the Armys task was to defend the country, not alter its social customs.

By 1943, Negroes inside and outside the War Department had almost exhausted arguments for a policy change. Worth noting is that, this was just a year before the Presidential elections. The representatives of 25 civil rights groups formulated demands they presented to presidential candidates. This involved full integration of the Army abolition of racial quotas abolition of segregation in recreational and other Army facilities development of an education program in race relations in the Army greater black participation in combat forces and the progressive removal of black troops where they are subject to disrespect, abuse or even violence. 

When he assumed the Oval office after the death of Roosevelt, Harry Truman presented to Congress a proposal that amongst other things called for the extension of the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC), a war-time agency that had monitored discrimination against African Americans in hiring practices of government agencies and defense industry.

But with the opposition from Republicans and conservative southern Democrats who were dead set against such reforms, the FEPC was not extended. Then later on in 1947 Truman again took a stand on civil rights. His unsuccessful 1945 proposal to extend FEPC was deemed an effort to court black voters who were crucial to the Democratic Party.  In the summer of 1947 Truman became the first President to address the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), declaring his forthright support for African Americans civil rights. Later in the same year, his blue-ribbon civil commission, which he had appointed in the wake of the failure to extend FEPC, produced a report entitled, To Secure These Rights  a detailed and unabashed brief for civil rights legislation.

Strengthening of the Civil Reform Movements in Post War America
The little that had been accomplished during the Truman Administration with regard to civil rights was done by the president himself through executive orders that prohibited discrimination in the federal government and ended segregation in the armed services. During the Eisenhower administration, Supreme Court decisions and organized protests by African-Americans themselves challenged Jim Crow laws. Eisenhower, although he had little faith in the power of the judiciary alone to end discrimination, assumed full responsibility for seeing that the rulings of federal courts were obeyed. Congress, on the other hand, moved slowly to enhance the legal status of blacks and other minorities.

Eisenhower ordered the immediate desegregation of schools in Washington, D.C., which were under federal jurisdiction, and the process went smoothly in some of the 21 states that had legally segregated school systems. In other states, however, opposition to desegregation was strong. The Brown decision led to a revival of the Ku Klux Klan and to the creation of White Citizens Councils in the South to defend segregation. In March 1956, 100 southern senators and congressmen signed the Southern Manifesto, which accused the Court of abuse of judicial power and sought the restoration of legal segregation. 6

Eventually, Congress could no longer ignore the Supreme Court decisions and the growing activism of African-Americans themselves. With the backing of Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, Congress passed the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created the Commission on Civil Rights to investigate cases in which the right to vote was denied on the basis of race or where the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated. The law was strengthened somewhat through the Civil Rights Act of 1960, which gave federal judges the power to appoint arbitrators to ensure that blacks were allowed to register and vote. 6
  
The exploration of the civil rights struggle before and after the Second World War pours additional light on how the War widened the platform for minorities, particularly African Americans in the quest to acquiring an egalitarian society.
6. The Civil Rights Movement, Wiley Publishing, Inc. (2000). Available from 

Evidently, without the education and employment that the Second World War offered to the blacks, they could not have had the bargaining power to agitate for their civil rights. This is due to the fact that they could have remained poor, uneducated and probably steeped in the mentality that they could not do the jobs that whites do.

After fighting in the War, helping the United States conquer its enemy, the blacks felt that they needed to be accorded respect for their contribution to the national prestige. Now, with their education, African Americans questioned the conscience of America through vibrant civil rights movements that continued after the War and gained momentum in the 60s. The White House and the law makers could no longer ignore the concerns of African Americans, paving way to crucial legislations like the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

Even though it seemed to have stifled the civil rights struggle by African Americans, in essence the Second World War speeded up the process by availing to blacks the education and monetary resources that they direly needed to succeed.

The song Gold Rush Brides by Natalie Merchant is about the suffering of the women during the Gold Rush era in California. However, what kind of women the singer was actually singing about remains to be seen. Through Albert Hurtados Sex, Gender, Culture, and a Great Event The California Gold Rush, the song will be analyzed so as to determine whether the song depicts a representation of what actually occurred during the Gold Rush era.
   
The following lines refer to how the people migrated to California when gold was discovered
    Follow the typical signs, the hand-painted lines, down prairie roads
    Pass the lone church spire
    Pass the talking wire from where to who knows
    Theres no way to divide the beauty of the sky
    From the wild western plains
    Where a man could drift, in legendary myth, by roaming over spaces
    The land was free and the price was right.  (Merchant lines 1-7)
   
Apparently, the song tries to state that California seemed to be the promised land during that time and those who wanted to be able to improve their lives migrated to California in order to find their destinies since  the land was free and the price was right  (Merchant line 7).
   
The song also carries the lines  Dakota on the wall is a white-robed woman, broad yet maidenly  Such power in her hand as she hails the wagon mans family  I see Indians that crawl through this mural that recalls our history  (Merchant lines 8-10). Women at that time were scarce in California, for the the men were the ones who came immediately as soon as gold was discovered in the area. Women came much later, and sometime in 1850, the ratio of men to women became 12.2 to 1 (Hurtado 4). Feminized industries such as cooking, sewing, or housekeeping were really important to the male population. In fact, the value of the labor of women (although unpaid) was so high that men considered them to be economically valuable (Hurtado 6).
   
