You Talk Good, Mr. President

If you want people to trust you, talk to them, and talk to them good. Ronald Reagan, as a former movie actor, knew full well that the key is communication, earning himself the nickname “The Great Communicator.” Interestingly, Reagan, hailed as one of America’s best-loved presidents, took on the White House equipped not with outstanding political experience, but with storytelling experience. Some people suggest that Ronald Reagan was not one of our smartest presidents, and, in fact, he did not have one of the top IQ scores, especially compared to presidents such as Eisenhower, Clinton, or Wilson. Perhaps Reagan wasn’t as book smart as some of his predecessors, yet he was certainly one of our wisest and cleverest presidents, because he knew how to play his strengths and how to be honest with the country he was running.

Known as a highly committed conservative, Reagan’s politics broke the stride of the moderates that had served for the last several years. His plans, which came to be known as Supply Side economics, were to raise taxes in order to promote economic growth. Surprising many left-wingers, Reagan seized on issues that Democrats had long regarded as their own, including the issues of economic growth and personal consumption, but taking a different strategy to achieving it. He proposed to lower taxes immensely. Some people scoffed at this idea, predicting that it bring an economic heart attack rather than expansion. For the first couple of years after these policies were adhered to, there was a sharp economic downturn. Thankfully, things were merely getting worse before they got better. In 1983, the U.S. economy experienced a dramatic rebound, producing 17 million new jobs and causing inflation to drop about ten percent, landing at about two percent. Although these policies later proved controversial because the large expenses that were built up by the government, including huge expenses for the military, it is certain that Reagan got the U.S. out of a deep economic slump and that the military expenses surely had a lasting effect for America in regards to the Soviet Union.

 One thing that Reagan had in common with his all of the presidents from the thirty years prior to his presidency was that he was strongly anti-communist, stating that, “The Soviet Union is an Evil Empire, and Soviet communism is the focus of evil in the modern world.” Unlike Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, and Eisenhower, though, he sought different methods to defeat communism. When talking about America and specifically the Republican Party Reagan said, “All of a sudden, Republicans were not defenders of the status quo, but creators of the future. They were looking at tomorrow with all the single-mindedness of an inventor.” The words from Reagan’s own mouth also apply well to himself. Reagan’s approach against communism was far more aggressive than his predecessors in this sense: Reagan was not always on the defensive, attempting to “roll back” communism—containment. Instead he focused mainly on challenging the Soviet Union with the U.S.’s military buildup, whose budget increased nearly thirty percent in four years. Yet, for all these expenses, it was not Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, or Eisenhower who saw the end of the Cold War in their White House years, but Ronald Reagan, who achieved it at the tail end of his second term.

One advantage Reagan had was that, as America’s oldest president he had acquired a different kind of wisdom. Just as he knew his strengths, Reagan knew what he could not do. He understood that he could not, and should not, run the country single handedly, kinging every area independently. He learned to delegate, a skill completely underrated and regarded as an incompetent man’s safety blanket. Some people thought because of this that Reagan was only posing and wasn’t really in charge. They thought he really had no clue what was going on. However, I feel that his ability to delegate was Reagan’s greatest asset, which dovetailed perfectly with one of his major priorities which was to reduce the governmental regulation structure. Reagan himself said frankly, “Government is the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

In everything he did, Reagan brought hope to America, spreading his message, “It’s morning in America.” In this, he was very similar to FDR, who was one of his heroes as a child, yet Reagan was far more honest than FDR. People trusted Reagan, and they still do. Even in his professional life he hid little and openly laughed at himself and the government. He didn’t take himself too seriously, commenting once, when talking about his C-average grades, “But there are advantages to being elected President. The day after I was elected, I had my high school grades classified Top Secret.” People also trusted Reagan because he wasn’t afraid of America or what they could do to him, and most importantly he had faith in the American people. He believed that the American people were good, full of brilliant ideas that could change the way America was run.

The Great Society

Playing shadow to Mr. Celebrity president for two and a half years, Lyndon Johnson knew he would have to establish an iconic administration all his own after Kennedy’s unforgettable assassination. Following up such a man as Kennedy would not be easy, as he was adored by the public. Johnson got the presidency by default, as opposed to by the people’s vote. Johnson had never possessed the charisma or media-friendly personality that Kennedy had been known for. Yet, Johnson was determined to wield his power over America, which had so long been stifled by his background position during Kennedy’s fruitful years in office. Although he lacked Kennedy’s silver-screen looks and personality, Johnson was a master at wheedle his position, whether by flattery, persuasion, or threats.

Johnson both urged for passage of legislation that had been proposed by Kennedy’s administration and for much grander proposals of his own, concentrating namely on three domestic issues: tax cutting, civil rights, and economic inequality. It turned out that Kennedy’s death was very beneficial to Johnson in some regards. Johnson pressed congress to respect Kennedy’s last wishes by passing the legislation he had fought for in the last months of his life. By 1964, Johnson obtained the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in July 1964. Although, the act surely would have been passed eventually, the emotional pressure placed on the congress by Johnson quickly made up their minds on the case. Not only this, but between 1964 and 1965, nearly 200 new laws were passed. Although he used Kennedy’s assassination as sure-footed leverage, Johnson also made clear that it was time to close the New Frontier. He forged a new policy and called it the Great Society. He said that it was time for America, “to build a great society, a place where the meaning of man's life matches the marvels of man's labor." Johnson wanted a society where things were “fair” and where no person was very poor, and so he pushed for welfare. Johnson also cared a lot about the image of the nation. Poor people were distasteful; they made a nation look bad. Similarly, the conflict of the Civil Rights Movement made America look divided and unorganized, and so he pushed for Civil Rights. On the other hand, Johnson believed that tax cuts would promote huge growth in the economy, and so he pushed for tax cuts. Many of Johnson’s policies, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and social security reflected his need to control America’s image as an unrelentingly anti-communist, economically unprecedented world power. However, the measures Johnson took to do this went awfully far. 

