The Indus or Harappan civilization. This culture once extended over more than 1 million square kilometres from the Arabian Sea to the Ganges – at its peak accounting for 10% of the world population. Developing some 5,200 years ago, the culture slowly disintegrated some 3 to 4,000 years ago, migrating toward the east.

This, the world’s earliest urban civilization in an area now covered by India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh appears to have been brought down by climate change, according to researchers. This vast Indus civilization was completely forgotten until the 1920s, and there are still many things we don’t know about them.

It was around 100 years ago that archaeologists began finding many instances of Harappan settlement remains along the Indus River and in a vast desert region bordering India and Pakistan – proof found that sophisticated cities had existed, with sea links to Mesopotamia, arts and crafts, and writing that is still undeciphered.

Cities were ordered into grids – exquisite plumbing not seen again until the Roman empire established itself – in what appeared to be a much more democratic society than Mesopotamia and Egypt, without large structures built in honour of kings. Harrapan people were so-called after one of their largest cities, and lived next to rivers, in the main

Speculation had been rife  about the links between this mysterious ancient culture and its rivers, the landscape of the where this long-forgotten civilization developed now reconstructed, shedding light on what happened, the research pointing to one of the clearest examples of climate change causing the collapse of a civilization.

The researchers collected data on geological history, having analyzed satellite data of the landscape and influenced collected samples of sediment to determine origins and ages and develop a time-line of landscape changes. The Harappan heartland got water from a glacier-fed Himalayan river – the Sarasvati, sacred river of Hindu mythology – which previous studies suggest may actually have been the Ghaggar, an intermittent river flowing only during strong monsoons.

Archaeological evidence suggested the river was home to intensive settlement during Harappan times. In the beginning, this monsoon-drenched river was prone to devastating floods, but over time, monsoons weakened, so agriculture and civilization flourished for nearly 2,000 years.

As solar energy in the region varied over several thousand years, less rain got into the regions affected by monsoons, and eventually, these monsoon-based rivers held too little water and dried, forcing the enterprising Harappans to flee east toward the Ganges basin, in pursuit of the reliable monsoon rains.

This change was undoubtedly disastrous for Indus cities, which collapsed, though smaller agricultural communities flourished, though urban arts like writing faded away.  How monsoons will react to modern climate change remains uncertain, but what climate change caused once before in the Indian sub-continent could quite easily be repeated again elsewhere.

 One day when Maaku was looking around some of his father’s stuff, he realized that his father was into some freaky stuff. He had pictures and journals of the things that he did. It was after reading a list of girls and what they were good for that Maaku figured out that his father was into BDSM. It was a secret that he had kept from Maaku’s mother. All the different things he did with each girl and some men, started to turn Maaku on. He read about each time his father did something and when he saw something that he wanted to try out. After reading everything and looking at the pictures many times, Maaku decided to follow in his father’s footsteps and became a master as well. He showed Creed everything and Creed agreed to help him because a good master. They went around in places that they shouldn’t have gone to at the age of 12 to ask around how to become a master. Both Creed and Maaku learned a lot and found a lot of people that would serve under them. All of this was going good for Maaku until the day he turned 17.

 Maaku didn’t know that his mother was starting to get her life together because he was always out with Creed and his slaves making sure they obeyed him and her. Since he always stayed over at Creed’s house he didn’t realize that his mother stopped drink and started to work. When he came home one day to get some stuff that he had in his room, he saw that everything was packed and ready to be moved. He was shocked and asked what was happening. His mother told him that they were moving and he was going with her. Maaku tried to get out of it, but there was no way to do it. So Maaku and his mother left the state they were in and moved all the way to Washington where Maaku was enrolled into an all boys school. Now that Maaku was in a new state, he had to start his creditability all over again.

                               And here we are in the middle, listening to first one aggressor then the other tell us what we could care less about over and over again.  We simply want to know what the policies will be to get us out this mess that, at least two, administrations have gotten us into.  when do we get a Congress that will do the business of the PEOPLE as apposed to the business of lining Congress’s pockets ?  When does the ” insider trading “  in congress stop , long enough to get SOMETHING done for WE THE PEOPLE.  Their Childish antics have cost this generation and the next two generations the birthright that Hundreds of thousand brave men and women fought and DIED for.

                                But, we made history!  We elected the first politically socialist president of our modern era. Woodrow was, at least, a “closet commie”; Frankie D was a leaner( eleanor was the flaming socialist), Jimmie tried some Keynesian economic theories that brought the US to the brink of Bankruptcy ; and our current incumbent( making history with his every breath) is about to send us into an economic abyss that will defy recovery for several years( if not decades).

                                  Lets us leave History to the Historians! Let’s try yo elect some REAL REPRESENTATIVES, who will Serve the People,  Not rape them! We need to let the Iconoclasts in congress and the whait house that just because they are over educated IDIOTS, they are no better than we, and we can send them packing ! 

