History

What was the Cold War? How did the United States respond?

Among people who lived in the second half of the twentieth century, a word-combination “cold war” is strongly associated with the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union after the Second World War. At that time, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a serious competitor, as it had a well-known authority on the international scene and the status of one of the most powerful superstates in the world. Instead of developing good cooperation between the winner countries, they constantly expressed mutual distrust. It led to the beginning of the Cold War, “a contest for supremacy” between the Soviet Union and the United States (Harper 1). The investigation and analysis of the nature and lessons of the Cold War are very important, as they can help to avoid the repetition of similar destructive events.

The term “Cold War” was introduced by Winston Churchill during his public appearance in the United States in 1946. In his speech, he stated that Europe appeared to be divided by the Iron Curtain and called on Western civilization to proclaim the war on communism. In fact, the conflict between two systems and ideologies started earlier, in 1917, but took the shape of a deliberate confrontation after the Second World War.

The global geopolitical, military, economic and ideological confrontation between the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc lasted up to 1991. The main opponents, the USA and the USSR did not unleash official military fighting. However, they took participation in the conflicts and interfered in the course of events in many parts of the world. Two superpowers put much effort into gaining dominance in the political sphere. The United States and the Soviet Union created their spheres of influence, which led to the creation of NATO and The Warsaw Treaty Organization. The rivalry between two blocks resulted in the outbursts of local armed conflicts in the countries of the Third World.

The Cold War was accompanied by the nuclear arms race and the development of intercontinental missiles (Suri par. 3). These processes had a potential risk of provoking the Third World War. The Cuban Missile Crisis was one of the most critical events, as it almost led to the beginning of a nuclear war in 1962. The end of the confrontation was related to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Communistic governments in the countries of Western Europe lost their control even earlier, in 1989-1990 years. The causes of the end of the Cold War are still the theme of debates in the study of international politics (Haas 145).

The United States had to oppose the ambition of the USSR to occupy a superior position on the international scene. After the attempts of the USSR to put pressure on Turkey and Greece, the Truman Doctrine proclaimed its support to these countries. The USA stated that its policy is “opposed to the expansion of communism anywhere in the world” (“Cold War” par. 17). When the Soviet Union tried to blockade Western Berlin, the United States responded with the airlift of food and medicines to the citizens of that part of the city.

After South Korea had been invaded by the North with the support of the USSR, the USA responded with intervention in the Korean War. When the Soviet Union initiated the programs aimed at the quick development of its nuclear potential, the US responded by investing in the development of superior nuclear arms. When the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, the CIA put much effort into establishing an anti-communist movement there.

Besides direct intervention to the conflicts, the government of the United States took action to promote civil rights inside the country and treated it as a part of the Cold War policymaking (Dudziak 15). The response of the United States to numerous events related to the aggression of the Soviet Union, directed on gaining political superiority, was forceful and resulted in the victory. During the Cold War, the United States lost nearly 400.000 people. In 2007, the Cold War Service Medal was instituted for the people who served in the armed forces and offices of state during the period from 1945 until 1991.

There are numerous lessons needed to be learned by the world based on the results of the Cold War. Joseph Nye stated that the understanding of the fact that bloodshed can and should be avoided in regulating global and local conflicts is one of the main lessons of the Cold War (Nye 85).

Nye also pointed to the fact that military power had no critical importance for the result of the confrontation (Nye 87). The economic strength of the state and the ability of the economic system to adjust to the needs of the modern world are of the greatest importance. The use of soft power also plays an essential role. The USSR and the communistic ideas had a great potential after the rout of Nazism, but this potential was lost after events in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and further usage of military power. The whole world community and every country separately should remember these lessons to avoid the possibility of the development of the scenario similar to the events of the Cold War.

Works Cited

Cold War. n.d. Web.

Dudziak, Mary. Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print.

Haas, Mark. “The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reactions to Shifts in Soviet Power, Policies, or Domestic Politics?” International Organization 61.1 (2007): 145-179. Print.

Harper, John Lamberton. The Cold War, Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.

Nye, Joseph. “Lessons of the Cold War for the Modern World.” From Fulton to Malta: How the Cold War Began and Ended: Proceeding of a Conference Held 1 March 2006 at The Gorbachev Foundation Building. Moscow: The Gorbachov Foundation, 2008. 85-90. Print.

Suri, Jeremy. The World that Superpowers Made. 2006. Web.

Introduction

The Victorian era refers to a period in Great Britain under the rule of Queen Victoria. This period was between 1837 and 1901. There are endless debates regarding the place of women in this society (Broadview Press 96; Thomas 1-3). These debates not only outline the origin of discussions about gender equality in modern society, but also highlight what Victorian men and women talked about regarding the nature of marriage, the structure of the family and the characteristics of feminism during their time (Beeton 1-10). Indeed, in a nation ruled by a queen who openly advocated for the education of women, but not women’s suffrage, gender roles were ambiguous and the blurred lines between masculinity and feminism often overlapped (Demir 2146). This paper attempts to bring more clarity to this debate by demonstrating that the role of women in the Victorian age was mostly limited to their sexuality, domestic life, and education.

Domestic Life/Marriage/Divorce

Women in the Victorian society had no legal rights to property or personal wealth. Their fathers and husbands exercised these rights on their behalf. Married women relinquished these rights to their husbands despite earning an income during the industrial period. Consequently, the society viewed them as their husbands’ property. Stated differently, men owned all the “benefits” that came from women’s bodies, including sex, children, and labor (Beeton 1-10). Servitude to men was a key hallmark of the gender roles of the Victorian woman. She was a homemaker and a devotee of the family life. Besides being sympathetic and unselfish, the Victorian woman also sacrificed herself to be her husband’s best friend.

Particularly, the society did not allow her to compete with her husband, or even strive for the same goals as her husband would; instead, she was supposed to be submissive and help her spouse fulfill his goals (Malheiro 1). Therefore, the woman’s primary responsibility was to take care of the children and run the household in a way that would provide the husband with tranquility when he came home. Her innocence and purity were her main trading values for this kind of relationship to be meaningful to herself and to her husband (Beeton 1-10). Some of these roles stemmed from religious teachings surrounding how men and women should relate. Based on the same religious principles, the society considered women the bearers of the society’s moral and religious teachings (Njoh 88-90). Although these principles partly empowered them, they also restricted them in the context of what they could do, or not do.

