Justifiable War

It is true that if one has took the time to make an internal change, that other in authority will have the potential to change as well. But it is also true that when other help, those in authority can be stooped, and tragedy will rein never again. American have always been justified in fighting wars, which comes form their passion of change, and primarily their drive- nationalism. Examples are the Revolutionary War, a war of independence. Trails of Tears, a war of expansion. And the Civil War, a war to convince the South. In 1898, the terrible treatment of the Cubans, support of the Cuba's independence, the sinking of the Maine, ant the DeLome letter are prime and profound instances of why it is necessary to consider the war against Spain completely justifiable.

Spain's treatment against Cubans was despicable. Yellow fever was running rapidly in Cuban due to the mosquitoes. Some lost their live due to incapacitation- embalmed beef. But the economy was the main reason why the Cubans were treated so badly. During 1895, Cuba’s economy was chaotic due to their lack of prosperity in the Sugar production- No way to make money or a profit. After the insurrectos served as a solution to their economic deficit, the Spaniards did not hesitate to place the Cubans in concentration camps. These camp lacked sanitation, which cause immediate deaths. So to recap, lack of sanitation, a plethora of diseases from known and unknown sources, an economic deficit, and Nazi-like concentration camps was the environment that surrounded Cubans. Thank God the Americans intervened when they did. A war was definitely necessary.

Of course one would expect America to fight the Spaniards for Cuban independence, mainly because they were once victims to the unbearable and restrictive British Parliament. Though lives were lost during the war, for the purpose of independence, Cuba was eventually freed from the Spaniards. Rekindling the memory of their most famous hero was worth fighting for (Antonio Maceo, Maximo Gómez, etc). Fighting for Cuban Independence was a way for the Cuban to redeem themselves from the Ten Year War. Even though after enjoying liberation in its temporariness, the Platt Amendment compelled them to be protectorates of Americans. But better to be a protectorate, then a victim of the concentration camps. Also, upon gaining independence for the Cubans, it was admissible for American to annex Hawaii- a good practice of Manifest Destiny displayed in its fullness.

As “innocent” as the Spaniards may have seemed, all fingers pointed to them in the case of the sinking of the Maine. Though it is not completely sure who was responsible, the treatment of the Cuban suggest that the Spaniards would try a sly and insidious stunt like this. To serve as the U.S’ protection, the Maine was sent to Havana, but all of sudden the ship blew up killing hundreds of sailors. In the eyes of experts, this incident was a “tragic accident”. But in the eyes of the Americans, the Spaniard had to be stopped and for good. As a result, the President demanded cease-fire and wanted a declaration of war. Due to the Teller Amendment, the Cubans would be granted “autonomy” and self-determination”. Two justifiable causes of war.

Lastly, the Delome letter of 1898 was enough for the Americans to actually continue war. In this letter, disturbing comment was made against America’s President- President McKinley. As a result, Minister DeLome resigned. That was one less problem that Americans had to deal with, and was actually mild compared to other events that drove them to fight the Spaniards. These documents were stolen nevertheless. Personal verbal or written attacks, is justifiable in starting or continuing the war, because the American were threatened, which made it appropriate for them to defend themselves against any harm that had the potential to come about.

Justifiable is an understatement when it came to fight the Spaniards. Necessary is more fitting. Cubans deserved independence, freedom from concentration camps, economic deficits, and all forms of turmoil caused by the Spaniards. Political, social and economic conflict were presented in a number of event that had to be stopped by the Americans. Some would consider the Americans to be a “bad people” because they made Cubans protectorate, but it is always better than being up restrictive condition, as the Americans can testify to.

The unsuccesful trade union movement

Was America really a poverty- stricken country that was unrecognized as such due to the fact that those in authority- those with wealth- were actually emphasized as the representation of the American people? In all actuality, majority of Americans during the nineteenth century were considered poor, mainly because of the economy and the unfair industrial system. In being that the government had its share of distributed wealth, it was admissible for them to strengthen and protect big business- industry- due to the “due process” clause of the constitution. To make things even worst, several selfish ideologies and philosophies that supported the government’s actions (Social Darwinism and the Gospel of Wealth) were established. As a result, a plethora of unions formed, which were not beneficial in bring about industrial change. The hindrance of the Union Strikes, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the unfair tactics of the Capitalist Class concludes that the trade union movement was not only unsuccessful, but created more unnecessary obstacles for industry workers.

