Sounds of War

The United States Declaration of war was not a happy, or peaceful one; as can be found through the very definition of the word "war." The United States had no interest in getting involved in the militant disputes of the Europeans, and were not happy to be dragged in to war by Germany. It is clear that they were not happy with the German government. They sought neutrality, and the peace of the world, but had no interest in going to war. The tone of their deceleration was likely one of anger, and of distress. They had no business in this war, and they knew that.
The Germans on the other hand; well, this was exactly what they wanted. They wanted the U.S. in this war; they wanted the United States. Their response to the declaration of war against them was probably something similar to a modern day "bring it on." They wanted the U.S. to bring the battle to them, and hoped that that was exactly what they would do.

Getting down to the truth.

Left in a situation with 6 captured enemy militants, and a nearby "bomb factory" still up and running, soldiers have to be ready to act. I for one, feel that these soldiers should be able to do what it takes to get the information, and save the lives of people who may possibly be effected by these bombs. However, this may not be the "politically correct" thing to do. According to the rules of war, and the United States Military, there are certain rules that must be followed. The Geneva Convention lays down very specific rules that must be followed in the case of dealing with prisoners. But in all honesty, what should be done? Should we tell our soldiers to sit around, and not get any information out of the militants while bombs are being made at another location; i think not. These soldiers should use any nonlethal methods, that will also not cause extensive long term physical damage, in order to get the information that they need.
Some of the long and short term repercussions of these actions may be getting in trouble with the military first off. The soldiers may get into trouble if they go too far in their interrogations. At the same time, there may be serious repercussions for the militants, they may suffer from some forms of mental problems, and in some cases physical. However, the main thing that will come about from all this, is saving the lives of many people who may have died due to the bombs being made.

Naive.. Coward.

Dear Readers,
With WikiLeaks on the mind, i only have one thing to say.

Julian Assange is a naive coward.

What this man is doing is not justice; or at least not any morally righteous form of it. To say that this man is a hero, and that "wikileaks" is a revolutionary organization is both naive, and boarding on unintelligent. For one man to think that he can take on the world, and even more the U.S. government, is absurd. In fact, doubly absurd based on the fact that he of all people should know what our government is capable of. Last time i checked, we do not live in a country in which our government sits idly by and lets men with "doctor evil complexes" call the shots. And to say that Assange is above the U.S. government; well, that is plain absurd.

Furthermore, thousands of people say that this man is a genius; and sure, i'll give you that. He has been given the support of the liberal lunatics living in our very own country, he has managed to receive hundreds of thousands of confidential documents from governments around the world; while simultaneously avoided being arrested, killed, or worse. So yes, i will give you that he is smart. However, was not Adolf Hitler also a genius. The man who is often considered the most evil man in the history of mankind, the man who brought the world to its knees during WWII; he was a genius. He was supported and put into power by the very same people that came to hate him. Are we (and by saying we i am referring to all those hippy, un-trusting people out there) making the same mistake? Adolf Hitler had this said "doctor evil complex;" he sought to take over the world via war. Who is to say that Assange will not do the same.

WikiLeaks is a mistake. History is suppose to be about learning from the past in order to bring about a brighter tomorrow. Yet, we are not doing this. You may be reading this saying 'this is just one mans opinion' perhaps thinking that i am a little radical in my ideas, my thoughts on the issue. But, is there anyway to fight radical, but through being radical. I am not making a call to arms, or trying to bring about some sort of crazy riot. This is not a tea party, this is real life.

WikiLeaks should not be putting the things that they are in the light. Sure, i find it interesting to read and see what is actually happening in our government. But i should not have that luxury. I firmly believe that it is our governments job to lie to us; to not share the whole truth. And it is my job as a citizen to trust them; and i do. Many people believe that "These “leaks” have changed the way residents view their countries and show how much citizens should trust their governments." They are right. Julian Assange, and WikiLeaks is putting an end to whatever shred of nationalism was left in this world. Without that, where will we be? Perhaps in some sort of censored state similar to what occurs in China. For certain, i don't know..