The Victorian society also held the belief that a woman was legally incompetent and irresponsible to enter into any legally binding contract. In this regard, women were not entitled to any legal recourse in any matter that pertained to their legal standing in the society (Njoh 88). The exception to this rule was in relation to legal matters entered to by a woman, but with her husband’s consent. Based on this understanding, many historians agree that wives were mainly the chattels of their husbands (Broadview Press 96-100; Thomas 1-3). Nonetheless, it is important to point out that, during the Victorian period, a husband’s main duty was to protect his woman from an infringement of the same rights that she did not have. In turn, the women were supposed to obey and respect their men. In this society, women shared the same rights as their children.

This was the entire premise of their rights and privilege in society because everything that they would ordinarily own in today’s society was owned by their fathers and later by their husbands. Still, based on the same principle of relinquishing their rights to their husbands, the Victorian society excused women from punishment, or crimes, committed by them, but approved by their husbands (Njoh 88). Nonetheless, men were still superior to their women, as was demonstrated by the absence of legal protection of women from domestic abuse. Indeed, women only enjoyed this right in 1853 when Britain repealed its laws on punishing women and children (Demir 2146). Still, this law did not comprehensively protect women from violence imposed on them by their spouses; instead, it only imposed legal limits on the same.

When it came to dissolving marriages, Victorian women never enjoyed the same rights as women today do. In the first place, divorce was a taboo topic. However, when it happened, they had no rights to property and children (Broadview Press 96-100). In other words, their husbands became the sole custodians of property and children. Since women sought their identity through marriage, when divorce happened, they were often required to go back to their fathers. Sometimes, their fathers never accepted them back. The possibility of this outcome, including the social condemnation directed towards divorced women, made it difficult for them to divorce their husbands in the first place, regardless of how bad they were (Broadview Press 96-100). Nonetheless, there were efforts made to address this problem (towards the end of the Victorian age) through changes made to the 1839 Custody of Infants Act, the 1886 Guardianship of Infants Act, and the 1884 Married Women’s Property Act (Njoh 88-89; Thomas 1-3).

Sexuality

During the Victorian era, people perceived the role of the woman in the society through the idea of gender roles. Stated differently, the life of the Victorian woman mostly revolved around the private spheres of the home, the family, and motherhood (Demir 2146; Benthin 2). Comparatively, the role of the man superseded these spheres and traversed across public and private spaces. Sexuality was a critical part of the woman’s identity. Using this framework of analysis to understand women’s sexuality, we find that the role of women and their relationship with their men benefitted the man because unwritten, and often unspoken social norms, gave men a superior sexual position to their women (Radek 1-3). For example, men were in control of their women’s bodies and sexuality, whichever way they wanted.

Therefore, whenever a woman agreed to be married, she gave up her right to sexual consent – her body belonged to her husband (Demir 2146; Benthin 2). Similarly, sex outside marriage was a sin and the society was harsher to the woman for sleeping with anybody outside of her marriage, compared to the man. The consensus was that women were generally maternal and destined to have monogamous marriages, while men were not. In this regard, many historians agree with the fact that Victorian women were mostly homemakers (Beeton 1-10; Broadview Press 96). In fact, most of them argue that this was their primary responsibility. For example, Beeton (1-10) argues that the role of a woman in the Victorian home was akin to the role of a commander in a war. The success of women in providing a fortress for their husbands and children was dependent on their willingness to perform their gender roles intelligently and thoroughly.

Furthermore, the society expected women to be weak and helpless, regardless of their marital status (Thomas 2-4). Many historians have described them as “fragile” and “delicate flowers” (Broadview Press 96-100; Thomas 1-3). In this regard, the society perceived them as incapable of making decisions. Relative to this assertion, Thomas says,

“A woman’s prime use was to bear a large family and maintain a smooth family atmosphere where a man need not bother himself about domestic matters. He assumed his house would run smoothly so he could get on with making money” (2).

Comprehensively, women’s sexuality was for primarily for the benefit of the man.

Education

Already, we have pointed out that many women in the Victorian society sought their identity through their private interactions with men. Consequently, marriage became the ultimate goal for most of them. In this regard, few women were willing to stay single because this status meant that they would attract disapproval from members of the society (Demir 2146). At a tender age, older women socialized most young girls to believe that their ultimate role in the society was getting married and having children (Broadview Press 96-100; Thomas 1-3). Their education also helped to fulfill these roles. For example, sewing was a strong part of a woman’s education system because it prepared her to be a homemaker. Such orientations prepared her for marriage. Consequently, employment was more or less impossible (Broadview Press 96-100; Thomas 1-3). This meant that marriage and raising children was one of the few options available to women to pursue a respectable and dignified life. Relative to this assertion, Benthin says,

“Until the Foundation of the National Union for Improving the Education of Women in 1971, the only chance for unmarried women was a position as governess or teacher, which however was utterly underpaid as society disapproved of women in the workforce” (3).

Based on the above assertion, being successful in marriage became an important goal for most women. Legal changes in 1887 saw the society accept men and women as one entity after marriage (Benthin 3). This change was contained in the Married Women’s Property Act, but it still worked in favor of the man’s interests. John Stuart Mill (cited in Njoh 88-89), a world renowned anthropologist, acknowledged this fact.

Some historical accounts outline class differences in the way Victorian women received their education and served their men. For example, Demir (2146), said upper class women received a better education than their lower class counterparts did. Consequently, they were more knowledgeable than other women in the society were. However, their improved knowledge was to benefit husbands who wanted to share their interests with their wives (Demir 2146). Therefore, while the upper class women seemed relatively well educated than their lower class counterparts, their education was to serve their husbands and fathers. Nonetheless, some women within the upper echelons of society excelled in their academic work; particularly regarding their studies of male-oriented subjects, such as law and physics. This record of excellence paved the way for gender equality progress that followed the Victorian era (Radek 1-3).

The Victorian woman was also an “ornament” in the society because of her status as a symbol of moral authority (especially if her purity allowed it). However, this role was mostly limited to upper class and middle class women. Therefore, while lower class women were required to study needlework, laundry, and home management (among other subjects), those of the middle and upper classes were allowed to study more refined subjects, such as history, geography and general literature (Broadview Press 96-100). The aim of doing so was to provide the women with interesting topics to converse with their men. However, there was a deliberate effort to make sure that the topics they studied were not controversial (Radek 1-3). By studying some of these refined subjects, the society expected them to know how to keep correspondence, dance, play the piano, and possibly hold intellectual conversations with their husbands. Comparatively, in the lower classes, the role of women was strictly restricted to motherhood and wifely duties.