When Johnson took office immediately after Kennedy’s assassination, he was hesitant to get highly involved in the war in Southeast Asia, but he feared that his associates might find him a pushover towards communism. This was one thing he couldn’t have, so when Johnson gained the presidency, he sought to deepen the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. This was a step into quicksand, and getting out would take America twenty-five years. The war stretched on, yet even after Johnson felt sure that the U.S. would not be able to preserve an anti-communist in South Vietnam, he was torn over the consequences that would occur from a U.S. pullout and hestitated. This epoch would brought the death of over 58,000 Americans and two million Vietnamese. All this for one man’s reputation.

The Vietnam War was both our longest and our most controversial war. If you ask most people today why we fought the war, they will shake their heads in confusion. We lost millions of lives for absolutely no reason. Lyndon Johnson once said, “Any jackass can kick down a barn but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” What he didn’t realize is that this is exactly what he did in Vietnam—he kicked down a barn. Because of the Vietnam War, Johnson lost lives, resources, and the trust of his people. He couldn’t even face another presidency and determined not to run again in 1968. It seems that Johnson’s idea of a “Great Society” turned against him, for America was far from this ideal at the end of the Vietnam War. Truly, it was not a Great Society.

Artists vs. McCarthyism

The Red Scare was on the rise! After World War II, the anti-communist sentiments were raging as a political stance known as McCarthyism, after Joseph McCarthy, led the charge. McCarthyism was first described as the widespread sentiment of anti-communism in the United States during the late 1940s through the 1950s, but today it has come to mean generally the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion without sufficient evidence. During a span of about fifteen years, hundreds of innocent people were blacklisted. Some were imprisoned, while others were suspended from their work. One of the only valuable results that came from the McCarthyism was the influence it had on some of the great artists of the day, who, inspired by the accusations made against them and their fellow artists, created significant works that are still held in high regard today.

One government organization spurred on greatly by McCarthyism was the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), which was established in 1937 for the purpose of investigating subversive and un-American activities. During the 1950s, HUAC began an investigation into the Hollywood motion pictures industry, and created a blacklist of 320 people, including geniuses such as Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, and Arthur Miller, who were suspended from their jobs, some for ten years. In the case of these three artists, some good did come of this terribly frustrating and unjustified act against them. Inspired by the events caused by McCarthyism, their art reflects vividly the experiences they had.

In September 1947, Charlie Chaplin was summoned to appear before the HUAC. Little did he know that the FBI had a 1,900 page file on his political activities. When getting ready to return from a stay in London in 1952, he found that his entry permit had been revoked, and that he had been denied the right to live in the United States. Chaplin wrote in his autobiography, “My prodigious sin was, and still is, being a non-conformist. Although I am not a communist I refused to fall in line by hating them." He responded to the blacklist by making the film A King in New York, a satire starring Chaplin as a deposed king of “Estrovia” who flees to America where he is persecuted by McCarthy style investigations. Unsurprisingly, the film was not released in the U.S. It wasn’t until 1959, when the accusations were lifted, that the film was released to the American public.

On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet called Red Channels was published with the names of 151 writers, director, and performers whom they claimed had taken part in subversive activities before the Second World War. Criticized for his work in the 1930s with Marc Bliztstein, a Marxist composer, on The Cradle Will Rock, Orson Welles’s name was on in the list. He didn’t make another movie until 1958.

Although Arthur Miller, like Charlie Chaplin and Orson Welles, was blacklisted by the HUAC, this did not stop his plays from being performed, since Broadway, in contrast to Hollywood, did not impose the blacklist. Miller was distressed to see his friends’ careers being rent apart by the accusations of communist involvement, especially when friends betrayed information about other friends.  He determined to write a play based on these events. At the time, Miller was reading The Devil in Massachusetts, a book about the Salem Witch Hunts of 1692, which brought to his attention the many similarities between the Salem Witch Hunts and the Red Scare—or the Communist Witch Hunts. Out of this idea was born The Crucible. Because of its background, the play was not well received. Miller reminisced years later, “"I have never been surprised by the New York reception of a play. . .What I had not quite bargained for, however, was the hostility in the New York audience as the theme of the play was revealed; an invisible sheet of ice formed over their heads, thick enough to skate on. In the lobby at the end, people with whom I had some fairly close professional acquaintanceships passed me by as though I were invisible." Ironically, The Crucible still won the Tony Award at the end of the year and is still performed all of over the world today.

Overall McCarthyism brought the Red Scare only more fear, injustice, and chaos, but there were a few glimmers of light that came from it. The work of Chaplin was surely affected by the McCarthyism, when his career in America was put on a temporary halt, after he was accused of subversive activities. Similarly the work of Arthur Miller, namely The Crucible, might never have been accomplished if it had not been for the McCarthyism blacklisting. If nothing else came from the ridiculous, inadequate, and unjust measures taken during the Red Scare, at least we gained a few great works of art from these artists and others like them.