In closing, i feel that perhaps Mr. Assange should read a little less Orwell, and start thinking a little bit more.


Photo Source: http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/12/wikileaks-reprised-a-whiff-of-what/

Are you serious?

Lets be serious for a minute. Our country is currently at war--fighting to protect us, and other people around the world--and we are worried about video games? Well, if this is what the media wants to talk about, i shall humor you.

One article writes that "Death was casual, meted out on somebody else, tallied on a score sheet on a television screen." It is easy for adults to look at society and wonder what is wrong with the so called "generation Y," however is it our faults that we live in a time run by technology? I totally agree with the argument made by many, that we don't get outside enough, and that we spend to much time by the TV. Yet, this is what has become of our society; for better or worse. We cannot change what has already happened; video games have been brought into the picture and they are here to stay. What i find curious is this: did the adults, the same adults up in arms about "violent" video games, spend their childhood playing games such as "cops and robbers" or "cowboys and Indians"?


Different, and yet the same. Are not those games of old simply the post-technology era version of such games as "Call of Duty"? I and many others understand the argument; nothing back then showed such graphic violence or sent the same message. But, could this not be merely because they did not have the technology to do so back then? It is simply hard for me to believe that the adults scolding us for playing these games, would not have been playing them had they been available.

As far as the argument that says we [generation Y] are becoming "desensitized" to issues such as murder, and war; this is absurd. Does a cop find it okay, or normal to kill someone, just because he has done it before? Does a Army artillery officer? I have never asked, but i think we could guess that the answer would be no. If these men and women, who actually partake in such acts do not become "desensitized" how is it that we do? Given, we are exposed from a young age; but if a child grows up feeling that these acts are not as evil as they truly are,   is this not more of a parenting issue? Perhaps an education issue? Is this a sign of the degradation of our public education system? 


I leave it up to you to answer. I feel like the media has many better things that they could be worrying about; leave the parenting to the parents; and please report something that is actually a serious issue (i.e. the actually war).


Photo Source: http://halo2and34u.com/call_of_duty_4.aspx

Old Fashion Text Message

Way back when, when the war began, and soldiers went over to Europe to serve there country, because that was what was expected of them, they were scared. Sure, they most likely went over there, totally ready to fight and ready to be the big man once they got back home. However, in the back of their minds they always had that thought, 'what if i don't get back?' It seems like this war did a lot to the men who served, for better or worse.

With all this in mind, it is crazy to think about the fact that the only way they could communicate with back home was by letter. That one letter that might not get there, or perhaps it will but it will take 8 weeks to get there. I myself cannot even imagine what it would be like to send a letter, with the thought that it could be the last thing i ever said to my friends and family. We live in a world where if we want to communicate with someone, we can instantly; literally. A text message can be sent to someone living on the other side of the country, and they can get it and respond without a minute going by. And yet these soldiers only had a letter.

Take some time and think about this. Put down the phone, and think about if what you had to say in that text would not get to the person for weeks. Think about what it would be like to send that text and not know if you would ever communicate again. Next time you think its hard to get a hold of someone, or that we have it difficult; slap yourself.

Life's a dogfight.

From the memoirs of Berry Douglas, a WWI fighter pilot.


Today was rough.. The U.S. sure does train us well, but nothing is the same as being up there and fighting through the air. Today was my first "dogfight" as they call it. To be honest, it seems to me like its just a fight in which the lucky survive to do it all over again; damn lucky right? I don't know if i'll be around when someone reads this, but know that when your up there, fighting through the sky; no one is brave. Its easy to get up and fly around, but when the bullets began to fly today, i can honestly say that i have never been so scared in my life. It was like running around in a circle shooting, and hoping that you hit them before they hit you. Your mind goes blank, and all that matters is getting the hell out there alive. The war has taught me, that is all life is about. And being up in that plane, battling with 'em damn Germans, made me realize one thing; when i am up there, not only am i afraid, but i am ready to die for the country. I don't know whats going to happen to me, but i suppose time will tell. For now i got lucky, tomorrow, who knows..
Ber.