In the earlier years of Hitler’s dictatorship over Germany, the Nazi party depended heavily on the army and big businesses to remove opposition. However once the Nazis came to full power they were able to dominate the political spectrum and began to implement their policies. Nonetheless many historians disagree that Hitler was in full control of the Third Reich as he wasn’t as involved as he could have been, and ordered loyal Nazi members make decisions. This view is expressed in Source 2 “Hitler often refused to take decisions”, as it talks about Hitler’s pride in his popularity and how he didn’t want to risk damaging his reputation. Source 1 talk about the cult of the Fuhrer and how he was adored and admired by the German people; this was important as Hitler’s popularity was the main focus of the Nazi regime as he was able to win support for his party. Source 3 agrees with Source 2 as it explains how Hitler would choose “the right man for the job”, Source 3 also talks about the power of Hitler’s popularity however explains that it wasn’t helpful in practical business.

The cult of the Fuhrer was important, as many historians believed that at the heart of the Nazi state and the Third Reich was Hitler’s leadership and personality. If Hitler was popular with the German people it would make new laws and policies easier to introduce as there was a general consensus for the Nazi party; therefore there would be less opposition and strikes occurring because of an unhappy German population. Hitlers personal popularity was used to legalize his policies as plebiscites could continuously be called on for support as stated in S1 “his personal ideological obsessions became translated into attainable reality”. Hitlers personality contributed to his powerful image, as S1 states that his huge “platform of popularity… made his own power position ever more unassailable” this also reflects the loyalty within the Nazi party as “none of the other leading Nazis ever challenged his supremacy”(S2) suggesting that Hitler was an omnipotent character. Hitlers power over the Nazi party was important when staying in control of the Third Reich as he had a party full of loyal members. S2 also states that Hitler would remove himself from “day to day decisions of government” so that he could take decisions quickly and not have to go through bureaucratic consultation. Hitler avoided making key decisions “especially when a decision might damage his popularity(S2), this shows us that he was conscious about his popularity, S3 also agrees with this view “Hitler was certainly careful not to associate himself with any measure that he thought might be unpopular”. Hitlers control of the Third Reich stemmed from his popularity with the German people and members within the party, he was able to use his popularity to make his ideas into reality and stay in power. Hitlers tactic of divide and rule was successful in maintaining his own political authority as argued by some intentionalists. The Nazi party was full of members trying to impress Hitler this led to cumulative radicalization, this is the idea that members were “working towards the Fuhrer” and in doing so they were coming up with new more radical theories to impress Hitler. This shows that Hitler had power over the Third Reich and he was all powerful as members of the Nazi party were remaining loyal despite the conflict within the party between individuals because of Hitlers deliberate use of “divide and rule”.

However some Structuralist argue that lack of direction and planning from Hitler resulted in a chaotic state structure with organizations and groups competing against each other, this is shown in S2 “he gave those men who were close to him conflicting responsibilities, which often resulted in a state of near anarchy”. The structuralists emphasize on the divide and rules, as the power structures in the Nazi party evolved and changed because of the poorly defined roles. This led to the growing radicalization of the Nazi party, and in turn made Hitler weak as it took the power away from him and he was proved to not have control over the Third Reich as it was seen as a “chaotic system of rival empires”(S2). S1 states that due to Hitlers popularity, actions could be legitimized, opposition was diffused, and the independence of the Nazi leadership was boosted. Although Hitlers popularity helped him gain support for the Nazi party it wasn’t useful in a political sense, as it was not much help “in the practical business of selecting goals, reaching decisions and making policy” (S3). S1 directly contradicts S3 as Historians argue that Hitler was not in full control of the Third Reich as he got other members of the Nazi party to carry out his orders and make decisions for him, suggesting that Hitler was a weak dictator; this view is expressed in S3 as “He had a preference… for choosing the right man for the job”. The fact that Hitler was afraid to make decisions as he risked damaging his reputation suggests he was a weak dictator as he was not prepared to take consequences of his actions this is shown in S2 as it states that when Hitler made a bad decision he “left his subordinates to thrash these out”.

Because of the chaotic nature of the Third Reich it can be argued that Hitler was not in full control as members were forced to compete against each other in order to impress Hitler and put forward radical policies and ideas. However I believe that Hitler did have control over the Third Reich as his popularity helped shape his omnipotent image and gain support for the Nazi party. The fact that Hitler had individuals in the Nazi party that were loyal enough to carry out his orders effectively and help him make decisions once again proves Hitler was omnipotent as no one in the Nazi party was trying to oppose him. As stated in S2 “Hitler could take any decision he wanted to and took some of his major decisions without consolation” this proves that Hitler was able to take control when he needed to and was seen as a central figure of the Third Reich.

