The Killer Angels Essays (1374 words) - , Term Papers

The Killer Angels Wars have been fought for many different reasons through the years, and that holds true for the American Civil War (1861-1865). In Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, The Killer Angels, the reasons for fighting the war are brought about through the officers and soldiers at a famous battle site of the Civil War, Gettysburg. Gettysburg was one of the most documented battles of the whole war. It took place over a span of three days and can be viewed as a turning point from Confederate prominence to Confederate demise. As in any conflict, there are two sides to the story. The Union and the Confederacy each had their own views as to why they were fighting the war. Victors write the history so too often only the Union side is presented. In the book we are presented with some of both veiwpoints. The propaganda pitch the Union gave was they were fighting to free the slaves. This was not true! It was said Southerners were fighting to preserve slavery. This is also a false statement. Roughly less than 6% of all Southerners owned slaves. In fact, there were a substantial amount of generals in the Union army that owned slaves themselves. In addition the constitution protected slavery. If the true issue was to maintain slavery the South would not have seceded. The most obvious myth is that the ?good? North marched into the cruel and evil South for the sole purpose of freeing the slaves. There are many quotes from Northern leaders that show clearly that the main purpose of the North was not the eradication of slavery, but subjugation of the southern people. Slavery was used to rally the Northern population behind Abraham Lincoln's war. It was an emotional issue, sure some Yankees joined and fought to ?set men free?, but most were there to preserve the union. Preserving the Union me ant stepping on the Southern people and keeping them as a tax base to feed Northern industrialists. An interesting conflict of Northern morals is discovered. The North is portrayed as wanting to set black men free, but they practiced economic slavery on the Southern states. The Civil War was really more politically complex with regards to Abraham Lincoln and his Republican party's actions. The South fought this war as the Second American Revolution. The cause of the South was equated to that of their forefathers who had fought and won their freedom from Great Britain less than 100 years earlier. If it was a war to set men free, it was the Southern farm boy that wanted his freedoms guaranteed under the original constitution. The Northern states' politicians were aggressively attempting to implement a monarchial form of government, which was precisely what the early colonists had fought against in the American Revolution. The Northern states were taking advantage of their superior numbers in the federal government and were using their advantage to implement unfair tariffs against the South. Enormous amounts of money were taken from the South and funneled into the Northern states. Most of the revenue taken from the Southern states was used to run government programs. This brought about the argument of ?State's Rights? and a weaker central government by the South. The main cause of the war was Lincoln's rejection of the right to peaceable secession of the eleven sovereign states and subsequently the denial of self-government to the nearly 8 million people living in those states. The Federal government needed the income from the South so they were forced into fighting to save the tax coming from the South. Without consulting Congress, Lincoln sent great armies of destruction to the South. The Southern people had no choice but to defend themselves from this invasion. The South fought, simply, for their independence, as the United States federal government of the Northern states refused to allow the South to leave peacefully. The men of the South did not fight to win their freedom, they fought to keep it! To quote from the Declaration of Independence: ?... that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation

Chief Joseph essays

Chief Joseph essays The person that I did my first quarter project on was Chief Joseph. Chief Joseph was born in 1840 in the Wallowa Valley (the Wallowa Valley is now northeastern Oregon). He was born into the tribe of the Nez Perce. The name that the tribe gave him was Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt, the translation is Thunder Rolling Down the Mountain. He was also known as Joseph the younger because, Joseph was the name his father had taken Joseph the Elder (Josephs father) was the first Nez Perce to convert to Christianity. He also tried hard to keep peace between the tribe and the whites. In 1855 Josephs father helped Washingtons territorial governor set up a reservation for the Nez Perce, which ran from Oregon into Idaho. Only eight years later there was a gold rush in the Nez Perce territory. The government took back a lot of their land and they were left with only one-tenth of the land they had received. Josephs father was angry and destroyed his American flag and Bible, he then refused to move his tribe form the Wallowa valley or sign the treaty that would make the new reservation boundaries official. Eight years later Josephs father died leaving Joseph in charge. Joseph was left with his fathers name and the same problem. Whites kept coming to Wallowa Valley. Joseph kept fighting for his land and it looked like he would be able to keep it when in 1873 a federal order was written to move all white setters out of Wallowa Valley. But soon after, in 1877 General Oliver Otis Howard threatened to attack Josephs tribe if they didnt leave for another reservation in Idaho. Joseph did not want to fight the army so he started to lead his people to Idaho. But before they left, twenty Nez Perce warriors killed several nearby white settlers because they were angry about loosing their land. After that the U.S army went looking for Josephs tribe and find the ones ...

Canthaxanthin in salmon (additive) Research Paper

Canthaxanthin in salmon (additive) - Research Paper Example The food coloring has had a fair share of controversy. To some of the people the coloring material is not warranted since it makes the feeds assume an artificial outlook. The approval of the food has been made such that it can be both added to the foods taken by the animals as well as the rest of the foods that people take. The oral intake of the additive leads to the deposition of the chemical in the liver and the skin of the salmon and other animals that take the feeds made from the additive. However, even if the deposition of the additive takes place in the tissues mentioned above, it is practical to consider the flesh of the organisms as another potential area for the deposition of the material. The additive is a major component of the residues that are present in the target tissues of the salmon. This is a residue of concern, and the rest of the residues are not important (Ricardo-Campbell, 1974). The approach used in the testing of the residues is the focus on the Trans isomer of the component. The scientific committee of food in the European Union made an assessment on the effects of Canthaxanthin in 1983, 1989 and 1990. The committee continued to make recommendations for the reduction of the quantities in the foods that come from animals that take the feeds that have products. The scientific committee on food concluded in 1997 that the lowest level that the additive could be allowed in animal feeds ought to result in effects lower than 0.25mg/kg bw/ day (Ruse & Castle, 2002). However, the recommendations were made with the view that the chances were not pathologically significant. The levels were also not indicative of the damage that they would have on the human retina functionality. However, the proposals were made in consideration of the safety levels that society would have to attain. The test was conducted in