Sharing this common bond, Americans banded together and fought for independence during the Revolution. As the Revolution ended, Americans felt overjoyed and united. They managed to overlook some of the differences between them that would eventually lead to an intense conflict in the years to come. Social, economical, and political differences between the two regions would eventually become so intense that they would cause one of the bloodiest battles of all time-the Civil War.

Differences began as early as the years of the colonial period. To begin, the Northern and Southern colonies developed vastly different economies. The Chesapeake colonies’ most important staple crop became tobacco. Tobacco affected nearly every aspect of their lives. The colonies were able to collect many duties on tobacco. Harvesting tobacco called for a great deal of work. However, the colonists were unprepared for this work. They were lazy and greedy. Whenever possible, planters in Virginia and the Southern colonies purchased able-bodied workers who were capable of getting the job done. In all of the Southern colonies, white planters forced African slaves to produce staple crops for the world market. In Virginia and Georgia, colonists were granted land for each additional servant they transported to their colony. Along with tobacco, wood, naval stores, and rice were also strong factors in the economic success of Southern colonies such as Georgia and the Carolinas.

In contrast to the Southern colonies, the Northern colonies relied heavily upon different exports. Their major export was grain. They emphasized the growth of wheat and other agricultural products. Trade also became important for them. Fur trading became popular in New York. The forms of agriculture used in the Northern regions, such as cereal and dairy farming, made the employment of a large number of laborers unreasonable. The Southern colonies, however, had to rely on indentured servants to do the job. Also, during the colonial period, strikingly different social structures were developing between the two regions.

The men and women who emigrated to Virginia and Maryland did not travel in whole families. Instead, they traveled as young, unmarried servants. The majority of these laborers were males between the ages of 18 and 22. This led to an unevenly balanced sex ratio. The ratio of males to females was 6 to 1 in the Southern colonies during the year of 1640. These travelers were often only interested in themselves. Many of them desired personal, instant wealth and did not look out for the common good. Indentured servants were treated harshly and their masters used them however they pleased. This brought about an elaborate social hierarchy: gentry on top, freemen in the middle, and indentured servants on the bottom. Men and women in the Southern colonies did not work together at all. On the contrary, social life in the Northern colonies proved to be much different. Unlike Virginia and Maryland colonists, New Englanders moved across the Atlantic in whole families.

This led to a more evenly balanced sex ratio. Life expectancy was also about 10-20 years greater than men and women born in Chesapeake society. The Northern colonies possessed strength and stability because they were banded together by a common sense of purpose. In most cases, such as in Massachusetts Bay, this common sense of purpose was God. People in the Northern colonies did not look only on their own concerns but also on the concerns of others. John Winthrop believed that the colonists needed to work together as one. Northern colonists believed that everyone should be treated equally and no one should be excluded. Even though there still were indentured servants in the northern colonies, they were less oppressed than those in the southern colonies. In addition, there were also quite a heterogeneous population in the Northern colonies, and contact between blacks and whites occurred more frequently there than in the Southern colonies. These different mixtures of people and their ways of life would lead to hidden controversies in the years to come. As a result of their opposing values, the political structures of the Northern and Southern colonies developed differently. The Southern colonists were very self-seeking. They had no common ideology to keep them together, so their society was often fragmented. The higher on the social scale they were, the more power they had in political affairs. For example, in North Carolina and South Carolina, the very poor were excluded from political life altogether. On the other hand, in the Northern colonies, all men were viewed as equal. For example, William Penn argued that no government could be stable unless it reflects all of society. Both the rich and the poor had to have a voice in political affairs. Neither group of people were able to overrule the interests of the other class. Religious toleration was also granted to some Northern colonies. For example, in New York, the Duke’s Laws guaranteed religious freedom and created local governments. The Northern colonies seemed to grant the settlers more freedom on important political issues than in the Southern colonies.

This would eventually also lead to some disturbing conflicts. Differences between the two regions did not diminish after the colonial period. Throughout the powerful times of nation-building following the Revolution, tensions continued to increase between the Northern and Southern states. From 1783 to 1848, Northern and Southern states continued to develop in different social, economical, and political ways. The biggest social concern and contradiction to a republican society during this period was the issue of slavery. Many white Americans held a double standard by demanding liberty while owning several slaves themselves. In the Northern states, there was no real economic advantage for slavery. This led to the creation of antislavery societies. By 1792, antislavery societies were meeting from Virginia to Maryland. Some slaveholders were ashamed of themselves for the first time. In several states north of Virginia, slavery was abolished in different ways. Slaves were liberated through legislation in Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. By 1800, slavery was nearly extinct in most of the Northern states but still strong, and growing after a slump, in the Southern states. Another social concern was still the difference in cultures between the two regions. With the vast expansion of land during the period 1783 to 1848, came a wide range of cultures. Northerners moving to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois took their churches, schools, community pride, Puritan beliefs of hard work, and respect for the law and government along with them.