Some keen examples of labor unions were the National Labor Union, the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor, and the Industrial Workers of the World. Their beliefs ranged from industrial workers receiving higher wages and gender/ race equality to concession from management and ownership of the means of products. These unions were initially unsuccessful mainly because it involved too much violence and the government and the U.S troops always intervened. For instance, The Railroad Strike of 1877, which involved Baltimore and Ohio employees whose wages were cut, were stopped by U.S. troops who were sent by President Hayes. The most unsuccessful strike was undoubtedly The Pullman Strike of 1844. Workers wages were cut and most were laid off at the Pullman Palace Car Company. During their strike the government that the striker were in “restraint of trade” and imposed an injunction. Trade unions were also ridiculed and persecuted- they were essentially the scapegoats in extreme acts of violence. The Haymarket Square Riot of 1886 took place because at the McCormick factory the working conditions were past poor. As a result, an unknown assailant during the process of the riot threw a bomb at a couple of police officers, killing them in the process, but the trade union had to take the wrap for promoting violence. At the Pullman Palace Car Company, wages were being cut and lots of employees were being laid off. As striking was in progress, the federal government intervened by putting an injunction into effect. The U.S. troops stopped the strike and jailed those who farther disobeyed the injunction, ultimately limiting and restricting the trade unions progression.

It is quite evident that the executive and the judicial branch supported big businesses, but the state government was unexpectedly different. They wanted to improve working condition, establish housing laws, increase wages for the workers of industry, improve the cleanliness of the workers’ surrounding, establish a stable minimum wage, and eliminate children from working in factories. Their plans however, were hindered. They were considered unconstitutional, because of the fourteenth amendment, which also gave businesses due process as well as the workers. Instead of achieving rewards for their efforts, the union received a slap in the face when the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed. Because of this law, monopoly capitalism was still preserved, and unions that went to strike for any reason would be handed and injunction or possible jail time- not better treatment or wages.

All the while the government was on the business’ side; the workers had no other alternative but to comply. Some unions were still eager to obtain equal justice and higher wages, but the Capital Class provided something much more detrimental. If a union was so well as to attempt to strike, they would be blacklisted, which prevented them from seeking employment elsewhere. Some industries abhorred unions so much that they made some workers sign contracts that stated that in the process of working, they would not participate in any unions that may emerge. Unfortunately, the Capitalists’ motivation stemmed from profit, which was their main priority. This was extremely bad for the Americans, because they were replaced with immigrants who were paid lower wages for much more intensified labor. Also, racism was going inside of industry. Based on race, a group of individuals might have gotten paid a higher or lower salary. As much as the unions tried, they were very unlucky, especially considering the fact that membership in unions never exceeded three percent. The open shops were the ones ultimately successful, not the trade union.

Attempt after attempt, the trade unions failed. They failed because they were not eternally united and essentially did not have power, or authority. The federal government was on the big business’ side which meant that the trade union had to face two forces, in addition to the U.S troops. The fourteenth Amendment was a major obstacle for the trade unions. Laws were becoming stricter and Capitalist kept seeking profit. To keep this system flowing uninterruptedly, the factories- open shops- had to make a system of blacklisting and contract signing to prevent farther chaos. As the result the government and industrial leaders won, they were the most successful. The trade union movement unfortunately was not.

