This document contains a student's response to an exam question about the causes of the American Civil War. The student argues that while slavery was a key issue, the war was not inevitable and could have been avoided through more patience and compromise between the North and South. The three main factors that led to the Union's victory were 1) General Robert E. Lee did not fully support the Confederate cause, 2) the emancipation of slaves damaged Southern morale and vision, and 3) the North had greater numbers and resources than the South.
Democracy is good for Syria, but NOT for Bahrain Moslem PressMoslem Press
With Syria key questions are avoided like the plague! How for instance did these ‘rebels’ appear out of nowhere, on cue, to begin destabilizing President Assad government? Murmurings of discontent mainly among younger generations due perhaps to the internet, that people were being sold short were relatively prevalent but nothing for President Assad to seriously worry about. All of a sudden there was mayhem! Syria went from relative calm to unbridled chaos in a heartbeat! Well there’s a world of difference between murmurings of discontent & a fully blown out Civil War! Yet such disapproval of autocratic rule had been far more widespread in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar & Bahrain. For years Human Rights Agencies have poured scorn over serious violations occurring in these countries yet the media never bothers to mention them!
Virginia's Attitude Towards Slavery and SecessionChuck Thompson
Virginia's Attitude Towards Slavery and Secession. History up to the time of the American Civil war and how Virginian's felt about all the aspects surrounding the issues of the day. Gloucester, Virginia Links and News website. Liberty Education Series. Visit us for amazing content.
George W. Bush’s credibility has more holes it than one of Dick Cheney’s hunting partners. In 2009, following eight years of misrule, the axis-of incompetence finally vacated the White House; the world breathed a sigh of relief. Today, the Bush administration’s reputation may be worth less than a share of Enron’s stock selling on E-bay, but there are still some apologists who insist that the decisions Bush made in office will be vindicated by posterity. However, Bush vs. History makes a virtually irrefutable case showing why George W. Bush is destined to join the ranks of James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding in the cellar of presidential ignominy.
To date, Bush has managed to escape the legal and moral reckoning for his lawless and criminally negligent tenure. However, the verdict of history is one thing Bush will not be able to evade. Bush vs. History pieces together essays, op-ed style articles, book and film reviews, and political humor organized around a central theme: showing how and why Bush failed the test of presidential leadership. Themes explored include: Bush and the Art of Leadership, Bush and Language, Bush’s Faith-Based Foreign Policy, Bush Economics, Bush and the Art of War, Bush and Torture, and Why the Right is Wrong for America.
In 2000, James Baker III, Bush family consigliore, and one of the finest sophists in our nation’s history, led an effort that eventually convinced the conservative majority on the U.S Supreme Court to effectively overturn the will of the electorate. Baker’s rhetorical skills were so beguiling that he probably could have used them to sell one-way tickets aboard a Russian submarine. However, it is now abundantly clear that those who engineered Bush’s victory in the infamous Bush vs. Gore decision helped steer this country towards disaster. Today, it is doubtful that even James Baker could salvage Bush’s reputation. Bush vs. Gore was a watershed in American history. For everyone who was outraged by Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. History delivers what the aforementioned case failed to do; a measure of poetic justice.
This English 102 assignment prompted us to identify a poet's influences and determine if the poet had an impact. The presumption was an impact upon literature. Amazingly enough, I never looked at Cummings in any depth prior to this paper. In fact, I don't even recall ever reading any of his poems prior to researching this paper.
I had some trouble with this paper early on. The prompt mentioned that we should not give a "report" on the poet. To me that meant we should not give much attention to the poet's biography. Well, the paper I was writing gave way too much detail to Cummings' time in France, Russia, his childhood, and his affair with Elaine Orr. Setting the paper aside for a week then looking at the prompt again, I discovered my "feeling" was 100% accurate. The end result of the rewrite is what you see here.
The requirement for this English 102 paper was that it be a comparison/contrast using three different literary elements. I had the instructor take a look at it before I inserted the citations & added the bibliography. He told me as far as he was concerned it was an A paper.
I've made corrections Dr. Magee asked me to make. Couple of comma splices, run-ons, minor stuff. Mostly stylistic issues. Make no mistake - there were very few errors in this paper.
