středa 3. července 2013
úterý 2. července 2013
neděle 30. června 2013
čtvrtek 27. června 2013
úterý 25. června 2013
Jefferson v. Hamilton and the Federalist Era
Steven Bosco
Father Garaventa
U.S. History 11
27 November 2012
Jefferson v. Hamilton and the Federalist Era
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two great leaders in United States history. Jefferson and Hamilton were opposites. Jefferson believed in small government. Hamilton believed in bigger government and more federal influence. This was the case in his day, but today he would be considered conservative and a small government advocator by comparison. Jefferson was about strict construction of the Constitution and that the Constitution means exactly what it says. It should not be open to interpretation. Hamilton, on the other hand, was about loose construction of the Constitution and that the Constitution must be interpreted because of historic and social change.
Jefferson believed the United States Constitution does not give the right to the Government to incorporate banks (Document A). He thought doing this would set a dangerous precedence, passing over the boundaries of the constitution. Jefferson’s belief in strict construction of the Constitution shines through here. On the other side, Alexander Hamilton believed that forming banks would be in line with the Constitution (Document B). Hamilton shows his loose constructionist belief. He thought that the same powers that grant the government the right to make laws also gives the right to incorporate banks.
In Thomas Jefferson’s inaugural address he points out that people who were not used to thinking for themselves are now voting for the common good of all Americans (Document C). Jefferson believes his stance on government policies is correct and for the good of all Americans.
Anti-Federalists wanted to advise that the Constitution is lacking a bill of rights (Document D). They said the constitution gives too much power to the Government and that the individual should have rights under the protection of an official document. Jefferson stood in agreement with the Anti-Federalists and Hamilton did not in contrast.
James Madison in The Federalist No. 10 says that the Union, or our Republic, is a safe guard against domestic revolting of the people (Document E). Giving the people liberty and passion will ensure that the people are satisfied and possess the tools they need for individual freedom. Jefferson believed in individual rights to ensure a safe and calm state of America while Hamilton wanted more government presence.
According to the Sedition Act, a citizen shall be charged with high misdemeanor if a citizen opposes any measure of Government (Document F). “Alexander Hamilton and congressional Federalists took advantage of the public’s wartime fears and drafted and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/sedition-act-becomes-federal-law).” This was wrong for the United States and contradicted the whole point of the Revolutionary War. We the people have pride in our freedom of speech. Fortunately, President John Adams squashed the Sedition Act. Although there was damage done, people were arrested for speaking against the government and the like.
Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist No. 51 talks of separation of powers, a partition of power that will keep all branches of government clean and pure (Document G). This is highly important because if power is taken, or used, from outside one branch of authority, a breakdown will occur within this brilliant system set up by America’s Constitution. For example, the President should not be able to make use of congressional powers.
In the Kentucky Resolutions, it is made clear that the United States was not united to submit to government. When government assumes un-rightful power, the people have no obligation to abide by it (Document H). The government created by this agreement of the Constitution does not have the given right to decide its own powers. It can easily be seen today that this is not the case anymore; although, it should be.
The Federal and Supreme courts have the power to decide whether or not a law is constitutional. The Federal and Supreme courts decisions are above individual state court decisions (Document I).
Hamilton believed that in order to have a strong economy and to make the free market work, there must be central banks to support commerce. Jefferson supported local banks as a means to support the free market. He believed the banks could carry out the same job to support free trade. Hamilton insulted Aaron Burr when Burr lost New York’s governor race. Burr challenged him to a duel and Hamilton accepted. Hamilton was killed in the duel at Weehawken, NJ. Jefferson served as Vice President to George Washington and President after. Jefferson was passionate about education and founded the University of Virginia. To sum up Jefferson’s character, on his tombstone he did not want it to read “President of the United States of America,” but simply acknowledging his founding of the University of Virginia. His love for America was so great that he died on the Fourth of July along with Benjamin Franklin.