Conclusion

Although the views expressed in this article present a general description of the roles of women in the Victorian age, it is pertinent to point out that there still were independent women who did not subscribe to the same values and principles outlined in this paper. However, they were the minority because most women accepted, or even embraced, the fact that their place was in the home. In this regard, they readily sacrificed their lives for the betterment of their homes and even assumed an inferior status to their male counterparts. The prisms of education, sexuality, and domestic roles defined their servitude to men because they outline the frameworks through which the society defined women’s roles.

Works Cited

Beeton, Isabella. Mrs Beeton’s Book of Household Management, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.

Benthin, Anja. Redefining Gender Roles: The Image of Women in Virginia Woolf’s ‘to the Lighthouse, New York, NY: GRIN Verlag, 2009. Print.

Broadview Press. The Broadview Anthology of British Literature: The Victorian Era, London, UK: Broadview Press, 2015. Print.

Demir, Çağlar. “The Role of Women in Education in Victorian England.” Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World 15.2 (2015): 2146-7463. Print.

Malheiro, Benedita. The Victorian Woman and Feminism. 2014. Web.

Njoh, Ambe. Tradition, Culture and Development in Africa: Historical Lessons for Modern Development Planning, New York, NY: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2006. Print.

Radek, Kimberly. Women in the Nineteenth Century. 2008. Web.

Thomas, Pauline. A Woman’s Place in C19^th Victorian History. 2014. Web.

Introduction

When Abraham Lincoln ran for the position of the President of the United States (in 1860), the time of his election was one of the most consequential periods in American history. After his election, the Southern states did not agree with the choice of the President, thinking that he was an abolitionist, and started a process of secession (leaving the Union). However, Lincoln was firmly convinced that the secession of states such as South Carolina went against the legal regulations; thus, he pledged to begin a war (1961) to protect the federal Union. His leadership qualities were indisputable: Lincoln managed to attain victory and continued his presidency with the Emancipation Proclamation that had a tremendous impact on the development of the institution of slavery.

The portrait of Lincoln as a leader of a fragmented country has always been painted by describing him as a thoughtful and soft-spoken person that preferred to use his words sparingly but to tremendous effect. The brilliance of his leadership skills was captured in the Gettysburg Address speech, in which he spoke about the fundamental principles of human equality laid out in the Declaration of Independence and compared the Civil War between the North and the South with the birth of freedom that would potentially bring peace and equality to all people inhabiting the U.S. lands. Thus, despite many misconceptions about the persona of Abraham Lincoln, his leadership qualities along with the ideas of emancipation and freedom from slavery were a catalyst to the North winning the war against the South and starting a journey of changing the American society.

Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief

At the beginning of the Civil War, Lincoln was much less prepared for performing the duties of commander in chief compared to Jefferson Davis who had experience in fighting during the Mexican War and serving as a secretary of war during the Franklin Pierce administration (McPherson). The only military experience Lincoln had was associated with him being a captain of a militia unit, which did not see any war action. During his time in Congress, Lincoln went as far as mocking himself for the lack of military experience: “Did you know I am a military hero? […] I fought, I bled, and came away after charges upon the wild onions […] and a good many bloody struggles with the Musquetoes” (qtd in Nesbit 99).

When having to call state militia into performing the federal service in 1861 after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln was faced with a steep learning curve that forced him to become a better military leader. It is fascinating that he was successful in learning quickly; Lincoln read a lot of works on the history of military strategy, analyzed the failures and victories of past military commanders, and applied common sense to situations when it was necessary to cut through the excuses given by his military subordinates, as mentioned in the Smithsonian Magazine article (McPherson). By 1862, Lincoln’s understanding of military strategy and operation was so firm that it could have partially supported the exaggerated statement of the historian Harry Williams who wrote: “Lincoln stands out as a great war president, probably the greatest in our history, and a great natural strategist, a better one than any of his generals” (qtd. in Donald 150). Lincoln’s approach to military combat was quite unique: he did not think that war was separated or autonomous from political considerations. He appointed “political generals” who had very little military experience. Some of them managed to outrank the most educated officers due to their proficiency in political affairs; moreover, the President supported the commissioning of ethnic leaders as generals to support the military spirit of soldiers who had to obey a leader that they had already known and the one they respected.

Despite the fact that many critics mocked Lincoln’s approach, the appointment of political generals with mediocre military records set a tone for the enhancement of the national strategy with the help of mobilizing their electorate to support the efforts of the Union during the Civil War. On the war’s eve, the American Army included around 16,400 men, one thousand of whom were officers commissioned by the government (McPherson). Of these thousand officers, around twenty-five percent resigned and joined the Confederates to fight against the Union (McPherson). However, one year in the war, the volunteer army of the Union had expanded to include 637,000 men, which is an indicator of Lincoln’s efforts not being pointless. Such a massive mobilization would have been impossible without the participation of ethnic leaders and prominent local politicians in whom civilians saw tremendous support.

Another important point in Lincoln’s leadership approach related to the national strategy during the war becoming a policy. This point was associated with the problem of slavery and the ideas of emancipation. During the first year of the civil war, one of the primary objectives of Lincoln was to preserve good relationships with Northern antiabolitionist Democrats and border-state Unionists in order to have a stable war coalition. He had a fear that the balance that existed in three border slave states may lean in the direction of Confederates in case if his administration spoke about emancipation too early (McPherson). When General John Fremont issued a military order that allowed freeing Confederates’ slaves in Missouri, Lincoln made a decision to revoke the order to avoid aggression from the states that he needed to keep in the war coalition. Lincoln believed that such a decision regarding emancipation could upset the Southern states and turn them against the Union and thus increase the prospects of losing Kentucky. According to Lincoln, “to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky went, we cannot hold Missouri, nor as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol” (qtd. in Mackey 39).

Nevertheless, with the growing insistence of antislavery views of Republicans, Lincoln made a decision to make tremendous changes in the existing national strategy. Instead of pleasing the Northern Democrats and the Border States, Lincoln chose to activate the majority of antislave proponents from the North that elected him and include the potential human resources of African Americans through issuing the proclamation of freedom for slaves in rebellious states (Emancipation Proclamation) (McPherson). During his speech given to the members of the cabinet, Lincoln talked about the necessity of acting deliberately: “Decisive and extreme measures must be adopted,” he stated (qtd. in McPherson par. 9). For him, emancipation was a military necessity that could help in preserving the Union, so slaves had to be freed to avoid failures during battles (Snyder).