Immoral Tactic that Led to an Inevitable War

What are the two fundamental elements that made Americans initially supreme? Liberty and opportunity. These elements are very well displayed from the year 1776 (when we first declared independence) to 1861 (the beginning of the Civil War). It is obvious that Americans could not handle these precious elements as shown through their taking advantage of them, eventually using them for immoral and unintelligent purpose, ultimately causing some kind of turmoil. For instance, without the restrictions of the British Parliament, colonies decided to have different constitutions (Article of Confederation), which ultimately caused inflation, an unorganized form of government, and conflict with interstate trade. Secondly, under the conditions of . Also, voting regulations were unbearable and unjust. Women (black and white) and men (black) could not participate in helping select their next commander-and-chief, ultimately giving all supremacy to one particular sect of individuals. It is obvious that a trend is existent in the "American" action, but not once has our actions not been handled without a serious consequence. This same mentality of arrogance and disrespect had led all the way up to the late 1860s, which is displayed through the actions of Bleeding Kansas, the emergence of the Free Soil Party, and Harper's Ferry Raid of 1859; therefore, it is only appropriate to state that American tactics have conclusively created a system that took advantage of liberty and used slavery to a overly emphasized extent which ultimately led to the Civil War.

Our first President (Washington) warned us in his Farewell to avoid the emergence of parties, but it was obviously foreseeable that disobedient Americans would throw his advice right out the window. Even though they were for a good cause - "free speech, free soil and free men"- immorality and differences reined as the Free Soil Party was established. To understand their emergence, the dichotomy of the North and the South must be understood. It is very apparent that the North wanted to “contain” slavery while the North wanted to “expand it”, but their reasons are what led to the Civil War. The South saw that industrial conditions for worker were dismal, unsafe, and unbearable and thought that slaves could live under better condition- all their basic needs would be met under slavery. Also, the slaves would be a profitable investment ranging from $2000 and beyond. The South knew that a slave could replace a factory worker any day. Even though this might have been true, the Northerners did not budge. They believed slavery would jeopardize industrial capitalism. The Northerner’s goal was to pay worker lower wages, not higher ones. As a result of the dichotomy the Free Soil Party emerged, which ultimately led to pity behavior- The Southerners burned free soil in the town of Lawrence inching them one step closer to the inevitable Civil War.

Documentation in Kansas and unfair policies concerning the people is another cause of the Civil War. Unfortunately, Kansas, through popular sovereignty, had enough people to apply for statehood. Through insidious arrangements the Lecompton Constitution was established. This was a document where the people could not vote on the constitution as a whole, rather on a constitution with slavery or without slavery. No matter what the people voted for, bondage and restriction would be the only outcome. Because liberty was so excessive, the proslaveryrites (those for slavery) approved the Constitution for slavery. This created political conflict with those of authority. James Buchanan was a proud supported of the proslaveryites’ decision while Senator Douglas opposed it because he was against popular sovereignty, Ultimately, Kansas become a territory after the popular vote was constructed, causing a division in the Democratic Party- now the Civil War was only millimeters away from occurring.

Is violence necessarily a good element when it comes to obtaining morality? No, but John Harper thought he could beat the system. Even though he did not support planter-slaveholders who used violent systems to control their slaves, he ultimately contradicted himself because his tactics of getting rid of them would be of violence. John’s irresponsibility led many to believe that a slave rebellion would persist. John thought that the slaves would work in collaboration with him, but before that could happen he was met by the U.S. Army and was hanged as a results of his proposed future actions. John’s thoughts inspired Northerners, but made Southern more watchful- more aware-of future mischievous actions. They were skeptical if they would have to be more watchful in terms of slave rebellions. This one death, when compared to the Civil War, was mild, but did predict a nasty ending.

Liberty plus neglect and taking advantage of opportunities equals turmoil. This equation serves to be correct, if not the Civil War would not have occurred at all. It is evident that Americans have adapted to abusing precious elements like justice and liberty, and as a result should not have expected a positive outcome. The many differences that lurked around created an unknown closeness to the war that was not predicted, as displayed through the many compromises proposed, but inevitably did. Placing bandages on all the difference only worsen the infection of the North and South, and the big nasty disease was uncontrollably revealed during the Civil War.