Southerners were more devoted to defense of personal honor and independence. They had less respect for the law and government. Many tasks such as planting, harvesting, plowing, keeping house, and spinning cotton had to be done in the newly acquired territories. Frontier planters had slaves to get this work done for them, while others shared the work with the community. As for the economy, situations in the North and South continued to vastly differ. Wheat was the main cash crop of the North. Tobacco continued to be a major cash crop of the upper South. However, in the lower South, cotton was now on the rise. Cotton eventually became the leading crop for the South, along with other staple crops such as rice and sugar. The Deep South became the world’s greatest producer of cotton as a result of an increase of textile mills in New England, the availability of good land, and the invention of the cotton gin. The cotton gin was a major reason for the increase in slave labor. Invented by Eli Whitney in 1793, this device cut the costs of producing cotton, shortened production, and allowed it to be much more marketable. More slaves were needed as a result. Tariffs also became an economic problem for the cotton-growing South. Tariffs were always unpopular in the South. As a staple-producing and exporting region, the South had valid reason for resenting some of the protective tariffs passed. Southern free traders were extremely angered after Jackson passed the tariff of 1828. A while after it was passed, South Carolina declared the new duties unconstitutional and argued for the right of an individual state to nullify federal law. Jackson asked Congress to let him use his army to enforce the tariff. Congress eventually enacted the Force Bill. This nullification crisis revealed that South Carolina would not tolerate any federal action that they considered to be negative to their interest or to the institution of slavery. The South was not afraid to take a stand against the government. Some of the political compromises made in the period 1783-1848 also led to tensions between the North and the South.

These rules and compromises were part of the Constitution. One was the three-fifths rule. Southern states demanded that slaves be included in representation in the lower house of Congress, so Northern states were angered. Disputes developed. Eventually, it was determined, that for representation, slaves would be counted but not as much as free individuals. Every five slaves would equal three free voters. This gave the South more power than it would have originally received. Northerners disliked this rule. It seemed to grant slaveholders more power in government. They also detested the slave trade and hoped to end it. However, it was decided that Congress would not interfere with the slave trade until 1808. The Fugitive Slave Act was also passed, calling for the return of runaway slaves. Northerners were disgusted. Time went by, and 1808 was coming right around the corner. Congress had to consider whether or not to ban the importation of slaves into the United States. In 1806, Jefferson urged representatives to pass legislation outlawing the slave trade. Northern representatives favored this bill. Southerners opposed it. Since people in the South did not view slavery as evil, it would not make sense for them to obey these laws. In 1807, Jefferson passed a bill prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States after the new year, but the Southern states refused to cooperate. The most serious political crisis in the early to mid 1800’s was the heated controversy between the North and the South over the admission of Missouri to the Union. Since Missouri already possessed two to three thousand slaves, it would come into the Union as a slave state unless Congress took action. Northerners resented the three-fifths clause because it gave Southerners more representation in the House and the electoral college. Southerners feared a balance of power between the two sections. Until this time, an equal number of slave and free states had been added to the Union, but now there was a problem. In compromise, Missouri would enter as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Slavery was prohibited above the latitude of 36 30’. The crisis was resolved for the time, but it had a huge impact on the underlying differences and tensions for future North/ South relations. If the United States had to determine the slave status of any new territories, sectional tensions would surely come into play.

The issue of slavery seemed to be dominant over everything. The differences that developed between 1783 and 1848 had lasting effects on the relationship between the North and the South. However, no solutions to these differences seemed to be forming, and tensions continued to grow deeper and deeper. From 1848 to 1861, tensions rose so high that the nation was ultimately divided. Many profound social changes and reform movements occurred in the period 1820 to 1850. Religion once again began to play an important role in life. The Second Great Awakening began in the early 1800’s. This was a period of mass religious revivalism. It began on the southern frontier. Highly emotional camp meeting organized by Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians became a common feature used to meet the social and religious needs of southerners. Although some of these meeting aimed to improve morals, they tried not to lean toward social reform. Since the South was a slave-holding society, the people there did not encourage radical efforts to change the world. In contrast, reform movements in the North were more evident. Northern evangelists were mostly Congregationalists and Presbyterians. They relied heavily on Puritan traditions. Their revivals were generally less emotional than those of the South. Many missionary and benevolent societies were formed in the North. The biggest and most important social reform movement in the North was the temperance crusade. Another reform movement was in education. There was much progress made in education in the North, but none in the South. In 1837, local schools were established throughout the free states, and a state board of education was established. The South put more emphasis on family rather than school. It was illegal for blacks to learn to read and write.