[100% fictional]

Homosapien imperialim?

Imperialism is such a large, and broad topic that is is often used in all facets of life in the United States. Whether is is in books, television shows, or movies; imperialism is present in places were you would not expect it. Movies are a prime example, great movies such as The Bourne Trilogy, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter all show examples of imperialism in there own way. It is also present in movies at the opposite end of the spectrum; such as Avatar.

Avatar is a great example of imperialism, and the negative effects imperialism often has. In this movie, the United States (big shocker there) has formed a colony on the planet of Pandora. This right off the back screams imperialism. It is later found out why the United States has formed a colony on Pandora, and to no suprise one can find striking similarities to the United States annexation of Hawaii in this movie. The government wants something, so they go and take it. The government is very smart, and this is made clear in the movie. They saw an opportunity to make great money, and they took advantage of that. This is an obvious, and intellegent thing to do, however it does not always work.

In many cases with Imperialism, the stronger power will always win. This movie however, displays a rare situation regarding imperialism, the weaker force decides that it has had enough, and end the imperialistic ways of the super power. The natives to the planet of Pandora in this movie strike back against the Army, and end up winning. I guess one could say that the tables had turned, the United States went from being the stronger force, to the weaker force, in the course of a battle. This does not happen often, but is still imperialim regardless.

I chose this movie for that reason. It is important to understand that imperialism is not permenant, and that the tables can always turn. The good can always overcome the "bullies." This example of economic/political imperialism shows how quickly the tables can turn, and how truely unstable the imperialistic governments can often be. By no means is imperialism good, or bad; however it should not be expected as a long term solution. That is very evident in this movie.

Photo Source: http://www.awn.com/articles/visual-effects/weta-tackles-more-avatar; http://www.movietome.com/movie/363361/avatar/pictures.html

Hard Times at the Panama Canal

My good friend died yesterday.. Some say disease, and yet i am certain otherwise. That makes 10-as in 10 West Indians left on my crew. I feel the pressure day in and day out from them. Its like the damn bugs weren't enough, so god put us here to not only be eaten to death, but beat. Dynamite is an issue, it has killed few- yet it seems like more and more blow each day. I guess i did not know what i was getting into when i signed on. Hell, its just a canal, how long could it take to build? And of course they give us West Indians all the shit to take care of. Who do you think lays the dynamite, and who do you think is responsible for all the hard tasks close to the edges of death? Well i guess it comes with the territory. I am just so sick of watching the funerary trains roll by each day; so many dead, and what is to show... This canal better be worth it.. 

Tweet, Tweeet

QueenLili

Constitution time! headed over to the Palace to get this thing signed :]

1/14/92 14:02

QueenLili

Well so much for that! I guess change and reform will have to wait for another day..

1/14/92 14:45

QueenLili
What is going on!?! I'm not gonna mess with the constitution right now, apparently i have bigger issues to deal with.
1/15/92 8:04AM

 QueenLili
Everyone remain calm, American troops have arrived, and we will get to the bottom of this.
1/16/92 5:04PM

 QueenLili
Scared for the future of Hawaii, violence will never be an option, and i will do anything to avoid it.
1/17/92 6:45AM

 QueenLili
I guess this is it, i did what i had to for the good of my people. Pono will be restored my people.
1/17/92 10:07PM

How far is too far?