Hattie Bush: Joining the Ranks of Rosie the Riveter

Just as the roaring twenties rolled around the corner, my great-grandmother, Hattie Simmons Bush arrived in the world on May 10, 1922. Growing up the middle child of nine children, Hattie was an easy going girl, who worked hard and played harder. She grew up on a farm in Pisgah, Iowa, where her family raised sheep, pigs, and cows. When Hattie was small, she and her older sister, Delores, loved to ride their pony, Dixie, who had a crippled foot, but still gave the girls plenty of excitement. Before Christmas, they would go out to the pasture and pick out a tree, which they would decorate with candles.

Hattie graduated with a class of eighteen students from Pisgah High School in 1940—one year before the United States joined the war—with aspirations of becoming a hair stylist. The next year, while she was attending beauty school in Sioux City, Iowa, she met Frank Bush at a social dance in town. Before the year was out, they were planning to get married. However, when tragedy struck at Pearl Harbor and the United States jumped headlong into World War II, Frank was drafted into the Army Air Force Ground Troops and sent to California to the Air Base in the mountains near Victorville.

Loathe to be separated from her newly found beau, Hattie packed her bags and made the long trek to California to live with her aunt. In Victorville, Hattie met Joellen and decided to move out of her aunt’s house and rent an apartment with her new friend.  Not long after, Joellen informed Hattie of a job opening at an airplane factory. When I asked my grandmother why she chose this job, she answered with a laugh, “Well, I had to support myself!” Hattie and Joellen worked there for good wages, in a group of women assigned to put parts on the lower section of the airplanes. Because many men were drafted into the army, there were many opportunities for women to acquire jobs that were usually reserved for men. Who would imagine that twenty-year old girl from a small farm in Iowa, who had graduated from high school only two years before, would be in California helping to build airplanes?

Too soon, news came that Frank was to be deployed to England were he would be stationed at an Army Air Force base. Before he flew out, Frank and Hattie were married in January of 1944. They made their vows before a priest in the chapel on Sheppard Army Air Force Base in Wichita Falls, Texas, a decidedly non-frilly affair, with only one other friend of Frank’s present and without any wedding dress or veil. My great-grandmother reminisced that she wasn’t disappointed by the ceremony, but was simply ecstatic to be married before Frank left. It would be two years before she saw him again.

The newly-named Mrs. Hattie Bush moved back to Iowa, and because of her experience at the factory in California, was lucky to get a job working at another airplane factory in Sergent Bluff. She passed the time while Frank was in England by keeping busy. She still went to dances with her girlfriends, where there were plenty of soldiers to dance with. Hattie also went to the movies, although she was always disgruntled that the films were so often about the war that she was trying so hard to forget. She worked hard to support herself while Frank was away and waited impatiently for his return. Like many women, she waited for news of the war’s end, listening closely to her radio and watching every headline. When the news arrived in September, 1945, Hattie was overjoyed. It wouldn’t be long before her husband, Frank, would be home, and they could begin their marriage together, unfettered by war any longer.

The course of my great-grandmother’s life was significantly altered by World War II. If America had never joined the war, Hattie almost surely would never have moved to California, worked in an airplane factory, or been married on an Army Air Force Base, but like so many women of the 1940s, she established her independence during the war by joining the forces of “Rosie the Riveter.”

Huey Long: A Wrangler

“‘It is a far greater thing that I do now than I have ever done before.’  That man was beheaded.” . . . “I’m not surprised.”  --The Fantasticks

Huey Long’s prediction of his own death came true on September 10, 1935, when he was shot in his side by an eye doctor. Long knew he was a loudmouth, and he was proud of it, saying without flinching that when his time was up, he would be killed. And so it happened. Huey Long was a man adored by many and loathed by many, but he was too bold to be regarded by anyone with neutrality. Many people feared him, for he was a powerful man who stuck to his promises. Politicians always make big promises to the people, but few ever plant their feet and follow through—they’re too safe, too cowardly. Long wasn’t safe, and he wasn’t cowardly. His policies were radical, with a desire to “break up the swollen fortunes of America and . . . spread the wealth among all our people.” Long said adamantly, “I'm for the poor man—all poor men, black and white, they all gotta have a chance. They gotta have a home, a job, and a decent education for their children. 'Every man a king' — that's my slogan."*

Huey Long cared about the poor. There was a good deal of George Bailey in him, whatever his other faults. However, George Bailey, though a fictional character (It’s a Wonderful Life), of course, got something done. Huey Long wrangled tirelessly for his policies, but did any great good come from it? Long retorted when critics criticized his methods,

“They say they don't like my methods. Well, I don't like them either. I really don't like to have to do things the way I do. I'd much rather get up before the legislature and say, 'Now this is a good law and it's for the benefit of the people, and I'd like you to vote for it in the interest of the public welfare.' Only I know that laws ain't made that way. You've got to fight fire with fire."*

Long called for people to share the wealth like a mother screaming at her child, “Be nice to your sister!” Making a law which requires people to share their money will not create a good community between rich and poor. The rich will always try to hold on to their money, and the poor will always resent the rich. Huey Long’s motives were certainly admirable, but his methods would never have succeeded, had he lived for a thousand years.

*Quotes from Huey Long found at

http://www.hueylong.com/perspectives/huey-long-quotes.php

A Merry-Go-Round of Hypocrisy

In schools today, it is commonly accepted that the theory of evolution is true, and teachers everywhere tell their students that this theory is the explanation for our existence. In the defense of the separation of church and state, teachers are forbidden to teach other theories, such as creationism.