Another major social difference was the life of a planter compared to that of a laborer. The North experienced a vast decline in the artisan system of work. By the 1840’s, the portion of men engaged in factory work dramatically increased. Home and work became two separate places, and men and women had “separate spheres.” Working conditions in many of the mills became extremely poor. Twelve to fourteen hour workdays were expected. Bosses cut wages, increased the speed of machinery, and gave each worker more responsibility. Immigrants were willing to work for less and did not protest these poor working conditions. Expansion and immigration created a class of men and women who were destined to this horrible low paying labor for life. The great planters in the South had a strikingly different lifestyle than the laborers in the North. The great planters were elite and held most of the political and economic power in the South. They were aristocrats who held cavalier values. They lived by ideas of chivalry. Honor was more important than wealth, unlike in the North. Dueling was still used in the South but illegal in the North. Planters spent large amounts of money just to impress their neighbors. In reality, only 1% of the southern population belonged to this elite group. Most were yeomen farmers who owned their own land, were independent, proud, and respectable. They had ambitions to rise to the planter class. Four million people in the South were still slaves who lived under intolerable conditions. Some slaves were whipped by their masters, ripped apart from their families, and denied any political freedom. If they wanted to attend church meetings, they had to do so secretly. The continuation of developing different economies also spurred dangerous relations between the North and the South. The North took on many advances in transportation, industry, and agriculture. The railroad and telegraph were two important innovations. The telegraph made it possible to communicate rapidly over the entire nation. The railroad changed northern economy more than anything. Railroads enhanced the development of the iron industry. This was the first experience of a truly big business in America and a prototype of massive corporations. Railroads also led to the development of the new types of securities or “preferred stock.” Also, factory production in the North was greatly extended. Some things produced were firearms, clocks, and sewing machines. Mass production with the use of interchangeable parts was more frequently used. New technology such as the sewing machine, vulcanization of rubber, and machine tools made industrialization more efficient. The steel plow and mechanical reaper were important developments in agriculture. The economy of the South was still different than that of the North. The South felt threatened that the North was changing so much; they were more or less rested in their ways. Forced labor had always been considered essential to the South’s plantation economy and still continued to be so. Plantation agriculture was expanding, and so did the dependence on slave labor. The South’s economy became a three tier system. In the upper South, tobacco continued to be the main slave-holding crop. However, tobacco was becoming less and less prominent and new crops were being experimented with. These new crops reduced the demand for labor. For this reason, slaves were “sold down the river” to the Deep South. The warm climate and rich soil in the Deep South made it possible to raise important crops like rice, long-staple cotton, and sugar. However, it was the rise of short-staple cotton that strengthened the grip on slavery. By the 1850’s, three-quarters of the world’s supply of cotton came form the American South. “King Cotton” was a phrase used to describe the success of this crop. It made many southerners feel very powerful. They were the ones who produced the raw material that was fueling industries in the North. They were well aware that it was a strength, not a weakness. This crop was the Old South’s best chance for profit. So from an economic standpoint, the South had every right to support and defend slavery. The political problems that arose during the period right before the Civil War heightened tensions more than ever. The first had to do with the annexation of Texas. President Tyler strove for the annexation of Texas. This would cure the South’s hunger for additional slave states. Success or failure of the annexation would test the amount of control that the North had over the South. The annexation treaty was first rejected, but it later passed with the administration of Polk. As President, Polk also demanded all of Oregon. For many Northerners, gaining these territories was the only thing that made the annexation of Texas acceptable. They hoped for more free states. However, in reality only half the territory was able to be acquired. Northerners were furious. They were promised half. Polk had cheated them. They began to view Polk as a President who only cared about the South. Another political question was that of what to do with the territory gained from the Mexican War. Northerners began to feel that the real purpose of the war was to spread the institution of slavery and increase political power of the southern states. As an attempt to solve this problem, the Wilmot Proviso was proposed in 1846. This would prohibit slavery in any new territory from Mexico. Northerners supported this, and Southerners rejected it. It never did get enough votes to pass. A while later, the Compromise of 1850 did pass. Under this compromise, California would be admitted as a free state, and New Mexico would be granted popular sovereignty. This was a win for the North. For the South, stronger fugitive slave laws were enacted throughout the North. This brought the issue of slavery home to the North. Now the blacks in the North were in danger. They argued that personal liberty laws would overrule the slave laws, and tensions grew. The Compromise only served as a temporary basis for sectional peace. Another political problem was the collapse of the second-party system of Democrats versus Whigs. All along, Democrats had favored expansion and a fair division between slave and free states, while Whigs had opposed annexations. By 1852, there was disenchantment with the major parties. By 1854, the system had collapsed, and the Whigs were disappearing. The Republican party that stood on the platform of “Free Soil” was formed. To further political tensions, in 1854, Stephen Douglas proposed a bill to organize the territory west of Missouri and Iowa. This area fell where slavery was banned by the Missouri Compromise. He fought for the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This act applied popular sovereignty to voters in Kansas and Nebraska and went against the Missouri Compromise. The South supported this, but the North rejected it. This push eventually led to “Bleeding Kansas” which was a preview of the Civil War. The final political blow before the Civil War was the election of 1860. In this election, there were four candidates. Lincoln won the election. He was the leading candidate in the North, yet he received no support from the South. This severely frightened the South. This was the first time in a presidential election that the North voted all together and completely overruled the South. As a result, in 1860, secession began as South Carolina broke apart from the Union. All in all, what started out as a strive for independence and a common goal, led to one of the bloodiest battles of all time. Perhaps there is no one reason to justify the Civil War. Though, surely, there were many social, economical, and political differences between the two regions that underlie the cause. These differences led intense disputes with no permanent solutions. Eventually, there was a house divided, and as Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Sure enough, not many Americans were left standing after this intense battle that killed 620,000 people.

        

INTRODUCTION
On 10 May 1940, nearly six months after Hitler gave the original order for his army’s to advance towards France, the Blitzkrieg began. With-in six weeks time France had fallen and the face of the civilized world had suddenly changed. Some believe that the defeat of France was due to a lack of will, low morale and defeatism among politicians, and ineptitude with-in the ranks of the allied military. Other’s feel that it was the German Army’s operational and tactical skill along with superior strategic planning that was responsible for the breakthrough at Sedan and the rapid advance to the coast of the English Channel. It is my opinion though that it was a combination of multiple errors made by the French and endless German luck that enabled the advance of the Germans to go nearly unscathed.

