The world has seen its fair share of conflict. As the decades have passed by, a clash of ideas and values between different groups of people has always existed. Single acts of hostility based on misguided principles have caused immense world wars; conflict from opposing religious ideals has created much bloodshed and cruel, inhumane acts; and values with their own underhanded agendas or justice driven goals, have brought out the worst and best of humanity. In the late 1800’s, when African Americans were working up hill to find their rightful place in American society, another such conflict was causing commotion within the states. This fight of values between the Southern defiance of the south and the radical republicans of the north would continue for many decades. It was a sort of tug-a-war that would finally end, resolving the oppression of African Americans.
In 1892 Homer Plessey, an African American, boarded a train on the white section of one of the cars. During this time, Jim Crow laws made it impossible for black people to enjoy the luxury of white-run institutions. African Americans were, instead, separated from the white southerners. The environment they were consequently placed in proved less extravagant and, most of the time, below human standards.
Instead of hiding his identity, Plessey proudly proclaimed his ethnicity, drawing attention to the authorities in the train. After much arguing, the white powers threw him out because he would not comply with their segregation rules. This greatly angered Plessey and, by a monumental move, he attempted to fight the injustice he had experienced that day.
Plessey plead before the Federal Court that he had been treated unconstitutionally. This case became known as Plessey v. Fergusson. After a long hard fight Plessey’s plea was regretfully turned down.
Though Plessey did not win the case, he did gain the “equal but separate” clause. Black people would still be segregated from white people, but America had to ensure that black institutions were just as good as white institutions. Though the “equal but separate” clause promised equal treatment to black people, it became just another form of racial discrimination. The black were ultimately treated just as unfairly as they had before.
This discrimination lasted for fifty years until another landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education. In this 1956 court ruling, the “Equal but Separate” clause was deemed unconstitutional and racist. As a result, segregation within schools was demolished and black children were allowed to attend white institutions for the first time.
As great as this breakthrough seemed, it stirred up a hornets nest in the south resulting in the “Southern Manifesto” document written to the president. In this letter, the southerners accused the supreme court of abusing its judicial powers. The American government had its checks and balances. Not one of the three powers within the United States had supreme rule. The president answered to congress and the courts, congress answered to the president and to laws passed by the courts, and the courts answered to legislature and to the executive power.
According to southerners; by overruling segregation in American schools, the judicial branch had directly contradicted previous segregation laws passed by congress. The south also believed that the courts ruling undermined the constitution and encroached on the rights of the states and the people. The constitution had never mentioned anything about education and the 14th amendment did not seem to limit a states preferred educational method whether it segregated black people or not.
In general, the south was not happy with “Brown v. Board of Education” and it was willing to fight the court ruling. In one such case, the actions of a certain school called for the intervention of the President.
The Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, fought adamantly against desegregation in America forming mobs to stop black people from going to their school. They held the core beliefs of the south and would not willingly allow black children to mingle with white children.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was very angry with the schools retaliation to desegregation. He believed that laws, not men, were supreme within the United States. By ignoring the court order, this High school was directly contradicting that belief. In response, the president addressed the nation, countering the south’s actions by appealing to order and unity within America.
At the heart of their actions, the south was promoting chaos within the American nation. Through their mobs, they were trashing the ideals of government and were essentially saying that their pride as white Americans was more important than values and principles created by government.
Eisenhower saw these actions as not only a detriment to inner-national peace and unity, but also as a detriment to the United State’s international goals. Other nations would look at these racist acts against government rule and see a nation that was violating moral and ethical values. The president wanted to rule a nation that upheld human rights and that exemplified, to other nations, the core beliefs every government should have. He did not want to be apart of a hypocritical country that spoke for peace and equality among nations when it could not uphold peace or equality within its own boundaries.