Ironically, a debate of a similar nature went on eighty-five years ago in Dayton, Tennessee at a time when, conversely, it was illegal to teach the theory of evolution. A young biology teacher named John T. Scopes, looking for a chance to defend his point, openly admitted to teaching the theory of evolution to his students, and was quickly arrested. He, together with his defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, and The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hoped that this would be their chance to challenge the constitutionality of the Tennessee Law. Their chance proved unsuccessful, and Scopes was convicted. And so the first amendment was disregarded, for the Tennessee law was a law directly abridging freedom of speech. John T. Scopes should have had a right to make his students aware of the theory of evolution as another view—not forcing his students to believe it, degrading them if they did not believe it, but simply presenting it.

Many people today, and for that matter, many people in this class, will argue that Scopes was a martyr for evolution, a man unconstitutionally treated and wholly misused. These same people will argue that creationism should not be allowed to be taught in schools today. What is the difference then? They are not, then, defending freedom of speech, but only their own beliefs. A common argument is that teaching creationism breaks the wall of separation between church and state. This argument is commonly parroted by uninformed students, who, if they would research the topic for themselves, would quickly discover that the separation of church and state means something very different. The separation of church and state doesn’t mean that religious beliefs can’t be presented in a school, which they are today, since evolution is just as much a religious belief as Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. When Jefferson, who was not a Christian himself, wrote the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom in 1786, regarding it as his second greatest achievement, he stated this:

An excerpt from the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom:
I. Well aware:

•That all attempts to influence it by temporal [civil] punishments or burdens or by civil incapacitations [lack of fitness for office], tend only to…[produce] habits of hypocrisy and meanness and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate [spread] it by coercions [force] on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;

•That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical [religious], who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion [rule] over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible [ones], and, such, endeavoring to impose them on others, have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

•That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;

•That truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, [for] errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Clearly, when Jefferson wrote of The Separation of Church and State, he didn’t mean that it was wrong to teach about religious beliefs in public, but wrong to force people to believe these teachings or adhere to a particular religion chosen by the government. Today we ride a merry-go-round of hypocrisy—we defend Scopes and we rage on creationism, then we belittle Scopes and praise creationism. Round and round we go, holding tight to our own stubborn beliefs, and forgetting completely about Freedom of Speech and the true meaning of Separation of Church and State.

Liberty and Justice for All

Although both Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. De Bois had widely differing views on blacks’ best strategy for gaining equality in society, they were both great American leaders and made significant progress to their causes. This is essential to remember lest we undermine the change to which they devoted their lives.

When analyzing the philosophies of both Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. De Bois, it is important to consider that these men came from vastly different circumstances. Booker T. Washington was born into slavery in 1956 to a slave mother and a white father, who was a nearby planter. W.E.B. De Bois, on the other hand, was born in 1968, a free man to an African American mother and French Huguenot and African American father. Experiencing the difficult and oppressive life of a slave, Booker T. Washington did not gain the status of a free man until he was nine years old; therefore he understood the meaning of slavery in a very different way than De Bois ever could. In addition, Washington lived through the Civil War, while De Bois was born three years after it ended. These differences alone must change these men’s views of their culture and their place in society. Obviously, neither men lived easy lives in an easy time, but they experienced different hardships and different cultures.

Booker T. Washington’s beliefs that blacks must educate themselves, take up the trades, and seek the respect of the white man to earn equal rights is not far off from the beliefs of Fredrick Douglass, the renowned abolitionist. He, like Washington, urged that blacks should join society by trying to add something of value to their community. W. E. B. De Bois also believed that blacks should educate themselves and be active in society, however he did not share Washington’s “don’t rock the boat” theory. He pledged that the only way that blacks could ever gain equal rights with whites was to demand and fight for them. Although the text presents these two men’s views as opposite, it seems that they both may have truth in them. I suggest that though the men’s views are different, they are not complete opposites. Some of these differences were created by the enormous changes that occurred in the culture during the time of their birth. Because he was born a slave, Washington assumedly experienced great fear and bondage as a child. Whether or not he was treated fairly by his owners, the status of a slave still constitutes that the person does not belong to him or herself. When he was a slave, it is probable that he operated under the rules of playing fair with white people; if you rock the boat, you get hurt. This may be the origin of his later political views.

However, without the work of men like W. E. B. De Bois—men of action and leadership—the road to equal rights for blacks would have been an exceedingly sluggish one. It wasn’t until 1910, when De Bois was already 40 years old, that he founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. He had spent his entire life under racial prejudice and persecution, so it is unsurprising that he felt it was time for action. Action begets change. It is significant to remember that our country was founded by men, like De Bois, of action, who took enormous risks for the sake of America, who had faith that change was possible, and who weren’t afraid to step on toes to win their objective.

Therefore, I would argue that De Bois led the more effective reform for racial equality. We owe a great deal to men like Washington for his work towards racial equality, but without men such as W. E. B. De Bois, America would never have become the country that it is today—truly a country with liberty and justice for all.

Splendid to the End?

"Where I’m from, we believe all sorts of things that aren’t true. We call it history." —Wicked

This quote absolutely describes the Spanish-American war. When we study the Spanish-American war, we swim in murky waters and truth is a very rare, very valuable hidden treasure. At this time in history, there were many different groups who wanted to go to war for vastly different reasons. The imperialists wanted America to become a world power and believed that going to war with Spain would lead to further expansion for the country. Various groups of industrialists, traders, and investors hoped that gaining an alliance with Cuba would open doors for international trading and easy access to foreign goods such as sugar. On the other hand, there were many people who believed that the Spanish were acting downright inhumanely and unjustly and who felt that we should go to war because it was the moral thing to do. Obviously, these reasons were in direct conflict with each other. To add to this menagerie of desires, goals, and contradictions, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, two of the country’s most wealthy, powerful, and manipulative men, controlled, almost exclusively, the newspapers of the day. Like the Muckrakers of the magazines, they succeeded in boosting circulation by printing shocking and sensational stories that played with America’s hearts to win their agreement. Between them, they had more power of the people than all of congress put together.