It can be argued that the initial problems leading up to the fall of France can be traced back to 1936 when Belgium, understanding that it had no way of defending itself from a German assault from the north further isolated itself from their southern French allies and declared neutrality in all European affairs. With Belgium’s neutrality declaration regarding all actions in Europe the French military was no longer able to count on a preliminary defense from the northern Belgium Army and had to defend a border that now stretched from the English Channel clear to the Mediterranean. The infamous Maginot Line had already been established along the French-German border just for the purpose of defending against the probable German attack, but to stretch it further west along the Belgium border would stretch the French Armies relatively thin. Though stretching the army out further along this new border line to the north would thin out the French defenses under the command of General Gamelin it would have by no means depleted their ability to defend against a German attack through Belgium.

French Follies

The first major French failure was that of over centralization and miscalculation. The French had an extremely slow and over centralized Army command structure leading to unnecessary delays in the decision making and planning processes. In addition to delays in the overall planning and decision making processes this high level command manifested a great deal of intelligence gathering miscalculations. The inability of the Allies to effectively employ and decipher any intelligence reports collected prior to and during the German Blitzkrieg allowed the German’s to not only surprise the French with the time, location, and overall plan for the run to France, but it enabled them to walk through nearly unscathed.

Another grievous mistake of the French manifested itself in the pre-war planning process. The French, in a moment of clarity recognized their inability to react quickly to dynamic situations as a result of their command structure. Seeing only three realistic avenues for the Germans to attack from the French military leaders tried unsuccessfully to develop a set of preplanned responses to defend against a German advance. The first plan was to meet the Germans in Belgium. Due to Belgian neutrality this plan was hinged on a rapid movement north only after the German Army’s initial surge into Belgium. This plan was the most highly regarded defense posture as it made perfect sense for Hitler to come down from the north through Belgium. The geography would have given Hitler’s Army several gathering points and an untouched supply line to Germany throughout the entire operation. The second plan dealt with the possibility of the Germans making their main effort in Lorraine against the Maginot Line. Due to the known effectiveness throughout the world of the Maginot Line, the French did not believe that Hitler would risk such an attack. The third plan was never developed due to the apparent absurdity of an attack across the Rhine into Alsace or through the Swiss Mountains. The French only saw one way in and out of this area, no way for the German’s to fortify any ground once it was taken, and there was no significant area available to the Germans to create lateral movement incase of attack due to the mountainous geography. As it turns out this is exactly where the Germans came from. These plans took into account all the French political problems of the time, British fears of impending attack from the Germans against their mainland, and the internationally regarded absurdity of Belgium neutrality. The one thing that none of the plans took into account was the abilities of the German Army, abilities that were displayed earlier in Poland and Finland.

Once the attacks began the slow command structure again reared its head taking too long to react to constantly developing situations in the beginning days of the Blitzkrieg and taking too long to redeploy troops in defense of the flank that was being attacked. Another strategic folly was the inability to attack the German armored divisions stuck in a major traffic jam through the Ardennes once the attacks had begun. The French and British could have attacked the traffic jam through the Ardennes with an aerial assault and effectively destroyed Guderian’s entire western assault, leaving only Rommel’s northern assault to contain. Although this did not happen the French did send two cavalry divisions into the Ardennes to slow down the advance. The cavalry divisions’ ineffectiveness in slowing down the advance even a little bit was a major failure by the French. Without the cavalry slowing down the German front at all the French Army’s leadership were not granted the time they needed to effectively reorganize and redeploy.

German Luck

In addition to the failure’s of the French to prepare a thorough plan to defend against the possibility of an attack through the Ardennes, and their inability to react and redeploy forces to counter the unexpected German attack route; without the intense planning and execution of German Commanders Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel the French may still have defeated the German advance. Not through an all out victory, but through a prolonged battle that would have yielded German casualties that they could not have afforded.

General Guderian was able to get to the River Meuse with three intact armored divisions without having to stop and wait for the rest of the German army. The original plans called for Guderian to attack through the River Meuse with only two divisions and then wait and regroup with the rest of the army. His disobedience of those orders and unbridled advancement against the collapsing French enabled his armored divisions to walk clear to Abbeville and effectively cut off all French and British armies from France. Along with Guderian’s fortune with his disobedient advancement there was also a good bit of German luck involved in the prolonged aerial assaults that softened up the ground in advance of Guderian’s movements. This aerial assault was not supposed to have happened, but the orders to halt the air attacks was intercepted and ultimately never received by the German air head quarters.

A third crucial bit of German fortune occurred five months prior to the initial attack when Majors Reinberger and Hoenmanns were forced to land in Belgium due to bad weather and ended up presenting the initial plans of German attack through Belgium and the Netherlands. As I said above, it was highly regarded by the French and British that an attack by Germany was most likely to come through Belgium. As the French and British analyzed this intelligence they put their best divisions to the north and left their flanks on the Ardennes under the primary protection of the 55th ID reserve units. Although the reserve teams had been there since the September before they were never able to complete any of their defenses. Constantly being used as extra bodies, entire companies of the 55th ID were being pulled off of their primary duties of defense of the Ardennes to fill in elsewhere, ultimately leaving an open flank guarded by a reserve division that had no training and no defined plan for defense. The entire Allied force had their focus set on Belgium, and in the meantime left their flank wide open. When the attacks began the 55th ID went up against the entire German Air Force, three panzer divisions, and the best German Regiments. They had no chance. Again, the reliance on minimal intelligence and an increasing inability of the French military to step back and recognize the deficiencies of their flank resulted in yet another lucky break for the German attack, for as I said earlier any delay in German advancement put up by the French would have most likely resulted in a prolonged war that Hitler would not have been able to afford. On a side note, it appears that throughout the entire campaign let by Guderian, there was only one order from Hitler that he did follow. That was to not attack the British at Dunkirk. This order effectively allowed the British to escape back the Great Britain and in some people’s eyes, though France would fall in the days after, that this move was the beginning of the end of Hitler’s reign in Europe.