Following his address to America, Eisenhower intervened in Arkansas by sending troops. These men would stop the mobs that had gathered against the courts ruling and would make sure that the school upheld the desegregation of black and white alike.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, by his very actions, demonstrated what it meant to be a great leader for the American nation. In a time of conflict, he took immediate action to uphold the values and beliefs of the nation he ruled. He promoted peace and equality within the United States and exemplified this same philosophy to the surrounding peoples. As I read Eisenhower’s address to the American people I was struck by how important our government is. If it were not for the ideals that our nation rests upon and for the great leaders like Dwight Eisenhower who upheld these ideals, we would cease to be a great nation. Instead we would sink into the depths of corruption and chaos.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
History Reaction Paper: The Cold War
Throughout the centuries, the world has thrived by the symbiotic relationships of nations. One nation helped another in its time of greatest need sacrificing some of its own resources for the protection and survival of that other nation. One nation preferred global dominance over mutual, unhindered peace, conquering and being conquered. One nation needed recourses and, in an attempt to maintain global peace, formed a relationship of trade and mutual trust with the other nations. Ultimately, the history of the world has been determined by these actions and reactions of peoples. Even some of the smallest decisions of individuals have been influenced by the international circumstances of that particular time.
During the late twentieth century, there was a great tension between two nations, Russia (USSR) and America (US). Both were considered great world powers. They had amassed a large amount of weapons and had even created the devastating atomic bomb.
The tension, however, was not great enough to cause a war. Though there were times when war seemed inevitable, always a period of calm would rebuild a temporary equilibrium between the two knocking heads. After only a short time, however, something else would surface causing the fear and tension to rise once more.
This sort of international fluctuation continued tearing at the nations and eventually provoked an interesting assortment of responses from different politicians.
Henry A. Wallace sympathized with the USSR and felt that Russia’s so called “hostility” was only retaliation to former abuse. In a letter he wrote to President Truman, Wallace related several different historical confrontations between Russia and other nations. He believed that Russia was a mistreated nation being tossed here and there amongst the many different world powers. It only seemed fair to Wallace that Russia should feel the need to build weapons like the atomic bomb and begin to form a large defensive force.
Though Henry A Wallace sympathized with the USSR, he did not condone the use of Atomic warfare. He believed such weaponry could only result in a bruised and battered land. According to him, atomic war would not address the problem of international conflict but would only make it worse.
Hitting at the heart of the issue, Wallace believed that world peace could only be achieved through America’s acceptance of the USSR, a mutual laying-down of certain weapons, and other forms of peaceful compromise. Once people understood that the world could thrive with coexisting, different political thought processes without the use of weapons of mass destruction; then international interaction could become a tranquil, functioning environment.
Wallace was making an important point that, at first, seems reasonable and effective. It would be wonderful if the world consisted of rational thinking, peaceful-minded people. International trade would be such a smoother process and so many devastating wars could be avoided.
But such a mindset would never pass the realm of theory. Humans are imperfect. They are not robots who, when commanded to do certain things, will always obey or listen. In an attempt to show a desire for peace, one nation could very easily lay down its weapons and take away the defenses it built. But another nation, full of humans that desire power and money, may just as easily utilize that opportunity to obliterate its enemy.
I tend to agree with an opposing view of this Cold War standoff between the US and USSR. Clark Clifford believed that Russia and its communist philosophy was a great danger to the United States and needed to be warily watched. The USSR was a large world power. It had men and weapons at its disposal and, as it made seeming compromises with other nations, was growing more powerful and more dangerous.
The Russians rationalized this massive armament and gaining of power by passing the blame to America. According to circulating “Kremlin propaganda” in Russia, Monopoly Capitalism threatened the world with war. In essence, this propaganda labeled America’s Ideology as an intimidation to the western hemisphere. In Clifford’s view, however, the USSR’s retaliation was a far greater threat than the so called dangerous Monopoly Capitalism of America. Russia’s foreign policy essentially prepared it for war against such main capitalist nations as America. This policy allowed for a great increase in its previous military strength which incorporated developing atomic weapons and guided missiles, gaining materials for biological warfare, training a strategic air force, and building submarines of great cruising range.
Clifford saw this threat and knew that it was only a matter of time before Russia used its recourses against America. He was adamantly against America laying down its defenses. The US could not just sit on its thumbs and let dogma like communism continue existing in the world. Ultimately, he knew, the USSR doctrine would either destroy or be destroyed. No amount of peace on America’s part would stop the damage.