The United States has been operating the "School of The Americas" (SOA) since 1946; originally based out of Panama, until being moved t Georgia in 1984. The school has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers to fight; basically against their own people for the United States benefit. The graduates of the SOA have been part of some of the worst massacres, and killings in Latin America in the past 50 years, and yet the schools doors are still open. Why? It is hard for many to understand why the United States government would pay to operate such a school; a school that is responsible for the murders of many people, and the over throw of multiple government, however it remains that our lives are unchanged by this. Does anyone know what our country would be like if these acts had not been committed? Had those governments not be over thrown, or those people killed, would our country be as well off?

Perhaps our government should not be able to operate such schools. So what if we are the most powerful nation in the world; so what if we have more money, and resources than any other nation in the world; and so what if we are the United States. The moral fact remains that the world should not change for our government, and our country. However who are we to judge? We are citizens of the United States, with the most freedoms in the world. Many of said citizens do not even feel the need to vote! If we are not going to take action in our own government, who are we to say what they should or should not do?

Black and Blue and Read ALL over.

Pentagon can't explain apparent mystery plume off California Coast
This article can be found of the CNN website in multiple different locations. All of these stories have one thing in common; YELLOW JOURNALISM. It is so clear that the people who wrote this article was trying to get people to read, and to question our government. The whole article is about the uncertainty of the CAI as to whether or not a missile was launched from the California Coast. Clearly this is a questionable assumption, and the people responsible for the articles were jumping to quite a few conclusions. However these so call journalists learned from the very best. The fathers of yellow journalism, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, have taught generations of "journalists" how to fabricate, and mold stories to capture the attention of the public and change the public opinion. It is not difficult to find such articles, simply go to your local news stand and find the most shocking and intriguing headline--this is likely to be an example of yellow journalism. From all the way back to the Spanish-American War, this form of journalism has been used to shape the public opinion on major issues. This is no different from when the journalists convinced the public, and made it the common historic teaching, that the USS Maine was indeed torpedoed by the Spanish. Yellow Journalism can be used for all purposes; bottom line, its out there...

To Blog or Not to Blog...

To blog or not to blog; this is the question that has been brought about in the first quarter of US history honors; rhetorically speaking that is. The system of blogging rather than writing assignments via pen and paper is a major innovation that has been made in the education system. To me this is an obvious and needed innovation. We are in the 21st century, so why not take full advantage of the technological advances that have been made. If we sit around writing all our work with a quill, what good does that do us. We will always have to use paper and ink, however we need to become accustom to using the mediums of expression that are available to us in the new age of technology.

I fully agree with the blogging assessment used in this class for that reason. Not only are we being taught about history and independently learning and writing about the information needed in the class. But we are also learning how to use a new medium of expression that is a blog. Being able to understand what a blog is, and how it works will help us later in life. No matter what the job we have, it will be vital that we understand fully how to use the technology that is presented to us. That is what the US history class is doing for us.

Without the blogging system in this class, i feel that our teacher would be doing a injustice to us. By not teaching us, and allowing us to express ourselves via the mediums that are available to us in this the 21st century, teachers are forcing us to remain in the past. We have to be ready for the future. The blogging system is preparing us for the future that lies ahead of us.

Without blogging, not only would the students in this class be worse off for the future, but in all honesty, i believe that less work would get done. Students are more apt to do there work when it is different and interesting. The blogging system offers students a new and interesting way to express themselves. Students are presented with a whole new medium to do so.

All in all i agree with the blogging system used in this class. I believe that it offers students a new and exciting way to go about their work. At the same time i believe that it is a great way to incorporate technology into the classroom. The blogging system should stay.

Tech Savy or Ink happy?

We are living in the 21st century. A time when the pen and paper are becoming obsolete, and computers, Ipads, and many other forms of technology are taking over. Due to this i feel that it is important for us as students to take advantage and use these new technologies. Blogging has taught me a lot that i would have not learned otherwise. Through blogging i have learned a sense of independence and also began to take pride in my work. It is a whole new world of learning when the things we write are being put onto the internet for all to read. Blogging has transformed my writing from a mere assingment which i do for school, and into something that i enjoy doing, and something that i take pride in. I am very glad that this is the form of writing done in class. Aside from all the history i have learned through blogging, i have also learned a lot about blogging itself. All this information will be incredibly useful to me later in life. Blogging has provide a whole new medium of expression for me; no longer are my words being transfered from me to the teacher. Now the words i write, ang the thoughts that i expressar are being transfered from me, to whomever cares to read.