When you take this basket of contradictions, it’s difficult to decide if we were justified in going to war with Spain. Surely, at the start of the ordeal, there was a large amount of people who truly wanted to help the Cubans. America understood their plight as one similar to their own only a little more than a hundred years earlier. And it wasn’t only those in power who saw this as an important moral cause. When America called for soldiers at the beginning of the war, over one million men volunteered to fight—men of the masses. When one million men volunteer their lives for their country, there is certainly more at stake than a bit of sugar. They have to be energized and excited into action by a cause, even if the cause they think they’re fighting for is half-way made up by a rich newspaper man. But how do we know? There was nobility in our decision to go to war with Spain. Like grains of sand, this nobility was mixed with selfishness, ignorance, and pride, but there was still nobility in it. After the war was over, McKinley announced his intent to make Cuba, as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, a part of the U.S. This was a significant departure from the original plan. America proceeded to occupy these territories for the next few years, controlling their governments, and even using tactics terribly similar to those of Spain when putting down rebellions. America crossed the line from liberators to oppressive rulers. Something that had started off as, at least in part, a noble and just cause, had turned into a very different sort of mission—one which was directly in conflict with America’s identity as a democratic nation of the people. We were justified in going to war with Spain, but what happened after Spain is a whole new ocean of murky waters.

A Replica of Peace

We waited. We watched. We pledged peace until the last possible moment. When America entered the Great War in 1917, we were the only world power that still had energy to give. The other nations involved in the war, including France, Germany, Japan, and Russia, were exhausted by 1917—their resources disappearing fast and their peoples’ hopes fading into oblivion. Because of this, the U.S.A. had a decided advantage when it jumped into the tussle. America joined the war for various reasons, contrary to Wilson’s declaration that we were going to war in opposition to oppressive governments—joining, along with France and England, Russia, a country ruled by a cruel and iron-fisted dictatorship, which is certainly a funny paradox. During the first few years of the war, we had ties to England that strongly compromised our proclamation of neutrality. First of all, America was selling goods the British. Because England had blockaded Germany’s ports, America was unable to trade with Germany. However, America did not put up a great fight to this fact, as they were enjoying the economic benefits of selling to England. This rubbed Germany the wrong way. America also had developed a strong enmity towards the Germans since the German submarine, or “U-boat” blew up the Lusitania, a British passenger liner which, unbeknownst to its passengers, was carrying a large store of munitions. However, the American passengers on board had been warned by Germany not to travel on British vessels during wartime. Regardless, America was furious at Germany and wanted to avenge the over-hundred American casualties. As England was America’s mother-country, there were already established roots to their culture, with a shared language, inherited religious traditions, and similar customs of all kinds. For all of these reasons, England had slowly crept from its seat of neutrality towards the defense of the British and the Triple Alliance.

When America declared an Alliance with England, France, and Russia, it must have come as a glorious aid—a miracle to know that help was on its way. President Wilson must have felt that America was a sort of savior to the Triple Alliance, and he must have expected that if they were victorious, as they surely would be, England, France, and Russia would be greatly indebted to America and would want to repay it as soon as possible.

When the war ended, America, who had experienced the least damage to its economy and people, had established itself as a significant world power. Wilson brought his 14 points to the table, probably expecting that England and France would be ready to accommodate his demands for a League of Nations immediately. He was dead wrong. The Prime Minister, David Lloyd George of Great Britain and Premier Georges Clemenceau of France were reluctant to give in to Wilson’s 14 points, including his desire to assemble a League of Nations. Clemenceau’s view was, “God gave us the Ten Commandments, and we broke them. Wilson gives us Fourteen Points, We shall see.” Although Britain and France did have a sense of debt to America, they had an even greater sense of wanting glory and justice for what they had gone through during the war. Wilson called for “Peace without Victory”, but after a long and bloody war, Britain and France weren’t ready to settle down, forgive Germany, and forget the past. They wanted justice, and so they felt heavy resignation toward Wilson for demanding his 14 points and asking them all to kiss and makeup.

If the other countries in the Triple Alliance had been more compliant to Wilson’s 14 points, the events of the next 15 years might have been significantly altered. However, what Wilson partly failed to realize is that laws can never accomplish peace. People accomplish peace. The League of Nations, which was a great establishment to the world, is only a regulated imitation of a community devoted to peace. Most importantly, without every man deciding personally to act justly, respect his neighbor man and his neighbor country, and strive for the good of others, there will never be peace.

Mob for a Massacre

In 1758 when the British had just finished the French and Indian War, they controlled a vast majority of the Americas, which were called The British Colonies. Eventually these colonies would rebel against the crown. Why did they do this? The unfair taxation without representation started it all, as it led to the Boston massacre, which ultimately led to the well-known trial of the soldiers.

In 1654 there were thirteen colonies in North America, which were all governed by Britain. The colonies were free thinking. When King George started taxing the colonists to help lift the debt of the French and Indian War, the colonists boycotted items such as tea and clothes that were imported from Britain, as they declared that Britain had no right to tax them. Sending four thousand soldiers over to the colonies, King George, who planned to settle the little American rebellion with force, figured it would be easy to settle the boycott. Immediately the colonists protested because there was a job shortage because soldiers worked extra job when off-duty for less pay than the colonists. The colonists often jeered at the officers, called them names, and violently threw things like stones at them.