I agree that America should have been well prepared for such a force as the USSR. Laying down weapons and living at peace with Russia would have been nice. But such an action was neither pliable nor logical. In a world of real hostility and little mercy where power, money, and paranoia overruled all rational action, being prepared for war and being wary of the enemy was the only way to survive. In theory, Wallace had a great idea, but, in practicality, Clifford had the best course of action.
During the late twentieth century, there was a great tension between two nations, Russia (USSR) and America (US). Both were considered great world powers. They had amassed a large amount of weapons and had even created the devastating atomic bomb.
The tension, however, was not great enough to cause a war. Though there were times when war seemed inevitable, always a period of calm would rebuild a temporary equilibrium between the two knocking heads. After only a short time, however, something else would surface causing the fear and tension to rise once more.
This sort of international fluctuation continued tearing at the nations and eventually provoked an interesting assortment of responses from different politicians.
Henry A. Wallace sympathized with the USSR and felt that Russia’s so called “hostility” was only retaliation to former abuse. In a letter he wrote to President Truman, Wallace related several different historical confrontations between Russia and other nations. He believed that Russia was a mistreated nation being tossed here and there amongst the many different world powers. It only seemed fair to Wallace that Russia should feel the need to build weapons like the atomic bomb and begin to form a large defensive force.
Though Henry A Wallace sympathized with the USSR, he did not condone the use of Atomic warfare. He believed such weaponry could only result in a bruised and battered land. According to him, atomic war would not address the problem of international conflict but would only make it worse.
Hitting at the heart of the issue, Wallace believed that world peace could only be achieved through America’s acceptance of the USSR, a mutual laying-down of certain weapons, and other forms of peaceful compromise. Once people understood that the world could thrive with coexisting, different political thought processes without the use of weapons of mass destruction; then international interaction could become a tranquil, functioning environment.
Wallace was making an important point that, at first, seems reasonable and effective. It would be wonderful if the world consisted of rational thinking, peaceful-minded people. International trade would be such a smoother process and so many devastating wars could be avoided.
But such a mindset would never pass the realm of theory. Humans are imperfect. They are not robots who, when commanded to do certain things, will always obey or listen. In an attempt to show a desire for peace, one nation could very easily lay down its weapons and take away the defenses it built. But another nation, full of humans that desire power and money, may just as easily utilize that opportunity to obliterate its enemy.
I tend to agree with an opposing view of this Cold War standoff between the US and USSR. Clark Clifford believed that Russia and its communist philosophy was a great danger to the United States and needed to be warily watched. The USSR was a large world power. It had men and weapons at its disposal and, as it made seeming compromises with other nations, was growing more powerful and more dangerous.
The Russians rationalized this massive armament and gaining of power by passing the blame to America. According to circulating “Kremlin propaganda” in Russia, Monopoly Capitalism threatened the world with war. In essence, this propaganda labeled America’s Ideology as an intimidation to the western hemisphere. In Clifford’s view, however, the USSR’s retaliation was a far greater threat than the so called dangerous Monopoly Capitalism of America. Russia’s foreign policy essentially prepared it for war against such main capitalist nations as America. This policy allowed for a great increase in its previous military strength which incorporated developing atomic weapons and guided missiles, gaining materials for biological warfare, training a strategic air force, and building submarines of great cruising range.
Clifford saw this threat and knew that it was only a matter of time before Russia used its recourses against America. He was adamantly against America laying down its defenses. The US could not just sit on its thumbs and let dogma like communism continue existing in the world. Ultimately, he knew, the USSR doctrine would either destroy or be destroyed. No amount of peace on America’s part would stop the damage.
I agree that America should have been well prepared for such a force as the USSR. Laying down weapons and living at peace with Russia would have been nice. But such an action was neither pliable nor logical. In a world of real hostility and little mercy where power, money, and paranoia overruled all rational action, being prepared for war and being wary of the enemy was the only way to survive. In theory, Wallace had a great idea, but, in practicality, Clifford had the best course of action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)