Jefferson v. Hamilton and the Federalist Era
The Failure of the League of Nations
Steven Bosco
Mrs. Carty
Global 10
May 31, 2012
The Failure of the League of Nations
At the end of World War I, the League of Nations was formed by the Treaty of Versailles and created a more organized way of negotiation between countries, but it was unsuccessful. Its first goal was to attain a peace for World War I. Its aims were to guarantee international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security. The League of Nations was the first systematic attempt to create an organization to prevent war and promote peace. The League of Nations failed because it was not universal. It excluded the superpowers Russia, Germany, and the United States. It was a defective tool for achieving German disarmament and did not build a strong alliance. It did have some success in; although, it was ultimately unsuccessful, it was an ambitious attempt to change the abuses of the state system while containing the individual sovereignty of each nation.
The League of Nations was far from universal and this was a big problem. The conflict between Britain and France affected the League. France wanted to punish Germany as much as possible and completely take away their war making power. Great Britain believed France’s demands to be a little too harsh. There were major disagreements between the British and the French over the scale of German disarmament and security guarantees. There was also an argument between the British and the Americans over German naval disarmament. France was afraid Germany might attack them again and did not want to take any chances. France wanted to strip Germany of their military power so they could not hurt them. Britain, like the United States of America, was less interested in the goal that France valued. Another major problem was that Russia, the United States, and Germany were not even in the League of Nations. Russia was a communist nation and was not allowed to join. America refused to join despite Wilson’s interest in joining. Germany was not allowed to join the League because they started the war. Leaving out Germany was intended as a punishment. Without these three extremely powerful nations, the League was very weak in enforcing its policies. France and Britain did not care about Eastern Europe and suffered too much from World War I to pay much attention to the League.
The League of Nations failed to achieve its disarmament goals. The Disarmament Conference met to achieve these disarmament goals. The conference failed to produce real results. The differences of opinions between the nations in the League were too great. Hopes of true disarmament died with the departure of Germany from the League. Germany ignored the disarmament policies and mobilized and trained soldiers under Hitler. France and Britain were too weak to really enforce disarmament because of their recovery from the war. There were domestic forces within the nations opposing disarmament. The Disarmament Conference was organized too late amidst hostile situations. The overly ambitious aims and practical problems involved in the reduction of armaments. The League also failed to impose and enforce military spending constraints.
The League of Nations failed to achieve an adequate alliance. It did not build up any strong alliances. League of Nations did not function as a credible alliance itself either. It failed to provide adequate security promises for its members, like Poland, who could not defend themselves from superpowers like Russia. Without alliances, the aggressive policies by the authoritarian states led to an arms race. The Treaty of Versailles broke territory promises made to Italy. Italy took over Fiume and the League did nothing about it, even though it was set up to enforce and maintain peace.
The League of Nations did experience success in some ways. The League failed to stop a gory war in Turkey. It did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war. The League sent doctors to Turkey that worked to cure diseases. The League also spent a large amount of money on building farms and homes for the refugees of the war. Greece invaded Bulgaria. Bulgaria pleaded their case to the League and asked for help. The League reviewed the situation and demanded Greece to leave and gave a fine of £45,000. The status of people in the Third World was improved because of the League’s work. Drug smuggling was attacked by the League. The greatest success the League had was informing the world of important issues that needed to be resolved. It was almost like an international newspaper.
Overall, the League of Nations was a failure. The League did not maintain peace as it had hoped. It did not create a link between nations to work together either. “Any threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace.” This quote is from Article 11 of the League’s Covenant. The League did not live up to this. When Italy attacked Fiume, the League did nothing. Some successes did come through the League as mentioned earlier that gave ideas for the United Nations. The nations within the League focused on building up themselves rather than working together to fix international problems. From the very beginning, the League was setting itself up for failure. Without the help of such powerful countries, enforced policies, and alliances, the League was destined to fail. Few successes came out of the League. The League of Nations was a legitimate attempt to unite nations to solve international problems, despite its ultimate failure.