Lincoln’s Change in Leadership

When at the beginning of summer 1683 Lincoln faced some issues of the country is severely divided by the Civil War and the Union Army losing two major battles (Govindarajan and Faber), he also encountered opposition from his own party that stated that Lincoln was too indecisive in his attitudes. However, after three months, the opinions about him shifted significantly, with the New York Times expressing gratitude for the President being a ruler that managed to adapt to the needs of time quickly while staying honest, discreet, and steadfast (Holzer and Symonds 89). Thus, a question arises: what did Lincoln do to shift his leadership approach?

During the summer of 1863, Lincoln found out that there were two significant challenges: recapturing the opinion of the public and reestablishing the control of the Union Army (Govindarajan and Faber). After realizing this, Lincoln made two big decisions: getting rid of the beliefs that no longer worked and leading his followers in an entirely different way. The first bulk of beliefs Lincoln got rid of were his relationships with generals. Up until that moment, Lincoln did not make firm orders to his generals but only gave suggestions, which were predominantly ignored (Govindarajan and Faber). After a set of frustrating exchanges with ineffective generals, the President abandoned his submissive style of leadership and started giving direct orders to generals, so they saw who was really in charge. For example, to oppose the attitude of General Joseph Hooker, Lincoln made a blunt statement: “I have not intended differently; but as it seems to be differently understood, I shall direct him to give you orders, and you to obey them” (qtd. in Burlingame 502). Fairly soon after the change in his style of leadership, the Union achieved a set of victories (Gettysburg and Vicksburg) due to the army’s attempts of being proactive in following President’s orders.

With regards to winning over the public, Lincoln encountered the impatience of American citizens with the war and the government. Thus, he had to make a change in his relationship with Americans. By analyzing the success of his letter-writing campaign to gain the support of the British for the Union, Lincoln decided to implement the same strategy in his country (Govindarajan and Faber). 500,000 copies of one of his letters alone were read by at least 10,000,000 American citizens, which shows the tremendous success of the campaign, as reported by Govindarajan and Faber in their Harvard Business Review article. It is noteworthy that President Lincoln’s outreach to the public was very effective since it helped him to sustain significant support from people up until his assassination on April 15, 1865. Thus, Lincoln made a decision to abandon the conventions that existed in the past and managed to establish a better quality of relationships with the military officials as well as the public of the United States, which points to his impressive leadership skills.

Criticism

It was commonly accepted that Lincoln did not experience much criticism from anti-slavery supporters. However, Lincoln faced opposition from Copperheads (conservative Democrats) who idealized Jefferson and Jackson. Despite some misconceptions, Copperheads did not sympathize with the South. However, they thought that the Civil War would end if the Union gave Confederates what they wanted before cessation (including an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protected slavery) (Weber). Therefore, apart from the supporters of slavery, Lincoln was criticized by other groups that did not necessarily support slavery but did not agree with Lincoln’s intentions to preserve the Union by going to war with the South.

Conclusion

Abraham Lincoln was the first President of the United States that created a high command, an organization that helped to unite the resources of all people in order to develop a strategy for winning the Civil War. His ability to adapt and make changes to fit the demands of time made him stand out from other leaders. Lincoln’s lack of experience in military combat was regarded as an advantage since he was not tainted by the traditional military dogma and was successful in using a practical approach and common sense that contributed to the achievement of success in the Civil War. Lincoln was effective in shifting his views on military leadership when the previous efforts to lead the Union’s Army were unsuccessful. From being lenient and accepting of the views of generals, Lincoln turned into a strict leader who demanded respect and obedience from his subordinates. There was no doubt that Lincoln was driven by the belief in personal freedom and equality for all citizens of the United States. By abandoning the set conventions of the past, Lincoln applied logic to the assessment of the successes of his predecessors and managed to capture the hearts of the public by removing the gap between citizens and the leader of the country.

Works Cited

Burlingame, Michael. Abraham Lincoln: A Life. The John Hopkins University Press, 2013.

Donald, David. Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era. Vintage, 2001.

Govindarajan, Vijay, and Hylke Faber. “To Win the Civil War, Lincoln Had to Change His Leadership.” HBR, 2016. Web.

Holzer, Harold, and Craig Symonds. New York times Book of the Civil War 1861-1865: 650 Eyewitness Accounts and Articles. Black Dog & Leventhal, 2010.

Mackey, Thomas. A Documentary History of the Civil War Era: Volume 1, Legislative Achievements. The University of Tennessee Press, 2012.

McPherson, James. “Lincoln as Commander in Chief.” Smithsonianmag, 2009. Web.

Nesbit, Robert. Wisconsin: A History. The University of Wisconsin Press, 2004.

Snyder, Michael. “Civil War History: Ellsworth Samuel Green, Company C, 24th USCT.” Posttsmerc, 2017. Web.

Weber, Jennifer. “Lincoln’s Critics: The Copperheads.” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association, vol. 32, no. 1, 2011, pp. 33-47.

Viewpoint: Women actively participated in the civil rights movement. This participation also shaped the role of future generations of women later on, in America and other parts of the World.

Evidence

• Women sacrificed their lives and fought determinedly, asking for a social revolution. Unfortunately their efforts have been overlooked. Apart from Rosa Parks, very few women civil rights activists remain unknown or unrecognized by society.
• Women participation in the Civil rights movement was silent and this was largely attributed to choice, whereby they wanted to remain in the background, or due to the sexism that was prevalent at the time.
• Visible women activist also comprised of the wives of prominent male civil rights leaders. They included Coretta Scott King, the widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. Betty Shabazz (Widow of Malcom X) and Myrlie Evers-Williams (Widow of Medgar Evers)¹
• Women advocacy was ongoing even before the Rosa Parks incident. Through the Women Political Council, women were encouraged to boycott the bus public transport due to inherent segregation.
• Distinguishing the role of women in the Civil rights movement does not in any reduce the significance of male civil rights activists.
• Women participation should be intertwined within the history of Civil rights as it led to the participation of women in Daily lives and broke the gender barrier that had shrouded them for so long².