There were many obstacles Hitler endured to obtain power in 1933, in this year he was appointed as Chancellor however the establishment that gave him this title were keen to hold onto their power. Hindenburg, a powerful and prestige president at the time, had support from, and control over the army, Hitler’s hope to consolidate full power was also restrained by the power of institution such as the Reichstag. Hitler was aiming to bring about a Nazi revolution in Germany, and his position as Chancellor would help him to achieve this.

Hitler used violence in order to consolidate power; however he balanced the use of terror with legal means. The Nazis understood that power had to be taken legally in order to get the widespread support from the majority of the German population.  50,000 SA, SS and Stahlhelm members were appointed as auxiliary policemen on the 22nd February in order to intimidate and terrorize Nazi opponents. This led to violence against communist and socialists, who were reluctant to act against Hitler; they misread the situation and believed Hitler’s new role as chancellor would lead to political and economic collapse, and in turn the formation of communist rule in Germany. With members of the Nazi party in the police force this enabled Hitler to order a police raid on the head office of the communist party, KPD. Hermann Goering, then claimed that evidence was found during the raid, communist conspiracy theories to seize power through force were supposedly found. With this new evidence Hitler had an excuse to use violence and terror as he could claim it was merely defensive. The Nazis closed down socialist newspapers, cutting off socialist propaganda, and members of the SA disrupted political meetings damaging any chances of the left side developing an idea on how to stop the increasing power of the Nazis. Violence was an important factor whilst consolidating Nazi power and it is proved to be increasingly important when paired with the strategy of propaganda.

On the 27th February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire and the communists were blamed. The use of propaganda meant that the Nazis could take full advantage of the event, and pass all the blame onto the communists who were portrayed as dangerous threats. Terror was used, as the next day 4000 communist were arrested due to the event, weakening the communist threat and proving the power of the Nazi party and Hitler. The Reichstag fire gave the Nazis the opportunity to use legal actions in order to consolidate power as the emergency decree gave the police the power to arrest suspected Nazi opponents without confronting the courts.  Goebbels portrayed the emergency decree as a way to stop the spread of communism, and therefore it was welcomed by the vast majority of the German population as many feared communism. The decree gave Hitler legal reasons to arrest those he saw as a threat; because of propaganda he was able to use the decree to justify the arrest, imprisonment, and torture of many political opponents. By using violence, terror and intimidation Hitler was able to remove his political threats; at the General election in March 1933, all the communist deputies were barred from the Reichstag as a result Hitler gained a political advantage as the Nazis won the 1933 elections. After the elections the Nazis had gained the legal rights once again to destroy political opposition. The leader of the SS, Heimlich Himmler set up a concentration camp at Dachau where political opponents could be help in “protective custody”.

When presenting the Reichstag with the enabling act Hitler used force and intimidation as he brought with him the SA who swarmed the building. Again the presence of the SA put pressure on the government to pass the act, as they were reminded of the true power of the Nazis.  The act granted Hitler four years of power as dictator in order for the act to be granted, the communist deputies were barred from the Reichstag and Goring was able to reduce the required number of votes needed to achieve the overall majority. In February 1933 attacks on churches took place as the Nazis saw organized religion as an enemy.  The churches and religious figures supported the Enabling act as they feared the consequences if they didn’t, as they had seen what had happened to socialists and communists and did not wish to have the same fate.

After the Enabling Act had been passed, Hitler aimed to control all the social and economic aspects of Germany. First he dissolved the local state governments and introduced new state governors who were able to introduce Nazi policies. On May 2nd the offices of the social socialist trade union organization were raided by SA members and the organization was split up. The violence and terror used by the Nazis led to many socialist leaders fleeing the country as many had been killed or arrested and on June 22 the SPD was officially disbanded. The centre party, was the last party to be disbanded, and in June 1933, due to Himmler’s orders the most significant members of the party were arrested; again violence and terror was used to disband a political opponent, proving how important violence was in order for Hitler to consolidate power.

The use of violence was a key part in consolidating power in 1933; Hitler was able to use his position as chancellor to place members of the Nazi army into the police force. The propaganda used to exploit the Reichstag fire meant that Hitler could then use his legal rights to arrest communist and expose their theories of spreading communism worldwide. In order for the terror used to consolidate power to be effective it had to be connected with propaganda and legality, in order for the German people to side with the Nazis despite all the violence that was taking place. Therefore I agree that without violence Hitler wouldn’t have been able to intimidate and force his way to dictatorship as the terror was what caused people to back down and also caused parties to disband, paving the way for Hitler and the Nazi party to consolidate power. 