The big deal?
This paper will be used in the future as a model paper.
It was not meant to be a thoroughly supported essay. Instead, Dr. Magee wanted us to have a base essay upon which we could build. Basically all I should have to do to turn this into a thoroughly supported essay is to now add some outside source support.
I've already got that support lined up. I will have to change some things to make it fit. Sources for the subject of this essay are RAMPANT. If you really want to impress a professor in a Lit, History, or Poli-Sci class, I highly recommend you do what I did here - go against the grain.
There's some powerful counter-evidence to my thesis in this essay. As you will see in the paper that follows up to this one, I take that counter-evidence head on. In fact, that's the only reason the paper is not yet finished - I may be coming on too strongly against the opposing view.
I'll be talking to Dr. Magee tomorrow night to get his opinion. I have a feeling he's going to tell me to throw it all out there. I hope so because I take issue with some fairly established experts.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But right now? This paper not only scored an A, it will be used as a sample of an ideal paper in the future.
This is the second time since late January a professor has sought to use my work as an example to other students.
To have a professor want your work as an example only once is rare. Twice?? Better yet, the two professors are from two different divisions!
That's not only strong writing and research - that's flexibility!
Democracy is good for Syria, but NOT for Bahrain Moslem PressMoslem Press
With Syria key questions are avoided like the plague! How for instance did these ‘rebels’ appear out of nowhere, on cue, to begin destabilizing President Assad government? Murmurings of discontent mainly among younger generations due perhaps to the internet, that people were being sold short were relatively prevalent but nothing for President Assad to seriously worry about. All of a sudden there was mayhem! Syria went from relative calm to unbridled chaos in a heartbeat! Well there’s a world of difference between murmurings of discontent & a fully blown out Civil War! Yet such disapproval of autocratic rule had been far more widespread in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar & Bahrain. For years Human Rights Agencies have poured scorn over serious violations occurring in these countries yet the media never bothers to mention them!
Virginia's Attitude Towards Slavery and SecessionChuck Thompson
Virginia's Attitude Towards Slavery and Secession. History up to the time of the American Civil war and how Virginian's felt about all the aspects surrounding the issues of the day. Gloucester, Virginia Links and News website. Liberty Education Series. Visit us for amazing content.
George W. Bush’s credibility has more holes it than one of Dick Cheney’s hunting partners. In 2009, following eight years of misrule, the axis-of incompetence finally vacated the White House; the world breathed a sigh of relief. Today, the Bush administration’s reputation may be worth less than a share of Enron’s stock selling on E-bay, but there are still some apologists who insist that the decisions Bush made in office will be vindicated by posterity. However, Bush vs. History makes a virtually irrefutable case showing why George W. Bush is destined to join the ranks of James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Herbert Hoover, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding in the cellar of presidential ignominy.
To date, Bush has managed to escape the legal and moral reckoning for his lawless and criminally negligent tenure. However, the verdict of history is one thing Bush will not be able to evade. Bush vs. History pieces together essays, op-ed style articles, book and film reviews, and political humor organized around a central theme: showing how and why Bush failed the test of presidential leadership. Themes explored include: Bush and the Art of Leadership, Bush and Language, Bush’s Faith-Based Foreign Policy, Bush Economics, Bush and the Art of War, Bush and Torture, and Why the Right is Wrong for America.
In 2000, James Baker III, Bush family consigliore, and one of the finest sophists in our nation’s history, led an effort that eventually convinced the conservative majority on the U.S Supreme Court to effectively overturn the will of the electorate. Baker’s rhetorical skills were so beguiling that he probably could have used them to sell one-way tickets aboard a Russian submarine. However, it is now abundantly clear that those who engineered Bush’s victory in the infamous Bush vs. Gore decision helped steer this country towards disaster. Today, it is doubtful that even James Baker could salvage Bush’s reputation. Bush vs. Gore was a watershed in American history. For everyone who was outraged by Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. History delivers what the aforementioned case failed to do; a measure of poetic justice.
This English 102 assignment prompted us to identify a poet's influences and determine if the poet had an impact. The presumption was an impact upon literature. Amazingly enough, I never looked at Cummings in any depth prior to this paper. In fact, I don't even recall ever reading any of his poems prior to researching this paper.