Evaluate

By tradition, social movement theory is employed to social movements without examinations into the manner gender has an effect into the development of movements. The circumstances that precipitate personal movement participation are subject to ones positions within the social order. A good illustration of this can be seen through the civil rights movement where for black Americans, inequality acted as a source of encouragement for their participation in the movement. Besides race inequalities, life as a woman in a white and male society controlled society provided enough impetus for participation in the civil rights movement.

Due to the sixties gender customs during the active times, charismatic advocate leaders comprised largely of black men. At the time, the black community especially those from the South were not ready for women activism³. It was a farfetched idea for anyone to think that women would emerge as leaders within the movement. Men had better opportunities to be charismatic activists as their manhood accorded the societal power.

This attracted them more attention. Even though both men and women could enjoy amazing personalities assumed to be crucial for captivating the masses, women were unable to lead or demand commitment because their positions would not be recognized. At the time, it was hard for them to attain formal leadership. Nonetheless, they were given unofficial leadership positions e.g. event organizers Due to their social skills, women were viewed as better at networking and this culminated in becoming active rights advocates in their own right. This gained them the trust and admiration of the community in which they served. We cannot discount the efforts and contribution of women in the Civil rights movement based only on the charismatic movement theory.

The participation by both men and women within the Movement diverged from and strengthened the gender standards of the sixties U.S. civilization. Most Civil Rights bodies were led by men. Nevertheless, some involved and supported the active participation of women and encouraged them to take up leadership roles⁴. Some women matched the custom norms by carrying out domestic chores. This included clerical duties. Most ladies within the movement played a voluntary role. i.e there were some who prepared meals and washed up venues after organized events were over. Most of them were genuinely concerned with making a difference.

They were not after any publicity. As others challenged such duties by risking their safety by organizing activities in unsafe racist neighborhoods. While at the same time, some male advocates were not open to considerable contribution of women in the struggle. Others encouraged women to remain active⁵.

Though it’s accurate to say that the most prominent individual linked to the Montgomery boycott was a lady, Rosa Parks is frequently portrayed as an exhausted seamstress who refused to relinquish her bus seat. She was actually a dedicated long serving activist for racial justice. She was very active as her involvement from assisting the Scottsboro Boys to assisting in her home branch of the (NACP) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. She also attended the Highlander Folk School where she was educated on labor rights and racial equality⁶.

The recognition of the role played by women does not in any way reduce the importance of their male counterparts.

Bibliography

Osborne Linda. Women of the civil rights movement. Georgia: Pomegranate, 2006. Web.

Crawford, Vicki. Women in the Civil Rights movement: trailblazers and torchbearers, 1941-1965. Newark:Greenwood,2009. Web.

Footnotes

1 Linda, Osborne. Women of the civil rights movement. (Georgia: Pomegranate, 2006). pp. 45. Web.

2 Vicki, Crawford. Women in the Civil Rights movement: trailblazers and torchbearers, 1941-1965. (Newark:Greenwood,2009).pp 67. Web.

3 Linda, Osborne. Women of the civil rights movement. (Georgia: Pomegranate, 2006). pp. 34. Web.

4 Linda, Osborne. Women of the civil rights movement. (Georgia: Pomegranate, 2006). pp. 39. Web.

5 Vicki, Crawford. Women in the Civil Rights movement: trailblazers and torchbearers, 1941-1965. (Newark:Greenwood,2009).pp 68. Web.

6 Linda, Osborne. Women of the civil rights movement. (Georgia: Pomegranate, 2006). pp. 54. Web.

Introduction

British East India Company was one of the most successful establishments in the history of the Queen’s empire. It was founded on December 31, 1600. It is one of the legacies associated with Queen Elizabeth 1. The aim of the organization was to compete with Dutch East Company for the spices’ market in south and south-east Asia.¹ It began as a joint-stock company between Leadenhall Street and London based investors and traders. The organization established itself in the country following the death of Jahangir. The ruler had permitted it to open an outlet in Port Surat.

The permit was granted in 1612. In 1640, the firm extended its jurisdiction. It opened another trading point in Madras. The expansion took place after the investors were granted permission by the ruler of Vijayanagara. After the collapse of the Mughal Empire in the 18^th century, the organization changed from a trading venture to a formidable political machine. To this end, it established its political and socio-economic control over India. It acquired a private army. As a result, it took over government and military functions.

In this paper, the author will analyze a number of economic, political, and social changes brought about by colonial rule in South Asia. The author will focus on the period between the mid-18^th century and 1857. In addition, the paper will analyze the shift in the nature of the Indian state after the entry of the British. The analysis will be carried out in the context of the English East Asia Company. The company started controlling the country as a result of the political anarchy and power vacuum left behind by the decline of the Mughal Empire in the 18^th century.

A Brief Historical Background of India in the 17^th and 18^th Centuries

To appreciate the influence of the colonialists in India, it is important to provide a historical background of this country before, during, and after the company. Towards the end of the 17^th century, Aurangzeb helped India succeed in the political, economic, and social fronts. However, the seeds of the empire’s decline were planted by his acts of religious and political intolerance. For example, he expelled Hindus from public offices and destroyed their schools and temples.² He also persecuted the Sikhs of Punjab, leading to rebellions against the Muslim rule.

In addition to his intolerant rule, Aurangzeb imposed heavy taxes on the farming population. The development resulted in economic decline and spurred the fall of the Mughal Empire. The territory declined further in 1707. The deterioration followed the demise of Aurangzeb. The rulers lost their influence to courtiers and war kings. As a result, they became mere figureheads under the control of the new rulers.

India also suffered invasions from Nadir Shah of Persia and Abdali of Afghanistan. The two empires constantly attacked Mughal’s capital, Delhi. Their regular incursions reduced Mughal’s rule to a small region around Delhi.³ The area was under the control of Maratha in 1785 and the British in 1803. The issues set the stage for the entry of the British company into the region.

The Mughal Empire in the 17^th and 18^th Centuries

The influence of this territory in India was relatively long-lived. In the 18^th century, its power was largely dependent on Aurangzeb’s conquests. The ruler took part in many battles. His incursions led to the expansion of the territory.⁴ Starting in 1668, the ruler started changing various laws in the region. The aim of this extended outreach was to force non-Muslims to adhere to Islamic ideals. Jizya was reintroduced in the region. In addition, the leader criminalized various customs associated with the Hindu religion. Construction of temples for the deities was also curtailed.⁵ All these acts of political and religious discrimination led to constant rebellions in the empire.