There are many factors supporting the argument that during the reign of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Germany was an entrenched authoritarian state. The weakness of the Reichstag and the popularity and the prestige of the Kaiser meant that the Reichstag was unable to challenge the Kaiser. The power of the Reichstag included the right to hold elections through dissolution, and control of the annual budget however the constitutional powers were mainly concentrated onto the Kaiser, proving Germany to be an authoritarian state.  However the request for political developments challenged the already existing political establishment as there were greater demands for constitutional reform from the liberals who also wished for the strengthening power of the Reichstag. The daily telegraph affair of 1908 led to the decrease in population of the Kaiser as he vowed to make an alliance with Britain.

Whilst trying to maintain political establishments, Chancellor Bismarck faced challenges from socialists and liberals. The liberals demanded that the Reichstag received more power; Bismarck dealt with this by using the tactic of divide and rule. He split the liberals focused on nationalism from the liberals who aimed for constitutional reforms, and this weakened the movement from the liberals. The dividing of parties helped maintain an entrenched authoritarian state within Germany. In order to eliminate the demand for social reform from the socialists Bismarck persuaded the Reichstag to pass the Anti-Socialist law and banned the SPD and put a stop to the socialist parties, however the legislation was rejected and only small amounts of social reform developed.

Chancellor von Bulow sympathized with Kaiser and his wish for “personal rule”. Bulow devised a way to protect the ruling class and aimed create an alliance of conservative interests which would weaken the push for socialist reforms. A policy of protectionism would be created and became known as the “Weltpolitik”, this focused on the building of the German armed forces and the expansion of naval power. The Kaiser supported the Weltpolitik and believed it would help develop Germany; the Weltpolitik had widespread support as it played on nationalism and was therefore accepted by many political parties and the German public.

The Herero uprising in 1904 saw the revolt of the Herero people who rose against their colonial repressor, however they were defeated at the Battle of Waterberg. The Herero people were then sent to concentration camps and subjected to a policy of genocide through execution. The affair highlighted the issue that there was a lack of parliamentary accountability for the army and therefore a greater parliamentary financial control of colonial affairs was needed. During the Hottentot election in 1906 Von Bulow supported by a group of nationalists frightened the German voters into voting for candidates from the “Bulow Bloc”, and the consequence was a large majority of votes. Because of financial strains the Bulow Bloc broke up and this led to the conservative parties siding with the Centre Party.

In 1908 the Kaiser gave the impression in a interview to a British paper “Daily telegraph” that he wanted to form an alliance with Britain. The stirred the Reichstag as the Kaiser did not consult the Reichstag before involving himself in foreign policies, because of this the Kaiser was criticized. The blame was shifted to Bulow as the Kaiser believed it was his duty to censor the interview, Bulows chancellorship came to an end in 1909 he no longer held the Kaiser’s trust. Despite the threat to the Kaisers population due to the Daily Telegraph affair no restraint was demanded by the Reichstag on the Kaisers power which again exploits the weakness of the Reichstag.

The Zabern Affair also reflected the weakness of the Reichstag as their vote of no confidence was ignored by Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, and in January 1914 the Reichstag set up a commission to discuss military and civilian authority but it was disbanded soon after; no real power was established by the Reichstag. The political parties were also exposed to be too hesitant as it took them a week after the vote of no confidence to demand the resignation of the Chancellor. The fact that Bethmann was allowed to continue his role as chancellor despire a major defeat  showed that the Kaisers personality and power still dominated Germany, as he still controlled policy and decision making rather than the Reichstag.

The Kaiser had the support from nationalist groups; no political party was prepared to challenge the power of the Monarchy as they feared they would be labeled unpatriotic by these nationalist groups. In fact many socialists were loyal to the Kaiser this meant that they were unwilling to argue for constitutional reforms. The loyalty of the socialists were shown as the right wing SPD leader Gustav Noske made a speech in which he expressed the loyalty of the socialists to the “fatherland”, this sense of patriotism was also felt by many other German Politicians. The fact that the Kaiser had the support from politicians and socialists secured an entrenched authoritarian state. After the Zabern affair the army gained more respect for the Kaiser and some saw him as a front for the elites, as the army was able to maintain its status and power after Zabern.

To conclude I believe that an entrenched authoritarian state was maintained by the Kaiser as there was no real threat to his power, because the weaknesses of the Reichstag were constantly being exposed. However the views of the public were still expressed through the Reichstag, and the Reichstag remained in control of budget and spending. Despite the rise in socialist demands, because of constituency boundaries no political party was prepared to challenge the power of the Kaiser as even socialists showed forms of loyalty towards the monarchy. The Kaiser was able to elect his own chancellors and he could use this power to elect someone who would sympathize with him in attempt to achieve self rule, and help him eliminate any challenges to the monarchy, such as Chancellor von Bulow did. 

In December 2011, the House of Representative in the Philippines filed an impeachment trial for Corona due to his ruling that is partially with the former President Gloria Arroyo. It was during Arroyo’s term that Corona was put in the position. The other case that was filed against him is not declaring is true asset as required if you are a public servant in the Philippines.