If i had to choose just one...

After a long 9 weeks, it is hard to look back and to choose just one blog topic and say it was my favorite. Looking back, there were so many blog topics that i enjoyed writing about. Whether it was the process of looking into the question deeper, and finding out more about it; or the actual process of writing the blog, most all the topics were enjoyable for me to write about. However, if i had to go back and choose just one as my favorite, it would be the very first blog topic. The question was ""History is the lie commonly agreed upon." What did Voltaire mean by this quote?" This topic really hit home with me when i wrote about it. It is so interesting to look back and to really try and understand what people throughout history have felt about how history itself is recorded. People such as Voltaire and Napoleon Bonaparte have been quoted saying how history is all a lie, and that people in the future may never truly know what happened in the past. This is so wrong, and so fundamental to the study of history. This is why that was my favorite blog topic so far.

The Immigrant Experience

The immigrants coming into the United States at the turn of the century must have had a lot of expectations. Coming from a place were they were being abused, and could not live a safe and fair life, they came into the United States in search of freedoms, and in search of opportunities. When they got off the ships that brought them here i would imagine that they were very relieved that they had arrived in such a place, and also very happy and thankful to be here. Going into Elis Island, the immigrants must have been totally in shock. The richness and beauty of Elis Island would be unlike what they had ever seen before. The immigrants would have been thrilled, and thankful for the opportunities they would have; however they did not know what they had in store. Once the immigrants arrived in NYC for there "new lives" they would have had a whole now world in store to them. A world of filth, and crime. Opportunities or not, the immigrants had a very tough life in the United States, for a very long time.

The Woes of Factory Workers.

The lives of factory workers were unlike the experiences of people today. In today's world, there are laws and regulations regarding the treatment of workers, and the conditions of work places; in the 1800s there was not. In "The Song of the Shirt" we can see perfectly what the lives of these man and woman working in factories was like. The people working in these factories, making clothes and other goods, were the poorest of poor. These people were immigrants, who could not get jobs anywhere else. Due to this, the factory managers were able to take advantage of there workers. They would work long days; and when i say long, i do not mean working a 8 hour day in a air conditioned office like many people in today's world, i mean 14 hour days. These long days were spent without air conditioning, or without ventilation of any kind. These people were worked without much food or water, until they were mere zombies of there work. The song states that there minds began "to swim." This is a perfect example of how awful the factories were. These people worked there bones dry, for little pay, and no benefits whatsoever. Was this the better opportunities they came here for?

Oh Hollywood

Hollywood is notorious for their use of stereotypes in there TV shows and movies. The show Gunsmoke was no exception. This show was filled with 1800's stereotypes, about cowboys, the wild west, and much much more. The main stereotype of this show that i found was the fact that every was a white male. This stereoype was crazy to me because the reality was that many cowboysof the time were black! It was not common to see black men on horseback rounding up cattle. This was a major false stereotype found in the show Gunsmoke. Also, the whole good also previls over evil thing, thats unfortunitly not true!! Many a time the bad guys would out run the good ones! Shoot outs were not always won by the good guys, merely the best shot. Its crazy to think that hollywood portrays these things. When in fact reality is oh so different from the movies and shows. However hollywood will be hollywood.

The True Life of a Cowboy

Hollywood often leads us to believe that cowboys were "Violent  gunslingers" or nomadic people who were somewhat of outlaws. When people think of cowboys they often think of the likes of Clint Eastwood or Jesse James. However these portrayals of cowboys are far from the trust. In reality, the lives of cowboys were hard. Though perhaps some truths can be found in the Hollywood portrayals, the majority of cowboy life was spent on cattle drives, and working for a living.