Counter Argument

I have stated above that there was an abundance of reasons for the fall of France that were avoidable. Had the French employed anything resembling a proper defense plan, they might have defeated the German advance. Had the French correctly employed intelligence gathering and discovered the avenue through which Germany planned to come from they could have employed stronger forces to the Ardennes and the River Meuse. Had the French been able to, despite their arduously slow command structure, effectively react to the initial attack of the German’s and redeployed the proper troops to the battle front and attacked the German line that was without lateral movement or security they could have defeated Germany. Even with all of these simple factors that could have led to French victory there is still one major reason why the fall of France was inevitable.

The French lost because they were decadent. They had not adjusted, mentally or physically, to the new age of mobile and mechanized warfare. It has been well established through history that the French were a powerful military nation during the previous three centuries, and they rested too much faith in the fact that they were regarded as a major military power to deal with and as such were unwilling to accept any changes to their military strategy. In addition to the decadence of the military, the French population was ready to be defeated. They were still tired from the Great War that was fought on their land only 20 years prior. The people were not prepared to face the strains of war on their lands again, and as soon as the German attacks began, French civilians were seen fleeing to the south by the thousands. It was this defeatist attitude of the general populace and the inability of the French military to grow and adjust to the new weapons of war that allowed for the German’s to advance so rapidly through the heart of France and into Paris.

        

Stowe begins the novel discussing a warm atmosphere on the Shelby plantation and presents to us the best possible circumstances of slavery where slaves are treated very well by compassionate owners. However, no time is wasted in this warm and compassionate setting, not twenty pages into the story we find that even the best masters fall into debt and must settle their bills by what ever means possible. This development quickly brings the reader into the slave world where humans, such as Uncle Tom, are sold to slave traders to settle their master’s debts and it is here that a very strong argument against slavery is made. Stowe shows us how human lives can be destroyed even under the best conditions slavery can offer. She also proves that slavery is a terrible ordeal for not only the slaves (Tom, Tom’s Family, Eliza, and Harry) who will be forced to move and never see their loved ones again, but for the owner’s family, who are very broken up at having to sell their close companions in order to pay off bad debts. She effectively illustrates this point by delving into the strong feelings of Mrs. Shelby, George Shelby, Eliza, Aunt Chloe and Uncle Tom. The readers are shown how hard it is for these people to part from one another and by presenting several characters feelings we are able to see the slaves as just human beings who are trying to survive. For example, Stowe presents a scene between Uncle Tom and Aunt Chloe, his wife, in their cabin and writes a dialogue that allows us to look beyond their skin color and see the pain of having no choice but to accept their circumstance. Through Stowe’s insightful writing, we are forced to put ourselves in Uncle Tom’s and Aunt Chloe’s position and discover the evils of slavery. The scene forces us to confront the fact that even in the great atmosphere that the Shelby’s provided for their slaves, the only way in which life would truly be good for a slave is for that slave to be free.

The argument that slavery is a terrible institution even in its best situations does not end with Tom leaving the Kentucky plantation, but it resurfaces again when he is purchased by another kind owner named Mr. St. Clair. In this instance, Tom, after years of faithful servitude, is promised by Mr. St. Clair that he will become a free man. However, Tom’s happiness ends abruptly with the death of Mr. St. Clair and is sold along with several other slaves to an evil plantation owner who is very abusive and runs a terrible slave institution. Here again Stowe provides us with another seemingly favorable atmosphere in which to be a slave, but the bubble bursts suddenly with the death of Mr. St. Clair and the volatility of a slave’s life is reiterated. Stowe writes, “We hear often of the distress of the Negro servants, on the loss of a kind master; and with good reason, for no creature on God’s earth is left more utterly unprotected and desolate that the slave in these circumstances.” She also is able to demonstrate the emotional strain slaves encounter as they are taken on a roller coaster of emotions from having such a great hope of gaining freedom and then having that hope dashed. It is especially seen when Uncle Tom, a seemingly unbreakable man, cries when he hears of the news that he is going to be auctioned off.

At this new plantation, Stowe switches the tone of the accounts of a slave’s life from gentle to harsh, and strengthens her argument for the abolishment of slavery by throwing Tom into the worst circumstances of slavery. This harsh tone is displayed through Tom’s experience of what many slaves endure, such as the terrible beatings that take place and the terrible living conditions that Tom is forced to live at the hands of Mr. Legree as plantation owner. This new experience is startling to us. Tom describes his new home and we are abruptly presented with the worst that slavery has to offer.
The small village was alive with no sounds; hoarse, guttural voices contending at the hand mills where their morsel of hard corn was… to constitute their only supper. He saw only sullen, scowling, imbruted men, and feeble, discouraged women… (Who) had sunk as nearly to their level as it was possible for human beings to do.