As the king taxed them more, the people rebelled against him, which led to the king sending more soldiers to the colonies. On March snow had fallen and it was a chilly night. Seeing an officer being jeered at by a wig-maker’s apprentice, Private White came to his aid and smacked the boy in the head. Loudly crying and running away, the boy brought back ten angry men. Rounding up the soldiers, Captain Preston came to White’s aid. The soldiers were not allowed to fire without the permission of a civil magistrate so they stood together, surrounded by what was now a violently-angry mob, while they were called names and things were thrown at them. During the confusion, one of the solders heard someone shout, “FIRE!” and automatically assuming it was Captain Preston, he fired. Quickly picking up his lead, the other soldiers also started shooting, which led to six people getting killed and the rest of the crowd dispersing.

Immediately the next morning, Captain Preston and his men were thrown in a rat-infested jail. Demanding justice, Boston and the other colonies were in uproar. The date of the trial was set, but they could not find a lawyer for Preston. As the trial grew closer, a lawyer could not be found until John Adams, a patriot, decided that the soldiers still deserved a fair trial. He received much ridicule for this. At the end of the trial, Captain Preston and six of his eight men were found “not guilty,” while the other two guilty soldiers were branded and then also set free.

Eventually the events of the taxation, the Boston Massacre, as it came to be called, and the trial of the soldiers all led up to the American Revolution. Although it is called the Boston Massacre, it was not actually a massacre. Under a barrage from the mob, the soldiers could fire because they were allowed to protect themselves if threatened. It has been said that the angry mob, which was out of control, was asking for a massacre from the soldiers.

A Yearning for Freedom

The Boston Tea Party was the first flame of the revolution, spurring and igniting the blazing roaring fire of the Revolutionary War. When the Puritans sailed to America in 1606, they sought to find a place where they could have religious freedom. Before they came to American they were harshly persecuted and were forbidden in their religious practices. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the colonists worked to form a government based on a collaboration of the writings of Martin Luther, John Locke, John Calvin, and many others. For some time, the colonists lived in peace without interference from Britain, striving together to form a just and peaceful community, but eventually the British Crown again started to wrongly interfere with the colonists’ way of life, and trouble ensued. Undoubtedly, the Boston Tea Party was not an isolated event. It could even be said that the Boston Tea Party could be traced all the way back to Martin Luther and the Reformation, but there are some events which assuredly led to its happening. Issuing the tax on tea, Britain demanded payment from the colonists for their military exploits, while refusing them the privilege of representation in Parliament. This blow towards America caused much consternation and discontent. With growing frustration towards Britain, Samuel Adams began the group of patriots known as the Sons of Liberty, who later helped plan the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Tea Party was proof to Parliament and King George that America was ready to rise up and fight for their rights.

The tax on tea was one of the many, but most significant events that led to the resistance of the Boston Tea Party. In the 1750s the French and Indian War, also called the Seven Years War, broke out between the English and the French because the English and Americans desired to expand their territory westward, but the French were unfortunately in their way. After the English conquered the French, the pressing concern of how to pay for the war arose, for the English were then in a dire state of debt. Reasoning that since Americans were to benefit from the war, Americans should pay for the war, Parliament passed the Revenue Act, and in 1765 the Stamp Act for “defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing British colonies and plantation in America.” This caused uproar in America. People were furious that they were expected to pay for Britain’s war when they were not given the privilege of having representatives in Parliament. If America was represented in Congress, the Stamp Act would have undoubtedly been a different matter. James Otis, a fervent patriot, who believed that the Stamp Act violated the God-given rights of the people, explained the American sentiment as follows, “When the Parliament shall think fit to all the colonists a representation in the House of commons, the equity of their taxing the colonies will bas clear as their power is at present of doing it without . . . It seems plain, that the reason why Ireland ant he American planation’s are not bound . . . is because they are not represented in the British Parliament.” “Taxation without Representation” became a common slogan. Urgently, Benjamin Franklin, an influential painter, inventor, and statesman, encouraged the colonies to become a strong united force—a voluntary union. Controversially, Franklin drew a cartoon of a dead snake chopped into many pieces with the name of a colony next to teach to illustrate their need to unite. These events sparked the fire for the resistance later displayed at the Boston Tea Party only ten years later.

In opposition to the Stamp Act, Samuel Adams, with the help of James Otis and Paul Revere, started the Sons of Liberty, a group of patriotic agitators who challenged the British Crown’s right to take away their freedom and later were the same men to organize the Boston Tea Party. Fervently, Samuel Adams believed that this act was “the loss of those religious rights, the enjoyment of which our good forefathers had more especially in their intention, when they explored and settled the new world.” They intended to do something about it. They fanned the revolutionary fire. These men defended their claims by drawing on the men who had written on religious freedom before the colonists had come to America, the same men on whom the colonies’ government was based—Locke, Calvin, Cromwell, Milton, and many others. Writing aggressive articles that were circulated around the colonies, the Sons of Liberty spoke out about the injustice of the Stamp Act and inspired people throughout the country into opposition. As the months went on, the Sons of Liberty grew and grew. In almost every colony there was a group identifying itself as The Sons of Liberty. Together, they numbered about three hundred and were made up of all sorts of men—merchants, doctors, blacksmiths, printers, silversmiths, and others. To further unite these groups, Samuel Adams initiated “Committees of Correspondence,” in 1772, as a network of communication between and within the colonies, so that each colony would be aware of what was happening in regard to the British Crown and America. If every colony understood what was happening, it would be possible to reach an agreement for a plan of action. Before the “Committees of Correspondence,” the resistance movement had taken place chiefly in the sea-coast towns and major cities where people were affected most significantly, but afterwards every colony banded together in opposition. The Sons of Liberty fanned the fire of the revolution by making people aware of the injustice of the Stamp Acting, banding people together into a united force and setting the stage for resistance displayed at the Boston Tea Party.