Aurangzeb’s control over the region declined as his territory increased in size. The Punjab Sikhs, who were themselves, victims of constant discrimination, increased their military power and executed a number of revolts.⁶ In addition, the Marathas planned a series of battles against Aurangzeb. The wars lasted for 27 years. The battles weakened the military and economic power of the Mughal. Rajputs were considered to be loyal allies of Mughal. However, they also turned their back on Aurangzeb. Their decision was prompted by the ruler’s interference with their domestic affairs.

Aurangzeb’s rule came to an end with his death in 1707. More than ten thousand military officers lost their lives in different succession battles. Additional rebels and local power brokers emerged during the first three decades of the 18^th century.⁷ They included the Rajputs, Sikhs, Nawabs, Hyderabad, and Awadh. Others were the Nawab of Bengal and the Marathas. Invasions from foreigners were also experienced in the Mughal Empire during the same period. The invaders included the Nadir Shah, Ahmad Shah Abdali of Afghanistan, and the British East India Company. The latter was stronger than all the other foreign invaders. The company ended up conquering large sections of India.

Factors that Led to the Successful Expansion of the British East India Company

When they arrived in India, the British did not have the political power needed to conquer the new country. It took them more than two hundred years to establish their influence over India. When the foreigners started interacting with their hosts, the Mughal Empire had started to crumble.⁸ The decline was a result of the internal problems faced by the rulers. The downfall of the Mughal Empire continued, leading to an increase in regional powers.

As a result of the collapse of the territory, the British faced less unified opposition from the locals. That gave them the much-needed room to rise to power in the subcontinent. The British did not foment the conditions that led to the fall of the Mughal Empire.⁹ On the contrary, they simply saw an opportunity and took advantage of it. There was a power vacuum in the region, which was made worse by internal fights among the various principals. The factors provided Britain with the opportunity needed to increase its power in India.¹⁰

The colonialists’ powerful navy also played a key role in the successful expansion of the company. In addition, the use of invalid thanks and trade agreements between the British and the Indians further enhanced these developments. Furthermore, disunity among Indian states and Britain’s superiority in relation to other colonial powers led to the firm establishment of the company. The colonials also made use of the doctrine of lapse and subsidiary alliance.¹¹

Naval Superiority

Emperor Aurangzeb commanded a very big and strong army in India. He was able to defeat the British on land. However, he was unable to beat their offshore battalions. The foreigners retreated to the open seas after been overpowered by the imperial forces.¹² That trick used to work in their favor because Aurangzeb’s army did not have a naval force. In the long term, the British agreed to pay an indemnity. They also expressed their willingness to provide security to India’s maritime investments for a fee, which was to be paid annually. When it came to matters of the sea, the Indians had no option but to seek help from the British.¹³ The reason is that the latter had the most dominant navy force in the area.

As the Mughal Empire crumbled, power shifted from the center to various decentralized regions. Most of the newly established territories were characterized by civil strife. The stability provided under Mughal’s Empire was absent.¹⁴ As a result, most people turned to the East India Company for security. The establishment used its army to restore political stability in those territories. It recruited its army from these jurisdictions. The situation led to the introduction of a non-agrarian way of living among the locals.

Use of Invalid Thanahs

The company used various strategies to fill the void left by the Mughal. The use of invalid Thanahs was one of the approaches adopted. Invalids were part of the native Indian community. They were individuals who had been discharged from the military for various reasons. For example, they included soldiers who had been dismissed due to disabilities. They were known as Thanahs and were grouped together. They were charged with various responsibilities, the most important one been the recruitment of young men into East India Company’s army.¹⁵

The invalids were highly rewarded for their military services to the company. That influenced and encouraged the young men to join the force. They were also seen as unique and special individuals compared to other groups in the society. The reason is because they were not subjected to military, political, and judicial laws like other members of the community.¹⁶ The participation of locals in the military is an indication of the influence of the company in the region as a result of the gap left behind by Mughal.

Fights between Indian States

The civil strife among the various territories helped the company establish itself in the region. The collapse of the Mughal led to the disintegration of some Indian states. The British company exploited these splits to further the political and economic goals of the colonialists. India was a collection of warring states that were in constant conflict with each other. The East India Company took advantage of their conflicts and played them against each other.¹⁷ Mir Jaffar, for example, betrayed his master, Siraj-Ud-Daulah. He lied to his superior that he was the Nawab. That enabled Robert Clive’s mission in Plassey to succeed.

The Doctrine of Lapse

The company found it easy to manipulate the rulers of the territories after the death of Mughal. One of the ways through which this was achieved entailed the use of treaties. For example, the colonialists discovered that it was more beneficial to sign agreements with the rulers to engage them in battles.¹⁸ It was agreed that the company could take over a territory under various circumstances.

Such instances included a situation where a ruler lacked an apparent heir at the time of their incapacitation. As a result of the agreement, the firm was able to take over Satara. It was one of the first regions to be controlled by the foreigners. In addition, the development fuelled the war in Jhansi. The doctrine lapse emerged as one of the most effective strategies used by the company to establish its rule in the country.

The Superior Nature of the British Rulers

In addition to the British, there were other colonial powers competing for the Indian resources. The others were Denmark, France, Holland, and Portugal. France was the fiercest rival that British had to deal with in the race to colonize the country. However, the latter’s battalion was more professional, organized, and better equipped than the French force.¹⁹ That enabled East India Company to defeat France in key battles, taking control of the East Coast.

Subsidiary Alliance

The alliance was a form of a treaty. Any kingdom that signed it had to abide by all the rules put in place. For example, the foreigners had the rights to establish a permanent company within the ally’s jurisdiction. In return, the colonialists were allowed to take over some part of the territory. In addition, the rulers who entered into these agreements were banned from establishing any links with their contemporaries without permit from the colonialists.²⁰ As a result, the leaders were made to believe that they had secured their legacy in the region. However, the reality was that they had lost their freedom. They still had ‘withdrawal’ symptoms as a result of the absence of the Mughal’s protection.²¹ In addition, their independence was gradually taken away from them.

Conclusion

India is one of the Asian countries with a very interesting history. For example, throughout the 18^th century, it was characterized by political and economic turmoil. The once powerful Mughal Empire, which had dominated the country before the 18^th century, was crippled after the death of Aurangzeb. The resulting gap led to the emergence of local powers and constant invasions from neighbors, such as the Nadir Shah. British East India Company took advantage of the chaos to exercise its powers within the country.