The grueling trial took 44 days. The judgment was voted by the members of the Senate of the Philippines. Twenty Senator voted Corona as guilty while 3 thinks he is not guilty.  Corona was convicted under Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment which is the non declaration of the Statement of Asset, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). With this Corona was removed as the Chief Justice of the Philippines.

Who will be the next Chief Justice? Who is illegible to be the next chief justice? What now? For the meantime, the Chief in Charge will be acting as the Chief Justice until they find a new one to replace Corona.

The civil war was a combination of many things, small steps that all piled up to unanticipated consequences. From each struggle of 1859-1861, each one was set out differently, presented with different challenges and permitted different solutions with different outcomes. To begin with slavery; it was a profound economic, political, religious and moral issue; the most profound problem that the nation had ever faced. However, it did not cause the civil war in a rational, predictable way. There was miscalculation, misunderstanding, it was confusing and the location was underestimated by both sides. They received incorrect images of the others in the Partisan Press. The political belief of each others’ economies, class relations, with both sides bluffing to the other. Slavery had become a bit on the obscured side by the time the fighting had begun. The white northerners weren’t fighting to end it, but Abraham Lincoln said, “Somehow it drove everything” (135, Ayers, Edward). There were even arguments that the slaves freed themselves, to enrich the story of the war, and to emphasize the growth of liberty. That would be one argument that would lose, it was not possible. It has to be up to the states and nation for all the slaves to be free, not the individual slaves themselves. There were the differences between the North and South that could contribute to the Civil War, their culture and beliefs and how they want to run their territory.

In the beginning it started out as the politics of slavery, but then later it had become very personal, about when the 36/30 came about, and then went back to politics, and so on. It had bounced back and forth from being about politics and then personal, but ended up on a personal note.

The social life is also “contingent”, implicated and unpredictable, because it all depends on one another. The public, private, economic; political, religious and secular; military and civilian lives are all very much connected. With social change, it can begin anytime, anywhere with the civil war being a great example of this. But Social change alone was not the cause either.  Another reason that has been argued of causing the war was modernity. The north was racing towards the twentieth century with banks, factories, railroads, etc. Therefore, it had been said that the southern states were at a standstill, stalled in time. This thought needs to be rethought, because in 1860, the south had become “modern” and was a pretty advanced society with machinery and trappings of modernity.

The political system itself had helped with the civil war. The assembly of the two parties over the first half of the nineteenth century had turned around binary choices. The party regulars had demanded of the loyalists it’s all or nothing, to be undecided and open to persuasion was to be less than a man. As the two party systems was strained and broke in the 1850’s, the American voters had felt driven divided by choices of the Republican or Democrat, Union or Confederacy. With The Missouri Compromise, Missouri wanted statehood and wants to be a slave state; this was in the late 1840’s. It was an extension to the pacific and it was the 36/30 parallel line, influenced by the slaveholders. Everything above was a free state and everything below was a slave state, Missouri being a slave state. But there were four major debates of the slave territories which are: the outright exclusion of no slave states in the western territory at all, Extension of the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific (36/30 a parallel), popular sovereignty-allowing the people of a territory to decide the issues and have the power to do what they want or not to do, and finally the protection of slaveholders(their right to own slaves) even if a few lived in the territory-property rights protection via the constitution. And it would upset the balance of the senate, but they figured it out with Maine being the free-state and Missouri being a slave-state. Therefore, Missouri was admitted as a slave state in 1821. This all concludes with an economic nationalism, the Westward Expansion and the Monroe Doctrine, the rise and decline of the Republicans and Sectionalism, but the Missouri Compromise remained in place until the 1850’s. Sectionalism also being a cause of the Civil War, the United States was divided between the North and the South.

The issue of slavery had become an issue of freedom on both sides from the 1840’s until 1861. Both leaders of North and South; had attempted to get to a solution to the problem of slavery in their territories. In which led to the four proposals I had just mentioned above. The politics of slavery had become very personal to everyone during this time, for example Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published. Her son had died 1849, the same year the Fugitive Slave Act had come about, in which galvanized Stowe so she could pour her grief and indignation into her novel about plantation slavery.  Her book was the top selling book of the time, selling three million copies.  It had convinced a lot of Northerners that slavery was wrong, but not enough to end it.

Slavery was an abstraction to most of the white northerners in this time. Stowe had made it an institution that did not just oppress blacks but also destroyed the families that debased the well-meaning of the Christian masters. She had grown up with evangelical and Protestant ministers and abolitionists-her father was Lyman Beecher. Slavery began to take a personal and tragic heart wrenching meaning for Stowe moved from being just political but to a moral issue and crusade. Slavery had become the center of politics in America, but it was slowly approaching the center of American life.