The first action of resistance against the British government was the incredibly risky act of destroying three shiploads of British tea, an even known as The Boston Tea Party. When Parliament passed the tax on tea, the colonists declared that this was the last straw. Although the tea tax was small, it nevertheless created uproar because it only a small example of the payment Britain expected from the colonies, while refusing them a representation in Parliament. Not only this, but the Tea Act forbade colonists from buying tea from any ships other than Britain’s’. The Sons of Liberty devised a plan. Rebelliously, Samuel Adams called a meeting at the Old South Church in Boston on the evening of December 6, 1773, and was joined by hundreds of people ready to take action. That same night, men gathered at taverns and homes around town, waiting for the appointed time. Dressing in shabby old blankets, donning woolen caps, and blackening their faces with soot, they went out secretly and silently toward Griffin’s Wharf, where three ships, the Dartmouth, Eleanor, and Beaver, carrying tea, were awaiting at the dock. They called themselves the Mohawks. Separated into three parties, each having an appointed leader, they quickly boarded the ships. Calmly and powerfully, the leaders ordered the officials off the ships. They proceeded to lug the chest of the on deck and shovel in into the water. By the time they finished, the crowd from the Old South Meeting House had come to join them. They left the wharf, marching to “Yankee Doodle.” No authorities attempted to stop them for fear that innocent bystanders would be injured. When King George heard news of the tea ordeal a month later, he was furious. Losing a fortune in tea, the East India Trading Company was shocked. King George vowed that the participants would be found and arrested. The names of the Mohawks, however, were kept so extremely confidential that it was impossible to discover the perpetrators. The Boston Tea Party was the first deliberate, organized act of resistance toward the British Crown and it united and prepared the colonies for the Revolutionary War.

The Boston Tea Party was preceded by many events, people, and ideas which propelled it to happen. Creating discontent in the colonies, the Stamp Act was one of the first events which ignited the colonists’ yearning for complete freedom from Britain. Afterwards, the society called the Sons of Liberty was initiated by Samuel Adams, uniting the colonies into a force that was ready to fight for liberty, even until death. When the Tea Act was proclaimed, the colonies were ready for rebellion and destroyed three shiploads of British tea in Boston—an event known as the Boston Tea Party. Fighting and sacrificing for America, our forefathers built a country centered on truth and justice. Most importantly, they were not high and mighty stuffed shirts, dainty and self-important, cut they were men of action who were unafraid to get their hands dirty and to stir the people into action as well. On the night of the Boston Tea Party and rally at the meeting house, which Adams himself had organized, he was right in the thick of it, rallying the people there—he was their equal. Not only this, but they were men ready to fight for freedom, including the freedom to worship God in the way of their consciences. Boldly, they stood up to the authority of Britain, a great and powerful force who militarily could have wiped them out effortlessly. Or so it seemed. Much can come of bravery and boldness even when all the odds seem opposing. That is what built our country into what it are now—bravery, boldness, and a yearning for freedom. The Boston Tea Party was America’s first declaration of that yearning for freedom.

The War Years and Christmas

In the 1940s, the ideal Christmas tree was large and exquisite. The bigger the better. Large colored lights lit the tree with artificial beauty. Because of the industrial revolution, mass production was able to turn out inexpensive plastic and blown glass ornaments, like the brand Shiny Brite. Absolutely the most important feature of the tree was the amount of silver tinsel dripping from its boughs. During most of the 40s, World War II was being fought, so patriotic details were popular on the Christmas trees, like small American flags. (Those original flags would have included only 48 stars). Other nifty trends were making Chinese lanterns and paper chains out of construction paper for tree decorations. A favorite activity for families in 1930s and 1940s was sitting around the radio listening to the Orson Welles dramatization of “A Christmas Carol.” From 1934-1938, the voice of Scrooge was brilliantly played by Lionel Barrymore, while in 1939 it was played by Orson Welles, himself. Fun fads for children in the 1930s and 1940s were games like Dominoes, Monopoly, Sorry, Candy Land, Shoots and Ladders, Clue, and Scrabble. Children also enjoyed paper dolls, marbles, Raggedy Ann and Andy, comic books, and metal die-cast trucks.

The Space Age and Christmas

In the late 50s and early 60s an extremely different sort of tree was being set up in living rooms around America: the aluminum tree. Many pamphlets were available during the 60s declaring the most fashionable ways to decorate your aluminum Christmas tree. Putting lights on the tree was an electrical hazard; therefore, a color wheel¸ which is a rotating wheel made up of four different colors that reflect off the tree, was a must-have. Matching color schemes were all the rage, especially in colors like blue and pink.

Instead of a radio, the center of the living room was now the TV, with Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer debuting on television in 1964.
Although many things changed in the 50s and 60s “A Christmas Carol” did not fail to be included in this decade. In 1951 the movie “A Christmas Carol” was released with Alastair Sim as hum-bugging Ebenezer Scrooge.