Bibliography

Ahuja, Ravi. “’The Bridge Builders’: Some Notes on Railways, Pilgrimage, and the British ‘Civilizing Mission’ in Colonial India.” In Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, edited by Harald Fischer-Tine and Michael Mann, 95-116 .London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2004.

Bayly, Christopher. Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Guha, Ranjit. Selected Subaltern Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Hay, Stephen. Sources of Indian Tradition, Vol. 2: Modern India and Pakistan. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1988.

Khilnani, Sunil. The Idea of India. London: Penguin, 2012.

Kishore, Prem, and Anuradha Ganpati. India: An Illustrated History. New York: Hippocrene Books, 2003.

Metcalf, Barbara, and Thomas Metcalf. A Concise History of Modern India. 3rd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Nehru, Jawahar. The Discovery of India. London: Penguin, 2012.

Parvej, Khan. The Mughal Empire. Delhi: Khurana Book Co., 2009.

Sugata, Bose, and Ayesha Jalal. Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2011.

Travers, Robert. Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India: The British in Bengal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Waligora, Melita. “What is Your ‘Caste’?: The Classification of Indian Society as Part of the British Civilizing Mission.” In Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, edited by Harald Fischer-Tine and Michael Mann, 141-164 .London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2004.

Footnotes

1. Robert Travers, Ideology and Empire in the Eighteenth Century India: The British in Bengal (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 43.
2. Barbara Metcalf and Thomas Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, 3rd ed, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 22.
3. Khan Parvej, The Mughal Empire (Delhi: Khurana Book Co., 2009), 98.
4. Jawahar Nehru, The Discovery of India (London: Penguin, 2012), 23.
5. Melita Waligora, “What is Your ‘Caste’?: The Classification of Indian Society as Part of the British Civilizing Mission,” in Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, eds. Harald Fischer-Tine and Michael Mann (London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2004), 150.
6. Sunil Khilnani, The Idea of India (London: Penguin, 2012), 82.
7. Prem Kishore and Anuradha Ganpati, India: An Illustrated History (New York: Hippocrene Books, 2003), 12.
8. Nehru, The Discovery of India, 23.
9. Christopher Bayly, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 72.
10. Ravi Ahuja, “’The Bridge Builders’: Some Notes on Railways, Pilgrimage, and the British ‘Civilizing Mission’ in Colonial India,” In Colonialism as Civilizing Mission: Cultural Ideology in British India, eds. Harald Fischer-Tine and Michael Mann (London: Wimbledon Publishing Company, 2004), 112.
11. Ranjit Guha, Selected Subaltern Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), 19.
12. Bayly, Indian Society, 23.
13. Ibid, 56.
14. Metcalf and Metcalf, A Concise History of Modern India, 43.
15. Kishore and Ganpati, India: An Illustrated History, 39.
16. Stephen Hay, Sources of Indian Tradition, Vol. 2: Modern India and Pakistan, 2nd ed (New York: Free Press, 1988), 73.
17. Bayly, Indian Society, 88.
18. Khilnani, The Idea of India, 12.
19. Bose Sugata and Ayesha Jalal, Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy, 3rd ed (London: Routledge, 2011), 34.
20. Khilnani, The Idea of India, 34.
21. Bayly, Indian Society, 23.

Introduction and background

History records that European interests and contacts with West Africa started as early as the fifteenth century (Johnston 2011, p.98). Okoth (2006, p.210) points out that European contacts with West Africa can be traced back to this period when traders from Portugal started linking with people of the West African coast. Later in the sixteenth century when the Trans Atlantic slave trade had expanded, the French began to carry out their activities with West Africa. The British people were also not left behind in the preceded scramble in which the European nations aimed at increasing their stake in West Africa. Huillery (2011, p.265) has noted that the rule of Britain and French in West Africa proceeded concurrently although their interests were diverse. By 1890, these nations’ quest for West Africa had resulted into control of vast areas.

According to Duara (2004, p.1), European retreat from West Africa was one of the most momentous and sudden transformations in history. Notably, decolonization of West Africa by Britain and France occurred after the end of Second World War (Birmingham 1995, p. 30). It is imperative to note that after the post World War period, there were tremendous imperial transformations. In this case, the colonial powers opted to declare their colonies independent in order to safeguard their imperial interests (Duara 2004, p.275).

Historians lament that the reason behind decolonizing West Africa was to device a dramatic strategy for colonial powers to spearhead a wave of change in the region through imperialism (Le Sueur 2003, p.1). In this case, scholars have raised profound questions as to why the colonial powers decided to call off their influence shortly after the Second World War. Therefore, there exist impending assumptions that the colonial powers wanted to protect their own interests.

It is against this backdrop that this paper intends to expose how the interests of France and Britain were preserved by decolonizing West Africa.The paper also keenly elaborates the specific economic, social and political interests which both Britain and France had in West Africa. The paper offers an intensive discussion of the several ways through which the general interests of Britain and French rule were preserved by the decolonization of their territories. It also gives a wrap up of the objectives of the strategic withdrawal of British and French rule in West Africa.

The interest of France in west Africa

It is notable that the decolonization process in West Africa was a bit complex (Birmingham 1995, p. 30). Historians suggest that the random change was due to the aftershocks of the Second World War that compelled the imperialists to end colonization in West Africa. Research has revealed that the primary cause of decolonization was to uphold and protect imperialists’ interests (Le Sueur 2003, p.34).

Nevertheless, this assumption still puzzles scholars to date. From a careful review of literature, studies have shown that the chain of events that occurred during decolonization process acted as evidence that imperialists were after their own selfish gains (Duara 2004, p.). Therefore, it is arguable that the phenomenon was not meant to benefit countries in West Africa. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that the major aim of decolonizing West Africa was to foster nationalism in the region (Birmingham 1995, p. 42).

In line with this, evidence has shown that the process of decolonization took a false start and led to incompatible expectations since the imperialists did not have a clear strategy to disengage themselves from the colonies. Moreover, the powers faced external and internal pressures to decolonize their colonies. One of the major reasons for decolonization was the suggestion that colonization could grant the colonies a remote future (Le Sueur 2003, p.127). This caused pressure from world super powers against the colonialism. For instance, the US pressured France and Britain to decolonize their colonies (Birmingham 1995, p. 42).