I had some trouble with this paper early on. The prompt mentioned that we should not give a "report" on the poet. To me that meant we should not give much attention to the poet's biography. Well, the paper I was writing gave way too much detail to Cummings' time in France, Russia, his childhood, and his affair with Elaine Orr. Setting the paper aside for a week then looking at the prompt again, I discovered my "feeling" was 100% accurate. The end result of the rewrite is what you see here.
The requirement for this English 102 paper was that it be a comparison/contrast using three different literary elements. I had the instructor take a look at it before I inserted the citations & added the bibliography. He told me as far as he was concerned it was an A paper.
I've made corrections Dr. Magee asked me to make. Couple of comma splices, run-ons, minor stuff. Mostly stylistic issues. Make no mistake - there were very few errors in this paper.
The big deal?
This paper will be used in the future as a model paper.
It was not meant to be a thoroughly supported essay. Instead, Dr. Magee wanted us to have a base essay upon which we could build. Basically all I should have to do to turn this into a thoroughly supported essay is to now add some outside source support.
I've already got that support lined up. I will have to change some things to make it fit. Sources for the subject of this essay are RAMPANT. If you really want to impress a professor in a Lit, History, or Poli-Sci class, I highly recommend you do what I did here - go against the grain.
There's some powerful counter-evidence to my thesis in this essay. As you will see in the paper that follows up to this one, I take that counter-evidence head on. In fact, that's the only reason the paper is not yet finished - I may be coming on too strongly against the opposing view.
I'll be talking to Dr. Magee tomorrow night to get his opinion. I have a feeling he's going to tell me to throw it all out there. I hope so because I take issue with some fairly established experts.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
But right now? This paper not only scored an A, it will be used as a sample of an ideal paper in the future.
This is the second time since late January a professor has sought to use my work as an example to other students.
To have a professor want your work as an example only once is rare. Twice?? Better yet, the two professors are from two different divisions!
That's not only strong writing and research - that's flexibility!
What we are not considering opposing views final v3Louis Wischnewsky
I uploaded a final draft of this last night after I finished it. However, I woke up early enough this morning to look over the paper once more and I'm glad I did - I found some minor errors that I fixed. So here is the final copy that I will be turning in. This is the last written paper for my English 100 class this semester. I think it turned out pretty good. Just prior to peer review of rough drafts two days ago, classmates felt this was a tough assignment but the rough drafts I looked at were pretty good. We'll see. I'm sure it'll get a perfect score.
This was the first essay I turned in for the semester in my English 100 class. There are numerous errors regarding citations - but there is ZERO plagiarism! I thought about cleaning it up and maybe some day I will, but I left it like this to show my progression throughout the semester.
This is the fourth essay for my English 100 class. It is due today & this is the final draft that I'm going to turn in. Not my greatest writing, but it should meet all the criteria.
I have no idea why I uploaded this. I'm sure there was some reason for it back when I loaded it. If I'm not mistaken, this was the bibliography for the informative speech that included the slide presentation "The Visual Aid."
Anyone in a Speech course, here's a copy of an A+ speech. It is in outline form, yes. The instructor, Matt Taylor (as you can see), did not allow "written" speeches. We had to memorize the outline of our speeches - an only the outline. We were not allowed index cards or any aids whatsoever that would help us "recite" our speeches. If you're attending Fullerton College, I recommend this guy as an instructor. He's tough but it's worth it. BTW - he's a self-described "flaming liberal" and, as you see by this speech, I'm not ... yet, I still think he is a great professor. Anyway, I used a lot of rhetoric in this speech. I use a lot of rhetoric in everything. I can't help it. I can't stay focused if speeches or papers are dry.
This document should accompany the slide show "vivien thomas ppt". The group project entailed giving a biography of someone that used the Relational Leadership theory, knowingly or unknowingly, in accomplishing their goals. This theory of leadership & teamwork did not exist during Thomas' time, but it is very possible his relationship with Alfred Blalock may have been among the many studied to develop the theory.
There is a document that accompanies this slide show. This was part of a Read 142 group project. The presentation was a parody, not any actual comments or opinions on Laura Wells.