Revolutionary Effects of Women's Role

Inferiority was an element of the past when considering the women greatly affected by the market revolution and the Second Great Awakening. During the late 1700s "Republican Motherhood" was a responsibility for wives to educate their children of the republic- about how it was against the tyrannical government. It seemed as if women had finally obtained power, but they were actually being degraded, ultimately giving men one less responsibility. Republican Motherhood restricted wives to household duties, preventing them from experiencing the work of men- preventing them from becoming independent individuals. Also, during the establishment of the constitution women were subjugated to adhere to traditional housework (chores, taking care of husband/children, etc.), were not allowed to vote, and were not permitted to serve in the military. Conclusively, women were presented as inferior beings, rather than equals. Ultimately, transformation came about because women had had enough. They demanded to be heard and when they were, they were unbelievably loud and clear. As a result of the Second Great Awakening and the mart revolution, women now worked in the mills, contributed to making up majority of the population during religions revivals, broke through the chains of the “cult of domesticity”, acquired higher education, and participated in reform crusades; therefore it is only appropriate to notice that women’s roles and opportunities have drastically revolutionized in term of family, the work place, and society.

No one would have ever predicted the market revolution, an economic revolution, would have promoted women’s progression. The eradication of farms and workshops in substitution for industry and commerce not only benefited the common man, but women also acquired a significant role too. In all actuality, women were compelled to revolutionize, not by men, but by fate. They were allowed to work in mills, ultimately eliminating their full attention toward traditional house work. “Everyone wanted to link their economic fate to the burgeoning economic market”, and fortunately women got a piece of the pie. Women were needed to cooperate for the benefit of the society, ultimately allowing them to progress toward equality. Unfortunately, because the women wanted independence through working the mills, they had to pay the price through hard labor and long hours (Doc B). Factory workers from Lowell, Massachusetts worked six days a week doing hard labor, compared to the farm women who only made food and clothes for the advancement of the pre-industrial economy. As the years passed by, women understood that in order to obtain power and equality, they had to collaborate and unify. During the Second Great Awakening, religious groups were fighting against the idea of dualism, which promoted the idea that churches were established to “enslave mankind”. Women, the majority, fought against the growing liberalism in religion. The role of women helped establish democratic control of church affairs and for people to get “saved”. The Second Great Awakening also made way for higher education. (Oberlin College is proof, which allowed admissions for African- American women). Institutions were initially built in the South where women learned of mathematics, philosophy, and other “man subjects”. Women defied the terms of the “cult of domesticity” by acquiring knowledge and becoming productive, educated individuals. Women were so addicted to learning that even secondary education was not enough to stimulate their eager minds; they needed the library and lyceum lectures as well. Education and wisdom is what led women to make change for their societies. Women like Lucretia Mott established the London antislavery convention, but was not as popular as Susan B. Anthony who stood for women’s right. Elizabeth Cady Stanton advocated women suffrage, and finally Doretha Dix, a teacher, petitioned the Massachusetts legislature, which resulted in better conditions for prisons. (Prisons that had cells that caused disease to spread) She eventually obtained a high role as a nurse for the Union Forces.

Through continuous actions, the role of women helped to promote equality and revolutionized society forever.


Extra Credit---
*Mount Holyoke was the first women college founded by Mary Lyon*
*The first textbook made was The McGuffey Reader by William McGuffey*

Extraordinary role of Nationalism

While restrictions and limitations may seem essential in maintaining control, depending on the situation, it may also be detrimental in preventing exploration for the purpose of advancement and progression. A prime example of this would be the Articles of Confederation, which caused inflation, prevented Congress from taxing the people, and rendered a president inadmissible. The effects of each one of these actions ultimately restricted America to a useless system headed for failure. Luckily, that same “America” segued into a country that supported liberation, exploration, and expansion. The love and devotion the American people has had for these fundamental elements, as well as for their country, has caused major events to result. The Monroe Doctrine, Manifest Dynasty, Trail of Tears, and the Mexican- American War were all costly, but successful attempts in defying the notion that restriction was needed. America’s journey to advancement (expansion) through the actions that stemmed from nationalism has had an extraordinarily positive and major role in the formulation and application of foreign policy in the early nineteenth century.