 In 1846, there was a Pennsylvania Congressman-David Wilmot who had modest proposal, to put slavery in the front and center of America as the most important American political issue. This issue would be put in place and strengthen over the next 15 years which would shake and rattle the worlds of Stowe and others, including the Union to their very core. Wilmot had offered an amendment to the appropriations bill for the Mexican War, in which is known as the Wilmot Proviso. It involved any acquisition of any territory from Mexico, had required a fundamental condition; the prohibition of extension of slavery into those particular territories. Although, it did not apply to Texas, because it had become a state before the war, in the Proviso Wilmot it linked freedom of the territories and the prohibition of slavery to the freedom of white people. He was trying to win votes in the free soil north and perhaps from the upper south. However, he ended up infuriating the slave power. It applies that the proximity of slavery was degrading and that white southerners were degraded people and unfit to join the American territories. It took at least fifty times for the bill to pass. The Proviso had shown sowed distrust and suspicion between the northerners and southerners, Congress had divided along sectional lines before, but it was much deeper and personal now.

During the election of 1848, both the Democrats and Whigs had wanted to avoid identification with either side of the Wilmot Proviso controversy, therefore selected the presidential candidates carefully and accordingly. The democrats nominated Lewis Cass a Michigan senator, whose public career went back as far as the War of 1812 and therefore, he understood the destructiveness that can be caused from the slavery issue-and the supported popular sovereignty. The Whigs were pretty quiet on the issue of slavery. They nominated Zachary Taylor, who was a war hero and not even a Whig or politician for that matter. He didn’t belong to any party and had never voted either. According to his background, some would say that he owned a hundred slave plantations in Louisiana and his deceased daughter was married to a proslavery senator-Jefferson Davis from Mississippi. His background had disturbed quite a few of the anti-slavery northern Whigs.

The Compromise of 1850, California applied for statehood, with a state constitution that had not made any provision for slavery; if Congress accepts California, it would be a free state. Admission of California would definitely tip the balance of power in the North and give the Free states the majority in the senate. On December 1849, Congress confronted the issue of California State, partisans on both sides promised it would be a long and bitter struggle. Because of the nine free-soil candidates had won seats in the House of Reps., and neither the Whigs nor the Democrats held the majority there. The Compromise debate had brought together three politicians: John C. Calhoun (died in two months), Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster. Calhoun had brought states rights to the foreground and claiming the compromise had not helped the south and they should veto the legislation. Daniel Webster supported the Compromise, and the Fugitive Slave Law which gave the southern slaveholders the right to go into the northern states and get slaves back. He claims he did not come as a Northern man from Massachusetts, but came as an American. He supported the Fugitive Slave Law, only because to preserve the Union. Eventually after a long debate, the compromise was rejected by the senate in the summer of 1850. Calhoun died that year in March, and Clay retired to recover from his poor health, but then died two years later. Webster was estranged from his fellow Whigs in the North and left the Senate and died a few months after Clay. Taylor dies and Millard Fillmore presumes presidency. Fillmore and Stephen Douglas an Illinois senator had passed the compromise. Douglas had wanted to pass it with Fillmore signing it. Douglas also had another proposal and it was the Railroad proposal that linked all of the United States; he had a trans-continental route that would link the east and west to the spread American democracy. The Senate had rejected the bill, although he did convince Pierce to remove the Indians from the Nebraska territory so Douglas plans on having a railroad run from Chicago and westward. The southerners had thought that this was another way for the northerners to increase their power and wealth, because it was at the northern line.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was Douglas’ which split Nebraska into two territories with both Kansas and Nebraska having the understanding that Kansas would become a slave state and Nebraska being a free state. But each territory would be a popular sovereignty, but it had allowed the southerners to bring slaves into the formerly closed territory, his bill was repealed by the Missouri Compromise, there would be a civil war in Kansas. The Northerners of all parties were outraged, after all slavery existed below the Missouri line and was free above. It had existed for 34 years as a basis for the sectional accord on slavery, but it was threatened and the northern leaders had charged south’s desire to spread slavery and expand it political power. Douglas who was an advocate for Popular Sovereignty and wanted to create two territories; however this was a bad idea. The significance of this was that it cancelled the Missouri Compromise out and the split between the North and South began. By 1854, Pierce had supported it and the Kansas-Nebraska Act was law. Some say if the Kansas-Nebraska Act did not happen the civil war might not have occurred. The South’s fear was that if the blacks became free, then they wondered who would be the inferior, lower class. Therefore, they did not want to end slavery at all, they wanted to protect their way of life and unite the Confederacy.

The Middle Class plays a role in the Civil War also. They were evangelcalists, uptight and upright morality. They think everyone should be church going folks, and they resided in the North. Slavery had become personal for them, because it was based on morality, more than politics for them. The Middle Class wanted to improve society, make it better, and improve the working class, through evangelicalism. They were like the 19th century missionaries, and benevolent. There were no Middle Class in the South, no benevolence either. There were only Yeomen farmers, plantation owners, and slaves, possibly a few white workers. The main issue for the Middle Class was to preserve the Union. The South wanted to preserve their way of life, although it varied throughout the South. Evangelicalism was a unity of whiteness, as the southern had stated it.  