There is a document on this site that accompanies this presentation. It was a group presentation for a Counseling 135 course (on leadership). I've made it an effort to keep my page discrete but it looks as if there have been over 100 views of this power point. To anyone that is curious, I was born a "blue baby." The reason Denton Cooley's picture is in the presentation is because he was the surgeon that originally did corrective surgery on me when I was VERY young.
This is the same as "The Visual Aid." One of the speeches assigned in Speech 100 class required the use of "at least one" visual aid. Thankfully I had discussed the component of the speech with the instructor prior to the speech and was told it was worth 5 points and, in fact, if a speech was good enough, he would not count off if the speech lacked a visual aid. I ended up with an A+ on the speech because I used this single slide at the conclusion of the speech. There's more in the description of "The Visual Aid."
Continuing from "Informative speech microsoft version," other students had placed too much emphasis on visual aids for the speech and suffered as a result. In any case, the giant shopping cart was a reference to story about a rich guy fixing shopping carts in a cart kiosk in a grocery store parking lot. I referenced the story during transitions in the speech. To make the speech memorable, I used this single slide (hence, "THE" visual aid). The point the instructor was making was that visual aids should enhance your speech to make it memorable whereas many speakers rely upon visual aids as reminders during speeches ... creates less than memorable speeches (Sadly, an example of someone relying too much on aids is President Obama).
1. Louis Wischnewsky
History 170
Prof Farrington
20 Jul 11
Final Exam Extra Credit: Question Four
The road to the Civil War is as clear as the road to the American Revolution. After
Monroe, the rhetoric between anti- and pro-slavery groups steadily grew more and more harsh.
While there is no doubt that the Civil War would not have happened were it not for the issue of
slavery, there were many other factors at play. Virtually all of them involved political jockeying
for power instead of rationally seeking solutions, a problem that perplexes this nation over a
century later.
Somehow or another, as fate would have it, we had thirteen states considered free and
thirteen that practiced slavery. This divided the Senate, more than anything, evenly and made
sure no laws would be passed that supported one side more than the other. That is what made the
issue of territorial expansion a very touchy subject. Any states added to the Union in the North
would surely shift the senatorial power to the anti-slavery movement. Any states added to the
South would have the exact opposite affect. It is probably safe to say that all Americans, both
Northerners and Southerners bought into the concept of Manifest Destiny hook, line and sinker.
As a result no one wanted to pass up on territorial expansion … so long as it was an expansion in
the North if you were a Northerner and in the South if you were a Southerner. There is no
unambiguous evidence that can support the claim that Southerners wanted to expand slavery
itself, even into the new territories. Southerners wanted Texas in the union and, hopefully, a
couple other states strictly as a form of insurance that slavery would not be forced to end in the
current states that allowed slavery. After all, there is no rational way pro-slavery people could
2. 2
have hoped to vastly expand the use of slaves: where would those slaves have come from? The
slaves would have been taken to the new states from states that already contained slaves meaning
that current slave states would have lost representative power in the House. The exchange would
have been a growth in representation in the Senate. The Senate could not make new laws
promoting slavery, but the Senate could surely shut down any Congressional attempts to end
slavery. So the South was looking at expansion as a way to preserve itself while the North was
looking at expansion as a way to overpower the South.
In any case, industrialism might have aided in removing a need for slaves in the North,
but that same industrialization created a greater need for slavery in the South. It can be argued
that up to the invention of the cotton gin even Southerners were having their doubts about
slavery. The Second Great Awakening was no less noticed in the South than it was in the North
and this is evidenced in two ways. First, the Second Great Awakening (SGA) caused Northerners
to renew their calls for an end to slavery, but second, the SGA also caught on heavily in the
South, even today known as the Bible Belt. So slavery was doomed to end in the South just as it
was ending everywhere else. What, then, caused the South to dig in its heels and resist the
North? A weird bias toward Southerners exists to this very day through which Southerners are
considered uneducated and hateful. Really? Well, ask the rest of the world why they do not like
the United States and guess what they have to say? No one likes to be called stupid and hateful.