Most may believe that in no way did nationalism have a positive role in the application of U.S. foreign policy. This belief is understandable, but is unfortunately wrong. Federalists believed that war, a form of nationalism, would only create more damage than help in foreign policy issues. Mainly, as a result of war of 1812 in addition to other events, the U.S. economy was worsened and destruction came about (large areas of the white house were destroyed). However, Federalists, like most, neglect to notice what was obtained- what was gained. Respect, military careers, continued protection of the Western Hemisphere, California and New Mexico are just a few of the things gained that supports the notion that nationalism has had a positive and extraordinary role in foreign policy issues. These events alone defy all negative connotations as it pertains to nationalism in the nineteenth century.

Insidious is the correct term in describing Britain’s actions. After the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, Americans were primarily concerned that the British would dominate and colonize the Western Hemisphere, land that “belonged naturally to the United States”, according to John Quincy Adams. Through the Monroe Doctrine, an ultimatum was established: Europe would stay out of the Western Hemisphere and the U.S. would stay out of Europe. This was not only fair, but wise. Fair because neither side could impose on the other; wise because these were the initial steps American needed in formulating foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine also allowed Americans to exercise their beliefs, which stemmed for the Manifest Destiny: an attempt to rationalize U.S. foreign policy, to imply that the Western Hemisphere was the United States’ God-given land. If the Europeans happened to disobey this doctrine, it would have been a threat to U.S. national security: an unwise move considering the fact that Americans proved their military capabilities at the War of 1812. Luckily, the Europeans obeyed. Fairness and wisdom, two positive features, played an extraordinary role in formulating U.S foreign policy.

The application of foreign policy was for expansion, which resulted in necessary confiscation and vast deaths. Though Europeans served to be a significant obstacle, they were not the only one to do so. Because expansion was extremely fundamental for the Americas, the removal of the Native America tribe, known as the Cherokees, was indispensable. The irrepressible Cherokees inhabited Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi. Since there were over twenty thousand Indians in the Georgia area it would be a task to get rid of them. Thankfully, the Supreme Court (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia) and the Indian Removal Act were two keen rudiments that would promote permanent removal. They were eventually removed from George to a western area, Oklahoma. Americans had to make tough decisions in accessing the Cherokee's removal and in the process would not predict that four thousand of them would die in the Trail of Tears. Nationalism was the answer to expansion and the Americans would not let a single obstacle prevent them from their desires. Nationalism, in this incident was also positive, because even though Indians were killed, American found gold: an element that could be used to boast the economy and help America's financial well being.

After the War of 1812 one would believe that Americans would try to avoid as many battles as possible. Some may also see America as a greedy country that is was trying to obtain too much territory. Both accusations are false for very obvious reason. America primary purpose was to expand as much as possible, making it apparent that Texas was just not enough land. President Polk wanted more: the California-New Mexico territory, which was owned by the Mexicans. Because President Polk, and others, had self pride in America, war was not a question in acquiring more land. Throughout the Mexican - American war victory after victory came about ranging from the defeat of Santa Anna’s force to Americans final attack on Mexico City. Upon signing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo Americans claim the area north of the Rio Grande and the U.S obtained California and New Mexico Very much so did nationalism played a major and positive role in U.S. foreign policy. Even though President Polk was not satisfied with the amount of land eventually obtained, the United States still agreed to assume Mexico’s debt to us as a way of creating peace.

To be frank, nationalism was an inevitable necessity that American needed for expansion. Most may believe that nationalism in the nineteenth century played a negative role in U.S. foreign policy, but the things that were obtained because of it greatly outweigh this notion to say the least. In order to avoid restrictions (that dark and controlling determent), costly effects may have to result (death), but can be overlooked, depending on the situation, when our desires are meet. America’s desires and aspirations were met, and as a result the obtainment of the Western Hemisphere, land east of the Mississippi River, and the California- New Mexico territory came about. Major and positive are two adjective that actually underestimate the role of nationalism on U.S foreign policy, especially because the advancements were so plentiful and needed.

The Articles of Confederation- A System of Useless and Inadequate Potential

To what extend was the Article of Confederation inadequate for government, foreign affairs problem, domestic affair problem and features of government under the AOC?