            To understand this totally, it has to be thought of this way, the war as a conflict between a modern North and a pre- or anti-modern South. In this kind of fundamentalist interpretation it all fits together neatly. The economy, politics, religion, gender relations, literacy, and demography are all aligned along the opposing axes of modernity on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Supposedly, the North couldn’t help but fight for autonomy, technology, diversity, and progress, for what modernity demands. The South couldn’t help but fight for Hierarchy, agriculture, homogeneity, and the past for what modernity that is what has overcome. This differing degree of modernization is what is led us to war, it is left unexplained in ways, but it is self-evident to many people. It might be better to understand the modernity in the Civil War to think of the North and South of the simple difference between them, all the anger and debate that went into the war, had contained “modern” elements that would have not existed before the middle of the nineteenth century. There is no doubt that the North had embraced modernization with high literacy, rapidly growing towns and cities, early widespread adoption of industrial methods transportation and communication innovations and a strong dominance of political engagement by a broad electorate of white men. Yes, the slave South was moving slowly with fewer towns and factories and lower population density, but however, the white South had welcomed political parties, nationalism, political mobilization; it welcomed print and rapid change in ideas and the intimate connection to the cultural centers of Europe and the North. According to W.E.B. DuBouis, the southern slavery was downright cruel and costly, dirty, and inexcusable which nearly ruined the best democracy experiment that the world has probably ever seen. It created the prosperity for much of its white population, in which made them gain a sense of sophisticated means of communication, governance, a sense of belonging in and with the advanced and enlightenment of the Christian people. It made them be able to think for themselves with a destiny of their own. It also made the Confederacy build an enormous army out of nothing. Slavery gave the Confederacy its reason of existence; therefore it was not an accidental action of slavery emerging. There were two things of modernity that the North and South shared in common was print and popular politics. With the print, the people were able to voice their opinions, gripes, and loyalties beyond any boundary; to identify with the people they never met before, and to see themselves as abstract. Without papers, we might not have seen events that are decisive and would have passed on without a big consequence. However, with the papers’ it made people self-conscious and aware of whom they are who others said they were. The North and South had taken shape before getting their armies together; they were taking shape with words. It surely was not an accident that a sectional animosity had begun over railroads, telegraphs, and newspaper proliferated in the 1840’s and 1850’s.

The Civil War had been brought on by many people, constructing a chain of actions and reaction beyond any boundary of their own time and space; in many ways the people of the North and South in 1860 and 1861 had anticipated the war happening. President Pierce had hoped that Nationalism and expansion (manifest destiny) would unite the North and South, but it did not and ended up dividing them.

What caused the civil war? If you have to say just one word, then go ahead and say slavery, but the civil war DID NOT come from the existence of slavery alone, in a nation that was built on ideals of freedoms, or from the past and future caught in a death struggle, political events that occurred and crashed into society. Therefore, slavery was just a key catalytic event in a volatile mix of politics involving, the states, society, and each state wanting to do something different from the other, thinking they know what is best for their territory. The civil war was caused by all, states’ rights to be a slave state, politics of slavery, geography. Becoming independent, to succeed from the Union or not, to let the states’ govern themselves or not. It is all these things combined with everything that occurred through these events, the spread of democracy and a desire for political, economic and racial stability. To put it in short terms of the cause; it shouldn’t really be what caused the civil war? It should be more along the line of, the events that led up to the Civil War.

 The civil war is still very much alive in the south, especially the Deep South, slavery and the civil war still needs to be talked about; the reconstruction, the culture, and the wars of this century, and the freedom struggle and what about the future. Slavery may be gone, but it surely is not forgotten and there are still some among us that probably would own slaves today if they could. It needs to be talked about and somehow change it and/or make things better. Although, there will always be some kind of animosity among the Northerners and Southerners, but let’s hope that the Nation will not be divided again like during the Civil War era. Hopefully, the United States can and has learned from this war and will not let it happen it again. That is what our enemies are hoping and trying to do, they want us to turn on one another and rebel against the government.

This unique fountain has origins date back to ancient Roman times, when it served as the terminal point of the aqueduct Aqua Virgo – which. translates as Virgins Water, deriving from an old Roman legend, which states that a young maiden told a group of Roman soldiers about the source of the water.

They told Emperor Augustus. who immediately ordered an aqueduct be built – 22 kilometer long – specifically lead the water to his thermal baths, scenes from this legend dominating the the upper level of the fountain  in bas-relief. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the fountain fell into a ruinous state,  out of action for almost a 1,000 years, before Pope Nicholas V in 1453 ordered its restoration, after which the name was changed to  the Aqua Vergine aqueduct.