Works Cited
Eloranta, Jari. Why Did the League of Nations Fail? Presentation. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ata.boun.edu.tr/ehes/Istanbul Conference Papers- May 2005/WHY_DID_THE_LEAGUE_OF_NATIONS_FAIL.pdf>.
Hinsley, F. H. “Frontmatter – University Publishing Online.” Cambridge Books Online. Cambridge University Press, Jan. 2010. Web. 24 Apr. 2012. <http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511622458>.
Oppenheim, L. The League of Nations and Its Problems; Three Lectures,. London: Longmans, Green and, 1919. Print.
Pollock, Frederick. The League of Nations. London: Stevens and Sons, 1920. Print.
The Failure of the League of Nations
Death of a Salesman is not a Tragedy
Steven Bosco
Mr. Thomas
English 11
7 May 2013
Death of a Salesman is not a Tragedy
Arthur Millers’ Death of a Salesman is not a tragedy because the truest definition of tragedy does not fit the play. Willy, the father and traveling salesman, does not fit the typical qualities a character has that plays a role in famous tragic stories. According to Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, a character in a tragedy should have specific qualities. For example, the character should be almost idealized. The play must be understood by one to form an opinion on whether or not it is a tragedy.
Death of a Salesman is a play written by Arthur Miller of a family who has troubles and meets an unfortunate end. Two brothers, Biff and Happy, are still living at home. They are in their 30′s and seem to have no motivation to leave the house and tackle their life. Biff and Happy’s father, Willy Loman, is a traveling salesman who is wrapped in so much false pride that he does not accept his failure in life. Willy refuses to understand and embrace his true self — an an unsuccessful salesman. Willy’s wife, Linda, knows of Willy’s faults, one of which is that Willy had cheated on her and had been caught by Biff. Biff never told Linda about Willy’s affair; although, Biff did hint at it a few times.
A well-respected, well-liked man is all Willy Loman ever prided himself in being, but Willy never achieved that in reality. Well into the play, Biff goes to meet Bill Oliver, but is unsuccessful. “Pop, I’m nothing! I’m nothing, Pop. Can’t you understand that? There’s no spite in it any more. I’m just what I am, that’s all.” (Pg. 102). Biff tries to tell Willy that he just needs to understand and accept that Biff was never a successful salesman or anything worthy for that matter. Willy has such expectations of Biff, yet Biff feels they are not realistic or true. Willy continues to make up unreal scenarios that just feed lies.
Finally, a very essential argument happens in which Biff says, “I stopped in the middle of that building and I saw — the sky. I saw the things that I love in this world. The work and the food and time time to sit and smoke. And I looked at the pen and said to myself, what the hell am I grabbing this for? Why am I trying to become what I don’t want to be? What am I doing in an office, making a contemptuous, begging fool of myself, when all I want is out there, waiting for me the minute I say I know who I am! Why can’t I say that, Willy?” (Pg. 105). Such a sad, yet beautiful thing occurs after this is said. Willy finally understands that for all the time together, they have never restrained from telling a lie for more than 10 minutes. Willy finally realizes that Biff truly loves him. That night, Willy was full of happiness, selflessness, and may have even felt free — Free from all the bullshit that he and his sons have gone through. Willy, with deep excitement, preaches to Ben, his dead brother, how amazing it would be to put $20,000 of insurance money into Biff’s pocket. Willy, in a relieved cheerful manner, gets in his car and speeds off to meet his death.
Death of a Salesman cannot be defined as a tragedy because Willy does not fit the usual characteristics a victim of a tragedy would. Aristotle’s theory of tragedy states that the characters should be “good or fine,” as in their quality of morals. Willy, Biff, and Happy do not fit this first quality. Willy does not have good morals on how to respect what his boys truly are. Biff does not possess good morals in the way he treats his father, Willy. Happy, just like Biff, does not deeply care for Willy. For example, Happy was more interested in two girls rather than his father, who was alone in the bathroom. Happy selfishly abandoned Willy.