When looking at the whole picture it is very obvious that America is constantly going in an insidious cycle that has only led to destruction, a failing economy, and dissatisfied citizens. Our current president has started a war with the Middle East creating conflicts abroad, America is in debt that is 9.4 trillion dollars, and to top it all off, it has been discovered that our government recently granted Abu Ghraib torture admissible for the purpose of avoiding further attacks. These are some of the worst rambunctious actions America could have ever done, but that is the price we have to pay for freedom and opportunity. Likewise, the establishment of “new American” (America without the assistance of the British Crown) had no stable system, for the citizen of the colonies started this inescapable cycle. With mercantilism, even though this trading system was unbalance and had its flaws, the most important thing is it work. With a monarchy the American people had a system that did not allow for unruly conduct or dangerous tactics. Finally, because of the British Crown, American colonies were protected. Americans avoided all the positives of the Parliament and followed the way of the radicals who yearned for independence, not thinking about the unforeseeable future which did contain imperfection to the maximum. Upon ending the American Revolution, the Americans had established a government which was ineffective due to the decentralization of authority that could not impose taxes on the people (one factor that led to inflation and worst economical situation). In reference to foreign affairs, there was conflict with the Indian and Spaniards that pertained to land. Domestic problem aroused by neglected and destruction of infracture. As far as domestic affairs, trade was temporarily ceased, causing most of the Yankees to make their own goods. Finally, the government under the AOC was hopeless with foreign and domestic affairs. So, when considering all of the fact, it is appropriate to make a motion that the Article of Confederation was tremendously inadequate, because the betterment of the people was not gained and America was not positively revolutionized.

In reference to foreign affair problems the Articles of Confederation was very inadequate. American did not abide by the Treaty of Paris and did not compensate the Loyalist, whose property was confiscated during the war. Furthermore, Spain, former ally, ironically turned on the Americans, because they feared that they would expand its power. They consistently argued over Florida, and then Spain now owned the lower river of the Mississippi River and restriction navigation rights. Not only did the Spaniards want to expand, but the Indians as well, which would ultimately cease the expansion of Georgia.

The purpose of the American Revolution was to eradicate an autocratic tyrannical government where the leader had an abundant amount power. With the new government Americans wanted decentralized government, one with lesser power than Britain. This caused a variety of problems. Firstly, the government, with its minor attainments to authority, could not impose taxes on its people resulting in a prolonging of a failing economy. As far as how the Articles of Confederation were inadequate pertaining to the domestic affairs, infrastructure must be considered. Due to the destruction and negligence of the roads, bridges and highway, different transportations could not easily travel to other states, cutting off trades between the states. Also currency, with its vast assortments, made it difficult for interstate trade, which was the foundation of why some states faced food shortages and other limits as well. These currency differences created inflation, not good for the economy. Also the American market was damaged due to Britain’s practices and some farmers lost their farms as a result. Some may say that Shay’s Rebellion, a rebellion against taxes, goes against the motion that the Articles of Confederation was inadequate, but remaining evidence defy this assumption.

The AOC had no assistance from the Article of confederation pertaining to domestic and foreign affair problem. If they did no, then how do we explain the Constitutional Convention, which created an entirely new governmental system. Also the Alexandria Conference of 1785 and the Annapolis Conference is another key indication that the Article of Confederation was useless. The Alexandria act improved navigation and commerce on the Potomac River, while the Annapolis Conference was held to discuss the revising of the AOC.

As religious people might say, “Thank God for change”. Where did change come from? The Constitutional Convention brought about alterations and a new government to say the least, no thanks to the Article of Confederation, which frankly promoted the ceasing of trade, foreign affair problem with the Indian and Spaniard, and the an extremely unstable economy. Because of the Constitutional Convention, the Bill of Right were passed, a constitution was made and the branches of power were create (legislative, executive and judicial- the check and balance created a balance between power) It did the responsibilities of The Article of Confederation. The Article of Confederation has proven to be in agreeance with irrepressible actions for the degradation of American society and can therefore be pronounced inadequate for the advancement of the American people. It rather prolonged a much needed change.