This sight instills a horror in us because we have yet to encounter slavery as harsh as this scene depicts. However, as we read on, life at the plantation proves to be worse than can be imagined, slaves know very little about religion, are constantly whipped, beat, and used for the personal sexual gratification of Legree. Stowe further convinces us of the terrible circumstances of this plantation life when the best Christian man many have ever even read about, Uncle Tom, is beaten to death because he will not tell where two slave girls ran off.

In using a character such as Uncle Tom, Stowe’s argument only grows stronger and gains more support because we are able to identify with Tom and grow fond of him. We don’t like to see him suffer, and in making each experience of his more and more difficult to bear, our sympathy for him grows much deeper until the point that we are totally convinced that slavery needs to be abolished.
Also, as Uncle Tom goes from experiencing slave life in Kentucky to slave life on a harsh plantation, Stowe presents both systems as extremely inhumane. The fact that both systems are extremely terrible shows us that in every instance slavery is wrong and slaves, no matter where they live, are doubtlessly born into terrible circumstances that are nearly impossible to escape. Although one system is worse than the other, both need to be abolished.

Uncle Tom’s journey is mainly detailed for the northerner who knew very little about a slave’s life; however, Stowe chooses a much larger population to present her next argument, and this time it is on Eliza’s journey that she conveys much of her evidence. This argument is also why so many southerners have taken offence to the book. She presents Slavery as an un-Christian institution and makes the point indirectly that Christians cannot own slaves. She argues that Christian values conflict with the whole institution of slavery and points out that Christians true in there convictions cannot be a part of the slavery institution. To establish this argument, Stowe uses several Christian characters and lets their actions represent her argument.

The first of these Christian characters that we meet are Senator Bird and his wife. These people are prominent folks who reside in Ohio. Senator Bird is in a unique position when Eliza arrives at his door. He is a Senator that obviously allowed the Fugitive Slave Act to be passed for political reasons; however, he is a Christian man that when faced with a person desperately in need of help will do what he can to provide assistance. Senator Bird and his wife let their strong Christian principles take over and they demonstrate a universal love that Christianity dictates they must do in this instance.

Stowe makes a very strong statement with Senator Bird’s character. She shows him as a true Christian and a well meaning man, but in making Mr. Bird a Senator she is saying that he is complacent at his political podium. Also, she implies that Mr. Bird is a hypocrite in what he represents as a member of the government and what he represents as a Christian man. It seems that this character is in the book because Stowe is trying to argue that to be a proper Christian means that one cannot accept slavery as an institution.

The other Christian characters that Eliza and her Husband encounter are the Quakers who help them evade capture from slave hunters. These people are clearly Christians who make it known on several occasions that what they are doing is their Christian duty. They also imply that even though they stand to get in trouble for their actions, they believe that to enslave another individual is wrong. They see slavery as going against the Christian principle of “love thy neighbor” and area not hypocritical from a Christian standpoint. Furthermore, Stowe uses this group as the Christian model by which all Christians should strive to live by.

Lastly, Stowe uses Uncle Tom and Eva as the most influential Christian characters in the book. Uncle Tom and Eva are mirror images of each other and Stowe argues that if everyone were to live the way Eva and Tom lived, then the institution of slavery would cease to exist. Eva has a genuine love for all people and clearly does not see any difference between black and white people. She shows her love for all people at almost every part of the novel she is in. As for Uncle Tom, we see his inner strength tested the most of any character and it is safe to say that he is the strongest Christian. His love is boundless and even at his death he tells Ledree, the man most responsible for his death, that he loves him. There is no greater expression of the Christian ideas of universal love than in this instance. Stowe was doubtlessly saying that if all men were to love as Tom did and be as strong a Christian as he was, then slavery would not be possible.

It is clear that Harriet Beecher Stowe presented a fabulous two pronged argument against the institution of slavery. She showed the evils inherent in its structure and she showed that if people choose to be Christians they cannot choose to be a slaveholder. This is because owning another’s life doesn’t allow people to truly practice one of Christianity’s most cherished principles, which is universal love.

        

The notion of political unity under Church can be directly traced to the foreign policy of Leo IX and Gregory VII and the policy established by the Monks of Cluny that dramatically increased the power of the Pope over all Christian nations. For most of the existence of the Christian church, there has been a nearly constant stream of pilgrims to the Holy Land, and undoubtedly the continued veneration of the sacred city was a motivating factor for Christian unification.

The rise of the Seljuk Turks and their harassment of pilgrims and their threatening of the Byzantine Empire contributed greatly to the establishment of the first Crusade and more importantly perhaps, a Crusader tradition. Pope Urban II took over for Pope Gregory VII and utilized Gregory’s communication with Constantinople’s Emperor Michael VII to help fuel a religious unity in Europe. On the 27th of November 1095, Pope Urban II gave his infamous speech at Clermont which incited much of the population of Europe. The first wave of the first crusade was led by Peter the Hermit in 1096 and it consisted mainly of peasants. On their way to Constantinople, they attacked many Jewish communities. No doubt enraged with religious fervor, the unorganized hoards under Peter the Hermit reached Constantinople only to be ferried across the Bosporus by a nervous emperor, Alexius Comnenus. In Asia Minor the first crusaders pillaged and plundered but were annihilated by the Turks. The second wave of the first crusade was much more organized and much more successful. The armies of Hugh of Vermandois, Godfrey of Bouillon, Bohemond of Taranto, Count Stephen of Blois, Raymond of St Gilles, Duke Robert of Normandy all disembarked from Europe in 1096 and arrived in Constantinople in 1097.