Had the North been as enlightened as many of its leaders claimed to be the North might have
demonstrated a little more patience and worked with Southerners to find a way to replace the
cotton-picking labor it needed.
Thus, considering the animosity that was growing between the two regions, the moral
convictions of one side and the basic instinct to survive on the other, the Civil War was not
inevitable. Could it have been avoided? Absolutely. But it was not and that's all that matters. This
3. 3
shifts the discussion to what lead to Union victory. There are three things that lead to Union
victory. The greatest of those factors, considering some of Lee's actions late in the war, was that
Lee did not believe in the cause to begin with. It will be debated to the end of days, but it is easy
to argue that Lee went North for no other reason but to bring the war to an end. There is no
logical way a man as brilliant as Lee would have ever believed that entering the North would
turn the tide back to the favor of the South. Some might argue that Lee might have hoped the
move would have caused Lincoln or Grant to call all the Union troops back to defend the capital,
but that is a fantasy. Lee knew he was outnumbered the whole war. He knew there was no need
for Union troops in the North. He could have captured the capital, sure, but even that would not
have assured him of capturing Lincoln and without Lincoln there would be no surrender.
Capturing the capital, too, would have enormously angered the Northerners rallying them to an
even greater zeal to defeat the South. Lee knew that. There can be no doubt about it. So the
greatest factor in Union victory was that Lee was finished, mainly because he did not believe in
the cause to begin with.
The second greatest influence on the South's loss was the slaves just up and leaving their
plantations. Everyone argues that this caused confusion and a lack of income to the South, there
was a larger factor. The South already knew that slavery was ending elsewhere in the world.
They might have tried to resume the practice of importing Africans, but that is doubtful for two
reasons. First, the South was seeking aid from England. That makes the second reason important:
England had already abolished slavery. With a superpower that did not allow slavery backing
them, the South had to know they would not be allowed to import more slaves. Now go back to
the slaves walking off plantations. When that started happening, the morale of the South was
obliviated. It was obliviated because the writing was on the wall: even if they won independence,
their way of life would no longer exist. Why? Because they would have no slaves to rebuild their
4. 4
new nation with and there would be no way to get more. So with slaves walking away in even
greater volumes after the Emancipation Proclamation, the South no longer had a vision of its
future.
Finally, the third factor. The third factor was purely the numbers. With the one man that
could pull off a military victory no longer into the fight, without the means to be an
economically viable nation, the sheer numbers made victory impossible. The inability to feed
itself, a larger population base in the North, no manufacturing to replenish materiel, the war was
now an effort in futility.
Maybe it could be argued that the North was aching for a fight with the South. If that
were true, then the events leading up to the Civil War should have made it obvious that a revolt
was inevitable. However, there is no evidence that supports a hankering for a fight within the
North. In fact, there's one clear clue the opposite was true: the North knew the South was
building an army yet the North did nothing to prepare to counter that army. In any case, while
some might point to the specif events leading up to the Civil War as proof that war was
inevitable, getting into the minds of both Northerners and Southerners reveals that there were
ways to avoid the war and, by definition, that made it a war that could have been averted.
Nonetheless, a decision came to blows and once the fighting started, there might have been three
factors playing against the South, but most critical was an admired General Lee that was not all
that into the war to begin with and the removal of a reason to continue fighting, the emancipation
of the Southern slaves. The sheer numbers were a factor, but not one as critical as those two.
In closing, the Embargo Act, the Compromise of 1820, the Missouri Compromise, the
Kansa-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott, Western expansion – all of those things could have been
discussed in this response. To do so, however, continues the legacy of what truly caused the Civil
War and continues to divide this nation over 150 years later: Northern bias and dislike of the
5. 5
South. A lot has changed in those 150 plus years. While the South still clings to its heroes, the
economic might of the nation is no longer so vastly imbalanced and certainly industrial
advantages go to the South today. In considering the Reconstruction and the years between Civil
War and the Civil Rights Movement, there has been that lingering question of whether or not the
war had been fought in vain. As passionate arguments about modern issues grow in intensity,
now is the time more than ever to ask that question. The answer is that if Americans have to
continue defending their way of life in one region or another instead of finding amicable
solutions may not bode well for America's future.