The definition of cowboy is one who herds cattle. This definititon alone goes against many of the stereotypes often given to cowboys. The word cowboy has grown to carry many negative connotations, such as being reckless, and wild. However these connotations are far off from the realities of cowboy life.


The true life of a cowboy was a lonely and a dangerous one. Cowboys spent most of there time on the "road" so to speak. They went on long cattle drives in order to round up cattle and bring it to ranches in order to be sold and butchered for meat. Along with that they would often have to go on roundups in order to find or in some cases save the cattle from dangerous places and situations.

Hollywood goes about portraying cowboys a much different way. Many movies have been made in which cowboys are made out to be "rough riders" and "violent" types of people. Movies such as The Good the Bad and the Ugly, and Wild West show cowboys as people totally different than who they actually were. Hollywood misses the point that cowboys lives were much more than shoot outs at high noon, and drinking and playing cards in the saloon. Cowboys lives were on the road, rounding up cattle, and fighting to survive the dangerous conditions.


Though many western movies are seen today as the best of all time. It is evident that they are not historically true. Hollywood added their own spin to the lives of cowboys, in order to add excitement and drama; however in reality that is what most of their lives were. After all, it is not easy living in a town with all men, no women to help out. This was probably a pretty exciting time, however not for the reasons Hollywood was looking for.

Photo Source: http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/smith/collection.php

The Benefits of Gaming

Many people feel that gaming is an all around bad thing for children to do. They feel that playing video games is merely wasting time; time that could be used to study and do school work. However gaming is just as important to a child's growth and education process as the school work. I am not by any means saying that children should sit at home and play Halo or Madden 2011 all night. However there are games that can relate into what the children learn, and teach them in a way that they enjoy. Games such as Oregon Trail, and even other games like Call of Duty have elements in them which teach children as they play. Oregon trail connects directly with learning. This is a game that teaches the gamer what the families, and groups of people who moved west during the 1800's had to go through. We can learn just from playing this game, that westward expansion was expensive, dangerous, and not by any means easy. By merely playing this game one time, so much can be learned about this time period. For this reason i feel that "gaming" is not all bad. With the right games, the right message, and the right purpose, games can lead to scores of improvement in the class room.

Six word story

Big Family, long journey; father daughter.

Reconstruction vs. Civil Rights Movement

The era of the reconstruction saw many steps in the lives of African- Americans in the United States. However they did not gain the rights and freedoms which they deserved. This era of pain and suffering lasted over a hundred years, until something was done about it following the civil rights movement.

A sharecropping family

During the reconstruction, newly freed slaves were kept under a position of near slavery by laws passed in the south, the black codes. Due to the 10th amendment, the federal government could do nothing about these injust laws. Blacks were prevented from voting by polling tests, and taxes, which made it impossible for black citizens to vote. Also, these codes restricted blacks from buying land. All of this was not stopped becasue the successor of Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, had no interest in seeing to it that blacks had equal rights. The problem with all this was, that in the south, blacks had utterly no voice in politics. Whatever was made rule by the white politicans, was law. Due to this, African-Americans saw little progress. Many of these black codes stood in place until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. This was a serious problem for the African-Americans.

Sharecropping was a major issue that was being developed at this time. This was almost a loopoll in the laws, making the blacks as close to slaves as they could be. Basically, the white plantation and farm owners would give land to the former slaves to farm on. However this was not the freedmens land. The land still belonged to the farm owner, and thus a large portion of the proffit from the harvest had to be given to the farm owner. In this way, just as before, the plantation owners had a way of having others farm their land for them without having to pay much money. Slavery without the wips so to speak.