The Best Agenda of the Continental Congress

Can one really declare that either the moderates, conservatives, or radicals were more affective and persuasive than the other pertaining to their agenda, especially after considering all of the facts in its entirety? This question has a very specific answer. One must understand that the Boston Tea Party was the foundation of why the first and the second Continental Congress was establish in the first place. The Americas literally offended Britain when they dumped thousand of pounds of tea in the harbor to make a point, which should have been displayed through other actions: Britain should not monopolize the tea market. Consequently, Boston specifically, and Massachusetts in general, had to face an inevitable punishment- The Intolerable Acts. The Intolerable Acts which were comprised of the Boston Port Act ( an act that closed the harbors of Boston until damages could be repair and paid for and to ensure order) as well as the Quartering Act (an act that allowed British solders to invade the privacy of homes in Boston and everywhere else for that matter). But the most unacceptable Act that was established, that had nothing to do with the Intolerable Acts, was the Quebec Act, which guaranteed the French Canadian’s their Catholic religion, which ultimately had the capacity to spread southward to where the Protestants of Massachusetts were. All of these unbearable restrictions lead the Congress to come together for the purpose of establishing the best solution- a solution of comprise and freedom. Among the solution that were offer, the radical were the most effective and persuasive in going through with there agenda, because through signing the Declaration of Independence, liberty was gained at last. In addition, the relationship between the U.S and Britain was unrepairable, the war had already begun, and the Intolerable Acts (taxation without representation) were all elements that contributed to the persuasiveness and effectiveness of the radical's agenda. However the solutions of the moderates and conservative were consistently rejected, causing their agenda to become only a failed attempt.



It is true that the Continental Congress had an array of great thinkers, but it is also evident that each plan to comprise with Britain was neither effective, nor successful. The conservative were among the most unsuccessful planners, concerning the best solution. For example, Joseph Galloway argument, a compromise rather, that would allow the colonies of Great Britian to have there own parliament. His compromise was expectedly rejected and he remain under the power of the Crown. Secondly Jay thought that the British act could be veto through establishing colonies to make Britain want a relationship with the colonies, especially like the relationship they had before the French and Indian War. Unfortunately, he was defeated and remained unsuccessful. The conservatives lack of aggression is the element that caused their defeat, ultimately causing the radical to take a stand. Rejection and defeat is inadmissable, which is why Galloway's and Jay's agenda was neither the most effective nor persuasive.



Likewise, the moderates were not aggressive either, and believed that they could repair their relationship with Britain. John Dickenson was a very stubborn men who would not sign the Declaration of Independence, and did not agree with American Independence dispite the country struggle to compromise with Britain. Later on, Dickerson support the Declaration of Independence but did not sign it because he did not contribute in any way to it. George Wshington, being the strong leader he was, did not display the most effective and persuasive agenda. Though he led the army and forced Britain out of Boston, it does not compare the radical who created separated for freedom




Among the three categorized groups, it is extremely evident that the radical were the most persuasive and affective in their agenda. What they did was not only intelligent, but was also the best solution. On July4th 4, 1776, four radical named Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, James Adams, and Charles Thomson signed a document that give America complete liberty from the unbearable laws of Britain, known as The Declaration of Independence. Complete seperation from the English colonies was no longer a dream and the thought of unnecessary wars was only a agonizing thought. Though most thought that complete independence was not the best solution, they have obviously been proven wrong and so many ways. If American would have remained dependent of Britain, the future of American would have been in constant jeopardy- wars and laws of restrictions. In addition to that they also discovered that the Parliament possessed no authority to tax the colonists.

Through the many obstacle and difficulties that Britain has provided, the radicals of the first and second Continental Congress still prevailed by signing a document that caused much needed liberation and by declaring the Intolerable Acts null and void. The French and Indian War and the Intolerables Acts, just to name a few, were leading events that caused the radical to act wisely. Their action cause freedom from the Crown, which is why they were most persuasive and effective in their agenda. No other delegates, no other men step up to get the job done but Henry, Sam and John, Thomson. Lots of people did not want a dichtomy, but this men knew what was best and have done commendabe and inevitable action for America. The other delegates were successful in contributing thought to the problem's Britain were providing, but their actions were completely different and did not amount to the work of the radicals.

works cited: historycentral.com, historydeleware, eyewitness.com, bioguidecongress.com
and the American Pageant