American History

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. 

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.