The civil rights movement was similar, yet different to the reconstruction era. Many of the same issues were being fought fought for, however the difference was, that now they were actually being fought for. The African- Americans finally had a voice, in that of Martin Luther King Jr. They now had someone who was willing to speak for the cause and fight for what he knew needed to be done. People such as him, and Rosa Parks, and many others were finally standing up, using their 1st amendments rights to stand up and rise together. This is no to say that this was time of violence and chaos, cause it mostly was not.

African-Americans were still, the 1960s, fighting for the rights to vote. Thought over a hundred years had passed, they still were being blocked out of polling stations by strict regulations. Due to this, they had no way to put there own officials in office: thus the government was still in some portions radically against them. As seen through the case of Rosa Parks, African-Americans were not even allowed to sit in the front of the bus. This is absurd. The free nation, many times referred to as the best nation in the world, clearly had some major problems.

The African-Americans during this time however, were better educated: thus could now use new ways to fight their cause. Through the use of sit-ins, nonviolent protests, and civil disobedience, they made their message clear.

These people, though still being treated as the inferior race, now had a fighting chance. This is a major difference from the post civil war era. They had a voice to speak there message, and a means to fight until they had the rights that they deserved.

Photo source(s): http://www.wicn.org/show/the-africanamerican-tradition &  http://www.kirkwood.k12.mo.us/parent_student/khs/plattes/topics11-13/topics11-13.html

The push for Education.

During the reconstruction era, with the slaves now free, many would say that they had more problems now then before. Being free, they now had no one to rely on; they were forced to rely on the government for much of there needs. Being that there were few blacks who knew how to read and write, it was a problem when it came time to establish schools. However they made due. The blacks became known as 'freedmen' and with the help of the north set up schools. However this was not easy. The freedmen had few teachers, few places to put schools, and no money for supplies. With all there problems, it was difficult  for everyone to be educated. However, the government came to the rescue; similarly to the way they so often do in this the 21st century. However, like throughout history, this did not just help. Many whites did not want there children being educated with blacks, and thus seperate schools had to be built. Many of the black or freedmen schools were burned and destroyed by the many anit-black groups forming. The freedmen however faced this struggle head on, and came out with education. The children would be educated at school, and teach their parents at night. Slowly but surely education was becoming available to the freedmen, as well as whites.

Image source: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-civilwar/4439

Whats the point?

Immediately following the civil war, many people were unsure as to whether the south should be granted amnesty. For those who don't know, amnesty is defined as the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals (Marriam-Webster). In my opinion this argument should not have even taken place, and yet it is merely by human nature that it did. If we, the union, did not grant pardon to the southern states following the civil war, what would have been the point? Hundreds of thousands of innocent American lives shed, for what? It is a hard thing to do, however the Civil War was a situation in which, yes the south must pay in some way, however in a general sense, the north must forgive and forget. For if the north simply won the war, and yet did not forgive the south, then were they not back to the same place they were to begin with. It order for the war to mean something, the north had to provide amnesty to the south; and they did. I will leave you with the same words Abraham Lincoln did, in 1863, on the Gettysburg battle field. ""...We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Morals, Guns, and a Whole Lot of Blood

War is a tricky thing. Webster defines it as "a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nation." With this definition in mind, it would be hard for us to say that Lt. Col. Chamberlain was right on his view of winning a war. However, with further thought on the matter, one begins to ponder the words of Chamberlain. He said "It's the idea that we all have value -- you and me." This is powerful. The war was not fought over land, or good like most wars historically have been. This war was fought for value, and for the moral ideas. Therefore we are lead to question, if the war was fought over morals, can it be won with a moral idea. These men are not fighting for the good of their country or for any personal causes; they are fighting to set men free. The Civil War in our country was so different than any other wars fought through out history. Perhaps a moral idea can win a war. However, it must do so indirectly. With a war such as this, each man is there for similar reasons; to free slaves. Due to this, the Union army was fighting as a more unified force than in prior wars. There were no major ulterior motives. The men fought with a unified force; a unified moral idea. This idea was so powerful, that i would have to agree with Chamberlain. This idea, won the war for the Union. 