Because of the baby boom in the 40s and 50s, over half of the population was made up of children, so children’s toys were being made at a gigantic rate. As most adults had grown up during World War II, parents were eager to give their children all the things they hadn’t been able to have when they were young. The shelves of stores boasted numerous kinds of toys, including Slinkies, Silly Putty, metal doll houses, dozens of different board games, matchbox cars, and the Barbie Doll, invented in 1959. Gone were the days of only one kind of dolly! Mr. Potato Head, the Hula Hoop, Ant Farms, and Frisbees were also big hits.

The Founding of America

The history of America’s founding dates back hundreds of years to England, where revolutions occurred over freedom of religion. Because of lack of freedom the Puritans sailed to America, where they set up colonies.

One of the great contributors to the Reformation’s role in advancing political and religious liberties was Martin Luther who said that the church and the people should have more freedom in religious matters and that the government should no longer legislate about God. Saying that the government could not force people to believe in a certain religion, Luther believed that the role of the state was limited to secular things, and people’s minds and opinions could not be controlled, which was also believed by John Calvin, who came after Luther, and said that people’s minds and opinions are exempt from government control. During his life, Calvin also said that if a king went against God or ordered a individuals to go against God, then they should and must disobey the king. Although it was a long time after either of these men lived, America was built on their basis of freedom of beliefs and religion.

The Puritan Revolution broke out in England, when Charles 1st tried to force his Scottish subjects to worship in ways they found offensive. During this time, Samuel Rutherford wrote a book called Lex Rex that said the king should not have authority in religious matters, and if the government broke its own law the people could break laws. In 1688 the glorious revolution broke out when King James 2nd tried to enforce The Divine Right theory, but parliament forced him off the throne.

On August 5, 1620 the Puritans, who are called pilgrims, sailed for the New World to have religious freedom. When they arrived in America they drew up a document called the Mayflower Compact, which pledged their mutual submission to each other and promoted fair laws. Believing that God was the perfect king and the Bible a perfect expression of His will, the Puritans advocated a government in which written words, not people, were sovereign.

As people, dating hundreds of years back, fought for there freedom of conscience, they set up the basis of America. In his lifetime, Martin Luther said that freedom of religion was right. Fighting against Divine Right of Kings, the Puritans turned against the king in the revolutions. Finally, sailing to America, the Puritans escaped from the king to found America.

America's Roots

America, as people know it today, could not be as it is except for numerous courageous people who took risks and for events which took place. Without the ideas that support Christianity and many events which took place prior to it, the American Revolution most likely would not have occurred. Advancing political and religious freedom happened during the Reformation, which was one of the most essential steps to freedom in America. Although the colonies were not even founded yet, two revolutions in England were already setting the stage for America’s birth. Bravely sailing to America, the first colonists began to shape the way that America would be governed.

The Reformation’s role in advancing political and religious liberty was enormous because it was the first time when certain daring people took the chance of speaking out and proclaiming their thoughts and ideas which may have opposed the governments. Probably the most outspoken of all people during the reformation was Martin Luther who posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg, boldly naming all of his objections to the way the Catholic Church operated. As no one had ever even hinted that there might be something wrong with the Catholic Church, Martin Luther’s objections were a big step towards religious freedom and separation of church and state.

Writing “Institutes to the Christian Religion,” John Calvin had an exceptionally significant part to play in the Reformation through his writing, which later influenced the founders of the U.S. and shaped their political ideas. These men’s writings were similar. Before religious freedom could be grasped, the first risky, but vital steps had to be taken during the Reformation by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others like them.

Setting the stage for America’s birth were two revolutions: the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. In 1641 a long and terrible civil war broke out, which lasted years. Sometimes called the Protestant Revolution, this war was between those loyal to the king, Cavaliers, and English Puritans, who wanted to purify the Church of England, hence the name Puritans. When King James II was on the throne, he refused to recognize the colonies of New England and believed in the Divine Right of Kings theory, which says that a king has been divinely appointed by God, and therefore has the right to do whatever he wishes. This led to the Glorious Revolution when Parliament peacefully took James II off the throne without using violence.

Essentially, these two Revolutions, the Puritan Revolution and the Glorious Revolution, prepared the way for America’s beginning, because it showed the government that the Puritans were serious about their beliefs, were even willing to stand up and fight for them, and were tired of the government’s unrelenting control over their beliefs.

Pursuing their dreams of religious liberty, many Puritans decided to make the journey across the ocean to America and settle there. The colonies were founded. When the colonists came together to draw up their laws, they realized that without a king they were powerless to restrain lawlessness, but they knew that they couldn’t possibly survive unless they founded their laws on biblical moral standards, while still having a separation of Church and State. Wisely, they drew up a document called the Mayflower Compact, which pledged their mutual submission to each other. Concerning the separation of Church and State in years to come, some were not as effective at keeping them separate, which led to unjust events and eventually the Salem witch trials. The Salem witch trials were a time when many women were unfairly and brutally executed for being accused witches.

Thankfully, after this terrible epoch followed a revival and the Great Awakening, and American colonists began to sort out how their government should function correctly. The Puritans flight to America was vital to the way America is set up presently because they learned by trial and error the most effective way to run a government.

Significantly, because of the events which led to the American Revolution, America was founded with biblical morals. When the Restoration took place it advanced political and religious freedom. Because of two Revolutions which took place in England, the beginning of America was indirectly prepared. Fleeing and settling in America, the Puritan colonists set into place laws that we still follow today.