Men particularly felt that women were very important, especially as brides for the domestic labors they provided were valuable in aiding the men in their lives as workers. In a nutshell, if women can do their jobs properly, men would be able to function properly as well. Womens labor as wives had real economic value, for they were able to ensure that the men were healthy and content enough to work well. Even child-rearing was considered an important aspect of the economy for it  replaces the labor force  (Hurtado 6). Hence, the social value of women during the time of the Gold Rush was significantly high that men paid them extreme respect (Hurtado 9).
   
However, this treatment did not affect all of the women in California. Native women or the Indian women were the ones who had the most problems during the Gold Rush era. Since women were of scarcity in the Gold Rush era, some men took Indian wives. However, these gold rush brides were the ones who experienced the most depressive consequences during the time, for neither the church nor state considered the intermarriages as valid. Apart from this, most men left their Indian wives the moment more white females became available (Hurtado 10).
   
This brings us back to the line in Natalie Merchants song. The white woman referred to as Dakota represents all of the white females whom the white males took as their wives after they left their previous Indian wives. As seen in the line  Such power in her hand as she hails the wagon mans family  (Merchant line 9), the scarcity of the population of the white women gave  them a certain amount of power over the men, since the men favored them over women of other races. Also, the line stating  I see Indians that crawl through this mural that recalls our history  (Merchant line 10) recalls to mind the events when Indian women were abandoned because their race was considered inferior. Also, the frontier society considered Indian marriages as embarrassing, and the children of white men with Indian women were referred to as half-breeds (Hurtando 11).
   
In analysis, the gold rush brides consisted of the white women and the Indian women. Merchant speaks of the suffering that these  gold rush brides  endured. On the side of the Indian women, Merchant states  The land was free, yet it cost their lives  (Merchant line 14). This, presumably, refers to the hundreds of assaults that the Indian women experienced in the hands of the white men. Most of them were raped and murdered merely because they were of a different color. Most of the assailants also believed that gender relations did not apply to women from different races and that  their prey was especially blame-worthy  (Hurtando 12).
   
On the side of the white women, Merchant says  In letters mailed back home her Eastern sisters they would moan as they would read accounts of madness, childbirth, loneliness and grief  (Merchant line 20). This line may not be particularly clear, since Hurtando (6) primarily discusses the letters of women explaining that men were particularly  incompetent at the basic domestic skills.  While this statement does not necessarily allude that women at that time felt that they were slowly going out of their minds, it could be said that the mere fact that the scarcity of women prompted the men to hound the few of them like dogs created an environment that was full of tension. Although most of the women deemed that they were respected for being housewives, it is possible that most of them felt that they could be much more than just housewives which would explain their letters containing  accounts of madness, childbirth, loneliness and grief  (Merchant line 20).
   
The song, in a way, challenges the common views regarding the Gold Rush era that assumes that the period was a good beginning for California. Although it could be said that the era provided California its foundations, the way women were treated during the said time raises far too many questions not to mention that it was an era where mass killings of the Indian population, particularly of the women, took place. It cannot be denied that the lives of the gold rush brides were tragic. Thus, in some ways, Merchants song tries to communicate that the past is not completely blemish-free it is a history that had its misgivings and it would be good to learn from it.

Because of centuries-long oppression of women, women today are stronger and are more courageous in speaking out and fighting for their rights, from choosing the career they want to take, to voting in the elections.

Before the Civil War, black people were considered to hold no rights at all. After the Civil War in the United States, the country were faced with various legal challenges which included defining what being a citizen of a country means, in order for the African Americans and slaves to be included in the definition (United States National Archives and Records Administration 107). 

Also, there was confusion on who were qualified to be citizens of the United States because it was questioned whether those who rebelled against the government should be considered citizens or not. Because of these legal challenges, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was born, July 28, 1868 (United States National Archives and Records Administration 107).

After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted as among the amendments for reconstruction. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment, African Americans and former slaves were finally given Constitutional rights. However, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, while redefining the Constitutional rights of African Americans and slaves, became questionable to women (Woods 83).

This amendment was unacceptable especially to women because it of the inclusion of the word male. During this time, women were all active fighting for womens suffrage. At the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, voting rights was being discussed along with the word male (United States National Archives and Records Administration 107).

Some womens rights advocates supported the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because they were focusing on the assurance that African Americans were finally given full citizenship and were entitled to equality. However, womens rights supporters like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were nonetheless outraged since they were offended by the concentration of the amendment only on male voters (Woods 83).

While it was true that the amendment was about equality and equity for African Americans and former slaves, the women felt that it was contradicting. Through this amendment, the rights of other people, the women in particular, were ignored. The amendment simply betrayed the basics of equality. While it supported racial equality, it denied gender equality (Nies 87).

Such controversy brought about the founding of the American Woman Suffrage Association by Howe and Stone. The Womans Journal was also published to further promote the rights of the women and to defeat the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. From this, a paper called Revolution was being distributed, and another organization was founded by Stanton and Anthony, called the National Woman Suffrage Association (Nies 87).

It was only in the 19th century when the conflict was finally settled. These two womens rights organizations decided to work hand in hand, and they eventually formed a new, stronger union, which was later on called the National American Woman Suffrage Association. In the first article of the amendment, there was no mention of the word male and female while explicitly discussing suffrage (United States National Archives and Records Administration 107).

Because of the combined efforts of women, they are now finally allowed to vote and enjoy all their Constitutional rights.