End Slavery or Preserve the Union; that is the question

Abraham Lincoln entered the presidency, and ended up with a lot on his plate. The issues of slavery, as well as having half the union want to break off and do there own thing. This was a big problem. Being only one man, Lincoln could not attack everything, so he chose the union. Originally, thought Lincoln was a major supporter of putting an end to slavery, he felt that equality and slavery may be able to coexist for some time. However he did not know how long. In a letter he wrote in 1855 he stated, "Our political problem now is 'Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently—forever—half slave, and half free?' The problem is too mighty for me. May God, in his mercy, superintend the solution." This gives an insight into what was going on in Lincolns mind. He did not know how long it could last; but he knew it could. Due to this reason, he must have felt that the union was the more important task for him to try and tackle. If he could bring back the unity that the United States had once had, he would be able to find out a way to bring down slavery, so that equality and slavery no longer had to coexist. Also, if he could bring unity back to the union, though slavery would still be a problem, he may be able to prevent war. Thus saving lives.
Though his plans did not end up going smoothly, it was the right plan to make.

Less Government is Best Government??

Henry David Thoreau said "that government is best which governs least." Odd statement to make, unless you know a little information about the man who said it. Thoreau, though he was best known for being an American born author, he also wrote and taught about the ideas of civil disobedience, tax resistance, and abolitionism. Having lived and died in the time of the civil war, these ideas would have been seen as extremist, and causes him to have many more enemies than friends. Though this explains why Thoreau said what he did, we must still understand what he meant. He felt that the government should not have too much power. Him and many others of the time feared the coming age of monarchy that had once ruled over America from England. He thought that the only way to prevent this was to ensure this was to limit the power of the federal government, and to make sure that the power was spread equally to the state governments. By doing this the federal government does not have too much power, and cannot become a monarchy.
I agree with Thoreau, that when the federal government attains too much power, disaster can strike. The power our government has must be spread throughout the levels. The states must be able to govern without substantial interference from the federal government. We as Americans have freedoms, those freedoms are given to use by our federal government. Many believe that the day the American government gains too much power, will be the day we begin to lose those freedoms. We must fight so this does not happen. Our government must govern least, in order to serve the best interests of us as Americans.

The Universal Lie

Voltaire said that "history is the lie commonly agreed upon." This is a very powerful statement concerning history as a whole. What he is trying to get at is that history is merely a lie  which people believe are taught to be true. This is a crazy thing to say. How can we as the people of the present understand that the history we are being taught is false, and at the same time not do anything about this. It is not only Voltaire who feels this way, Napoleon Bonaparte is also quoted very similarly saying, "What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon." It amazes me that teachers and parents teach their kids this history, and pass on the lie. Voltaire and Bonaparte both are trying to say that if enough people begin to believe that something is the truth, and begin passing on this message, eventually it will be accepted as true. This is insane. Do politicians write history? Should we as Americans, as free citizens of our great nation, not want to know the truth of the formation and struggle for freedom in our country and throughout the world. It is odd to think that some of the most influential men of our history have been giving us the same message and yet nothing has changed.

"Faking" it.

Recorded history is plagued with parts which are not fully or accurately told. Countries feel that bad pieces of their history do not need to be recorded. Examples of this are numerous; such as The Rape of Nanking in Japan, or the true settlement of the United States. The reasons for these blank spots in history can be understood; obviously a country does not want to talk about the negative pieces of their history, however without it, the future cannot fully develop. A commonly held belief is that we must learn from the past, in order to change the future. Yet, people continue to leave pieces of their history out. How our we, as the future generations of the world, suppose to change the future, if we do not have a full and accurate picture of the future. You would not teach a student how to multiple but not divide, and for the same reason you must not teach a student only part of the past. Journalists know the importance of not leaving out any piece of the truth; countries and historians must learn these values as well if we are to shape the future around the mistakes of the past.