The various armies that had assembled progressed to Jerusalem, then split up and began to attack various Turkish settlements on the way. The Christian forces won their first major battle at Dorylaeum, then city of Edessa fell aswell. Baldwin of Boulougne established himself as the king of Edessa and thus established the first of the Christian states. Jerusalem was conquered by the armies of Godfrey of Bouillon. The first Crusade was perceived as a success. While it promoted permanent hostility between Christian and Muslim peoples it also established the tradition of Crusader states in the Middle East, and succeeded in unifying the splintered European states under a Catholic influence.

While the first Crusade solidified the Christian identity, it also unified the warring Islamic peoples under a common threat and hatred. In 1144, the city of Edessa was recaptured. News of this caused Pope Eugenius III to call for a new crusade, a second Crusade. Two main forces set out to liberate the Christian states in the Middle East. The French were led by Louis VII and the Germans under Conrad III. After suffering numerous defeats, Conrad III left the fight, and the original focus of freeing Edessa was turned into attacking Damascus. The attack was led by Baldwin III and was disastrous. The Christian forces were forced to retreat.

While the second Crusade did not diminish the Crusading spirit in Europe, it did certainly rally the Muslim sense of a unified identity. The Crusaders were shown as fallible. From the second crusade the notion of Jihad against an occupying force was created and relations between the Christian states in the Middle East and the Catholic Church in Europe were damaged.

The third Crusade was a response to the overwhelming military success of the great Kurdish leader Saladin. Saladin recaptured most of the Crusader states and even recaptured Jerusalem. The only stronghold to remain was the city of Tyre which was too heavily defended to take over. The loss of Jerusalem in 1187 caused a massive movement towards crusading in Europe. Pope Gregory VIII called for a new Crusade which would be led by Richard of Poitou (the lion heart), King Philip II Augustus of France, and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa. Richard made most of the great victories, including the battle of Jaffa, which secured negations between Richard and Saladin himself. They agreed to allow Christians into Jerusalem and establish a Christian identity in the holy city. While a compromise was not what the Crusade had set out for, it did reestablish Christian presence in Jerusalem and illustrate the weakness of the mighty Saladin.

The fourth Crusade was the brainchild of Pope Innocent III and was intended to topple Egypt and thus disrupt the Muslim authority in the Middle East. The Crusaders were however led to Constantinople in 1201 to help protect the Byzantine throne. While there they placed Alexius IV on the throne. However, they soon found out that Alexius IV did not have the money necessary to pay for the Crusaders services. Thus, the Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople and were immediately excommunicated by Innocent III for killing fellow Christians. The fourth Crusade was completely diverted and caused the final break up of the Roman Empire. Also, the fourth Crusade caused incredible hostility between Eastern and Western Europe, tension that is still present to this day.

Honorious III took up where Innocent III left off and goaded the people and kings of Europe into another Crusade intended to topple the center of Muslim power in Egypt in 1217, thus formed the fifth Crusade. The armies under control of many local Kings, and later Cardinal Pelagius, swept down the Nile River and attacked the city of Damietta and its outer fortresses. Damietta fell to the crusaders in 1219 and the Sultan offered to give back the entire region of the holy land back to the Crusaders if they stopped their progress into Egypt. While in negotiations, the Sultans armies around Damietta were refortified and then the crusaders were thoroughly routed in 1221. The last of the Crusades to attack Muslim forces, the fifth Crusade marked the end of Crusader states in the Middle East, as the armies of Baybars, the vicious Muslim leader, eliminated one by one every vestige of Christian influence in the region. Without a firmly established foothold in the Middle East, represented by the Crusader states, the Church would have no way of launching a successful campaign back into the holy land.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict
To analyze the Arab-Israeli conflict it is important to first and foremost understand the origins of the Jewish state and the conditions that established it. The Jewish population of Europe had always been a separate entity when considered in the full spectrum of European nationality. They have been persecuted and isolated as a people. Thus, a movement was envisioned by leaders of the Jewish community that would fulfill the Old Testament prophecy of establishing a Jewish state in Israel. In 1896 ‘The Jewish State’ by Theodore Herzl was published and it spread the notion of a Zionist movement throughout Europe. Congresses of Zionist supporters were held, such as the first Zionist Congress in 1897, which discussed formally a proposal for establishing a state in Palestine. While this was occurring, England was believed to be in direct control of Palestine, as it was a mandate of England after World War II. Although, the full extent of British control is never truly explicated in any one document, it can be seen in the discrepancies between the Husayn-McMahon Correspondence and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

Thus the origins of the Jewish state in Palestine are cloudy at best. The Balfour Declaration does seem to show that there was some accepted view of what the boundaries were for British control, but it was not until the League of Nations granted Palestine to Great Britain in 1919 and then the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922 that any clear form of Jewish national identity begins. During these first formative years of Israel, tensions had already begun between the Arab population and the small nation. The Arabs believed that the partitioning of Israel by the British was unjust, and would not be content until the land that was theirs before World War I was returned. Perhaps the greatest contribution to the hostility between the Arab community and the Jewish state was the 1948 Declaration of the Independence of the State of Israel. This declaration, issued when the British were removing themselves from the Palestinian region, showed that Israel had intentions of remaining an independent state even after the influence of Israel was gone. The Arab League immediately issued a declaration of war against Israel; for they wished to return to a state similar to before they were partitioned.