It was during this restoration that the Pope ensured the Roman custom of the endpoint of an aqueduct being a fountain was maintained, insisting that a small, simple basin be built as the terminal point. It was during the reign of Pope Urban VIII that the fountain was thought not dramatic enough, so that famous sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini was about to become involved when the Pope died and changes were put off.

Planning began again, 100 years later, for a new fountain on the site, under Roman architect Nicola Salvi. Inspired by the sketches left by Bernini, he took 30 years to finish the fountain before it stood completed in year 1762, becoming known then as the Trevi fountain, not only the  largest Baroque fountain in Rome, but highly regarded as the most beautiful one in the old city. 

Perhaps one of most striking features of this fountains is the fact that it stands a massive 25 m tall by 20 m wide, built in a small square that makes the size even more imposing to the onlooker. Theme of the fountain is both the taming of, and the power thundering water, tumbling over rocks and petrified vegetation, in what some call the greatest show you can ever look at it.  

Dominated by a several large statues, central to the fountain is the Roman god of the water and the seas, Neptune – also known as Poseidon in Greek mythology – standing in a large shell chariot, pulled by two sea horses, one of which is calm and submissive, the other is impatient and restless, symbolizing the fluctuating moods of the oceans.

The horses are guided by tritons, mermaid-like creatures forming the marine divinities escort of Greek mythology, adding add symbolic meaning to the fountain – the contrast in mood and poses – as well as providing symmetrical balance.

Any visitor will see lots of coins, stemming from the tradition of throwing a coin into the fountain to ensured a future return to Rome, one modern slice of folklore saying that throwing two coins into the water leads to new romance, while three ensure either marriage or divorce. Sources estimate that 3,000 coins get thrown in daily, collected each morning and donated to charity. The Trevi Fountain is much more than just a fountain – a fantastic work of baroque art, regarded as a true jewel of water and stone, and a hugely popular tourist destination.

Old English, influenced by the North Germanic language Old Norse, is an early form of the English language and was spoken and written by the Anglo-Saxons (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes). The language was a Western Germanic language and was brought to Britain, who at the time spoke Celtic, by Germanic invaders from parts of Germany and Netherlands and started off as a diverse group of dialects. The English language of today was travelled through multiple stages including Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English and Modern English. Approximately 600 years after Old English, the Middle English period started when William the conqueror invaded and conquered England. With him came the French language which later became the language of the Royal Court. The language was then divided by the ‘upper class’ speaking French and the ‘lower class’ speaking English. By the Early Modern English times the language spoken had returned to English but had many French words incorporated into the language.

Towards the end of Middle English, there was a change in the pronunciation of vowels were the vowels started being pronounced shorter and shorter. It was later named the Great Vowel Shift. During this period, the invention of printing meant that people were able to store and read the words in the English language. The first dictionary was then developed. Early Modern English also brought the birth of the ‘Shakespearean’ language of when Shakespeare was born which revolutionised the English language. The final stage in the history of the English language was the Modern English period. The main difference between Early modern and Modern English is the vocabulary due to new technology and objects arising in the modern times. Modern English is the language that we currently speak.

Throughout the history of the English language there were a number of changes made to the phonetics and phonology of the language. A major change was the Great Vowel Shift which happened in the early 1500’s. This included nearly all the vowels in the English language changing. A major phonological change would be the dialects spoken by the foreign languages and the words borrowed from them pronounced in an English way. Other changes were made in the history of the English language which includes Morphological changes and lexical changes. Compounding, Affixation, Conversion, Backformation and Borrowing are just some of the many major morphological processes used for creating new words in the English language. As a natural way of life, many people make up words, some of which eventually end up in the dictionary depending on the popularity and use of the word. This is how the lexicon of the modern English language is able to continue to expand.
The syntax of the English language has greatly changed and it can be observed throughout the sub systems of Old English to Modern English. Not only do words change but also the ways in which the words combine to form sentences change. This brought out the use of Analogies which is a process where a conclusion is reached based on a similar case. A lot of which are seen as ‘sayings’ from olden times which can relate to many modern circumstances.  Other situations arose from Old English times where there was a much larger variety of inflections to indicate the plural of a noun in which we are still following these rules today. The main reason for a change in syntax was because of the mixing of Old Norse with Old English as Old English was slowly dying out after being invaded by the Vikings.

The English language has gone through many changes, some seen as good and others seen as pointless, but without these changes the language wouldn’t be what it is today. After many years of borrowing and creating new words, the lexicon of the English language has greatly expanded and has a very large storehouse of words (with the help of deriving words from multiple languages). Its relationship with foreign countries and vast historical events gave the language a diverse set of words that have come straight from a foreign language. All in all, the English language has come a long way, through the many different periods, and will never stop to continue creating new words.

English: (Photo credit: Wikipedia)