Based on Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, Death of a Salesman is not a tragedy because Willy Loman was not “true to life” and lacked “consistency.” Willy was not “true to his life”, or realistic. He continuously misleads himself to believe that Biff was very successful and that everything would be just fine. Willy lacked “consistency”, meaning he is not true to himself. For the play to be a tragedy, Willy would have had to be idealized and ennobled. In no way is Willy perfect or well-liked, instead, Willy thinks himself to be such.
Death of a Salesman does in fact have a katharsis, an important aspect to a tragic story. According to Aristotle, the end of a tragedy is a katharsis, or a cleansing of the tragic emotions of pity and fear. “Tragedy arouses the emotions of pity and fear in order to purge away their excess, to reduce these passions to a healthy, balanced proportion.” (Aristotle). At the end of the play, there is a katharsis when Biff, Happy, and Linda are standing at Willy’s grave. “I’m gonna show you and everybody else that Willy Loman did not die in vain. He had a good dream. It’s the only dream you can have – to come out number-one man. He fought it out here, and this is where I’m gonna win it for him.” (Pg. 130). This is a purification of emotion for Biff especially. Biff is freed from pity, fear, and decides he will prove that he can become something great, and is motivated by his father’s passing.
Even though some of the characters expeirenced a katharsis, Willy Loman did not. Willy never undergoes a true moment of insight. Throughout the entire play, Willy believes wealth and material possession is the most important thing in life. Willy proves his materialistic nature when he takes his own life to make money; although, suicide for Biff’s benefit is out of selflessness because he cares so much about Biff’s future.
If Aristotle’s view of the word, tragedy, is believed to be the principal meaning, then Willy Loman must show peripeteia, or a reversal of circumstances. Willy Loman does not go through a reversal of fortune and success. He was never very successfull in the first place, and never made much money. Willy is not of a high status in society; therefore, Willy is not qualified to be a tragic hero. For example, in The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet are of high class and fortunate nobility and undergo peripeteia. Romeo and Juliet’s status’ in society were diminished and there was a unfortunate tragic end. This reversal seen in Romeo and Juliet is not present in Death of a Salesman. Arthur Miller, author of Death of a Salesman, argues that you do not need to be of noble birth to experience tragedy. This is why a concrete definition of tragedy does not exist. It depends on what the reader believes to be a tragedy, and it is ultimately up to the reader to decide for his or her self whether or not something is a tragedy.
While writing Death of a Salesman, Arthur Miller may have not been trying to fit the play with the Aristotelian view of tragedy. Miller wanted to connect with the readers of the modern era by modelling Willy just as most people of the time. Miller may have been trying to make Willy an unimportant man who was just trying to make a living, to represent the common people of the time. Simply the name, “Loman”, sounds like a usual, regular name. The name represents commonness and unimportance. Miller was attempting to get the point across that tragedy can affect us all, and not simply in the way Aristotle believes. To Miller, tragedy can be experienced by anyone, whether ones a king or peasant, soldier or businessman.
Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman can be thought of as an unfortunate, awful occurance, but does not fit the truest sense of the word, tragedy. The principal meaning of tragedy was set by Aristotle. Although Death of a Salesman does not meet all the circumstances a tragedy must have, it is ultimately a melancholy play that connects with even the most regular people who are struggling to make a living.
Works Cited
“ARISTOTLE & THE ELEMENTS OF TRAGEDY: English 250.” Aristotle’s Tragic Terms. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
Best, Micheal. “Is Romeo and Juliet a Tragedy?” :: Life and Times. University of Victoria, Feb. 1999. Web. 07 May 2013.
Lozzoms. “Tragedy in Death of a Salesman.” HubPages. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
McManus, Barbara F. “Outline of Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy.” Outline of Aristotle’s Theory of Tragedy. N.p., Nov. 1999. Web. 07 May 2013.
Miller, Arthur. “The Portable Arthur Miller.” Google Books. Penguin Group, n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
Schweinitz, George D. “Death of a Salesman: A Note on Epic and Tragedy.” N.p., n.d. Web.
“What Is Catharsis?” WiseGEEK. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 May 2013.
Death of a Salesman is not a Tragedy