Thus the first of the Arab-Israeli conflicts begins in 1948 when Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia attack Israel. The battle between Israel and the Arab nations lasts for eight months and is ended with the signing of the armistice agreements of July 1949. Israel is admitted into the United nations in May of 1949, and Israel officially wins its war for Independence in 1950. Israel establishes its capital in Jerusalem. Israel is then faced with further hostility from Egypt and its control over the Suez canal. Israel captures the Sinai Peninsula in the Sinai War in November of 1956. Under intense pressure, after nearly a decade of total hostility, Israel attacks Egyptian airfields preemptively. This begins the Six-Days War on June 5th of 1967. The Israelis win in an all out landslide, and then Israel officially Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. However, due to this victory, the Arab leaders convene in Khartoum Sudan and agree never to officially recognize or have peace with Israel. The next major conflict that occurs is the Yom Kippur War, where Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel’s settlements in the Golan Heights. America is now more involved than ever in the plight of Israel due to this war and the seemingly barbarous nature of its timing. By October 24th of 1973, Egypt and Israel had already agreed to a cease fire. Because of the United States involvement in the Arab-Israeli relations, an oil embargo is placed on the United States bringing the nation to its knees. The next direct attack against Israel by another nation will be the Scud missiles that Iraq launches into downtown Israel without much success. While Iraq tried to draw Israel into the Gulf War of 1991, Israel refrained from doing so.

Perhaps the best chance for peace that the Israeli’s and the Palestinians had was at their very origin. When the Zionist movement was forming, the Zionist should not have placed the fate of their movement and the nationality of the Jewish people in the scruples of Imperialism. The Imperialistic origins of Israel are its greatest downfall on the path to true peace and nationhood. The Zionist movement should have appealed more to League of Nations and less to Great Britain that was obviously more concerned with territorial expansion than the just acquisition of land. Thus, this is also the greatest hurdle in the Establishment of a permanent peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The means by which Israel has acquired the land which it now protects so fervently are corrupt. How can any Arab Nation be willing to enter negotiations with a country it believes took his land by riding the coattails of expansionism and imperialism?

History of the Crusades as Taught by Justin Laffer
My course would follow the course of the Crusades through the middle ages with a focus on a specific timeline and chronology that would be laid out at the beginning of the year. My tests would consist of eleven multiple choice questions that would test an individual’s factual knowledge of the material, and an essay at the end of the test would analyze how an individual processes the knowledge and conceptualizes it. Broad themes would be discussed, but there would also be an intense focus on the factual information regarding the Crusades.

My tests would be supplemented by a daily quiz that would quiz the students on the previous nights reading. My course would include all of the information regarding the Crusades, but would focus much less on modern Middle Eastern issues. Instead a greater amount of time would be spent analyzing the ramifications of the Crusades in the following two to three centuries after the medieval period.

        

The colony of Massachusetts Bay was founded in order for settlers to be free from religious persecution in England. The founders wanted a safe haven for Puritans along with the prospect of making money. This new “haven” was to serve as an example of holy goodness. The Puritans that settled in Massachusetts Bay did not want to break away from the Church of England. Instead they wanted to reform the Church of England from within. The inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay lived on the basis of hard work and thrifts. Material gifts were considered a sign of being in God’s favor. Although the goals of the Puritan settlers seemed righteous, they were far from it.

What is a theocracy? A theocracy is where the church is the government. Although the church lacked any formal political power, they influenced many of the church members on political issues. However, if you were not a Puritan “saint” you could not vote. Inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay were taxed in order to fund churches; by law the populace were forced to attend service. While trying to make a prosperous colony, the government and church suppressed the religious rights of citizens; it was conform or leave. Several newcomers did not agree with the running of the colony, such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson.

One view by Roger Williams, a controversial minister, was that the church should be separate from the state. Otherwise the church would be corrupted by the “outside” world. Another outlook held by Roger Williams was that the church in Massachusetts should be separate from that of the Church of England. Because of the threat Roger Williams imposed on the colonial government he was banished from the colony. Roger established the colony of Rhode Island; in which the government gave no support to the church. Another outspoken person, living in the Massachusetts Bay was Anne Hutchinson. Anne confronted the role of women in Puritan society; which angered many male clergy. Anne also believed that salvation was achieved through grace; not hard work and deeds like other Puritans. Anne claimed she communicated with the Holy Spirit; which violated the Puritan belief. Anne acquired many followers, male and female, which were referred to as antinomians or against law. Because of her radical teachings and her open animosity towards the clergy; she was put on trial where she was banned from the Massachusetts colony.

The Massachusetts Bay colony was created to be a safe haven for religious beliefs. However, plans and actions are often incongruent. The power of the church over the state forced many actions to spoil the plans the Puritans had involving the new colony. Anne Hutchinson along with Roger Williams was two of many who did not conform to the religious practices and in effect were forced to leave.