In this case, the imperial powers felt threatened and had to disengage themselves with the colonies in order to safeguard their political and economic relations with other super powers. Notably, historians have revealed that it is only after the post war period that the powers decided to decolonize West Africa due to global sentiments against colonial rule (Le Sueur 2003, p.1). One can also argue that after the Second World War, the idea of colonization was not welcomed in many quarters and hence the powers were compelled to withdraw their influence.

Besides this, it is imperative to note that African servicemen in the war learnt so many tips about their colonial masters. This increased their agitation to fight for freedom. Definitely, African experience in the war developed a mass conscious of imperialism, racism and unjust colonial rule (Le Sueur 2003, p.1). Therefore, the imperialist realized that once African servicemen came back, they spread new ideas about their adventure in western world. This heightened the anti-colonial militancy since Africans had persistently demanded freedom.

According to Birmingham (1995, p. 30), it is evident that social, political and economic revolutions in West Africa emerged shortly after the war. It is essential to note that the colonial powers faced hardships and a lot of resources were used to finance the war (Duara 2004, p. 34). Therefore, they found that it was no longer economical to maintain the colonies bearing in mind that they were to silence the national struggles that were at their peak in Africa. Moreover, European powers had their economy being more stringent and this made it hard for them to control the territories in West Africa (Duara 2004, p. 134). In this case, it is arguable that the need to salvage the imperialists’ economy from collapsing led to decolonization of West Africa.

That notwithstanding, it is important to note that the experience in war made Africans to device tough strategies to resist colonial rule and imperialism. Such strategies included strikes, boycotts, formation of unions and guerilla warfare (Le Sueur 2003, p.121). These activities also rendered colonial regimes powerless. Notably, organization efficiency and the potential created by frequent strikes served as a serious warning to the imperialists in Africa (Birmingham 1995, p. 42).

Therefore, the European powers used decolonization as a strategy to exit West Africa. In line with this, it is apparent that decolonization was not a benevolent gesture to benefit West Africa but was a way of spearheading diplomatic and economic relations with the colonies. Consequently, this would allow colonial powers to exploit the territories better. Notably, France and Britain administrators realized that the easiest way of spreading their imperialism to Africans was by decolonizing them. This was due to the fact that the territories objected colonization and the best way to calm them was to offer the much needed freedom.

Furthermore, the colonial powers wanted to safeguard their position in the international arena (Le Sueur 2003, p.122). In this case, other super powers that rose after the war such as Soviet Union highly opposed colonial rule. Needless to say, Marxist scholars perceived colonialism as the worst form of capitalism. In this case, the imperialist power pretended to decolonize Africa yet they still benefited by exploiting African territories through neo-colonialism. It is arguable that the global power shift from European nation to Africa was a channel for colonial power to spearhead their imperial interests easily and indirectly (Duara 2004, p. 17).

The British in West Africa

In the process of decolonizing Africa, the colonial powers pretended to help Africans to formulate policies and institutions that would help them to self-govern their territories. However, it is imperative to note that some of the policies largely favored the interests of the colonial masters. For instance, the period after the war, the colonial powers established polices to foster colonial development and provided welfare funds to the colonies (Duara 2004, p.8).

However, research has revealed that these aids were geared towards ensuring that African governments adhere to the needs of their colonial masters and without resistance. Two decades after independence, African leaders realized that the situation had even become worse than it was the case before decolonization (Le Sueur 2003, p.397). They faced many hardships to an extent that their citizens began to question whether they were still independent or not. This was due to the fact that neo-colonialism had made African economy worse than it was before and hence independence at that time lacked meaning.

The major interests of the French were economic in nature although there were also basic social and economic interests. Huillery (2011, p.269) points out that the French government had a chief goal of exercising full control over the trade in the region of West Africa. He adds that the government of France wanted to create a channel through which the wealth in West Africa would be channeled into France (Huillery 2011, p.269). The major focus was on the trade in slaves and gold. The traders from France were after making sure that they dominate the whole market to ensure that the goods flowed towards France.

However it could be impossible to exercise economic influence in the region without having political power. Johnston (2011, p.230) describes the French tactical invasion into West Africa as an absorption whereby the Africans finally found themselves fully absorbed. The French created a base by socially assimilating the Africans and finally, they obtained the chance to rule and control the activities in the region. They established arms of French rule and the nations of West Africa became political and economical provinces of France (Huillery 2011, p.269).

The British too, like all other colonial powers that colonized West Africa had prioritized the aspect of assimilating the economic endowment of the region in their influence. Okoth (2006, p.309) explains this by pointing out their main goals. He mentions that they were after raw materials for their industries overseas. In addition, it is also worth to mention that they wanted to control slave trade in order to ensure labor supply for these industries and also to exploit the economic resources available in West Africa (Okoth 2006, p.309). The British were geared towards step by step civilization of the colonies of West Africa. They had to wait until the nations of this region realized the benefits they could get by keeping their relation with the developed Britain. They were determined to create a broad market for their finished industrial goods.

Decolonization and British interest in West Africa

The decolonization of Africa at large was not really an intentional act that was done by the colonial powers (Huillery 2011, p.266). The latter author argues that in an economic and tactical point of view the nations which used assimilation to rule Africa decolonized their colonies more purposely than any political analyst could have ever imagined (Huillery 2011, p.267). The British in West Africa purposely withdrew their colonial power after they made sure that their interests would be preserved ever even when the West Africans were independent.

The colonies were already fine tuned by the fact that they operated jointly with Britain. The economic gains that Britain accrued from their colonies would continue being obtained. When the colonized West Africans started operating independently, they realized how they really needed their relation with Britain. The flow of raw materials into the economy of Britain continued because the West Africans had no industries. Moreover, the ready market for finished goods like clothes, utensils, household goods and fire arms continued to exist since West Africans had no other options to acquire them.

The political influence of Britain was retained because the West African nations retained the same structures which were put in place by the British colonial government. Johnston (2011, p.230) describes the decolonization of West Africa from British colonial rule as a step which was taken after a season which blackened the Africans by showing them that here was only one way of getting economic development by following the example of Britain.

The interest of France in West Africa preserved

The interest of France in West Africa was also preserved after decolonization.

The French rule in West Africa was rated as one of the most successful. Johnston (2011, p.239) defends this by stating that the assimilation of nations used by France achieved all social, political and economic alienation of the colonies in West Africa. He adds that the interests of France in West Africa is well felt even in this century, quite a number of decades after the independence of French colonies (Johnston 2011, p.239).

It is also worth to note that the process of colonization left long lasting impacts in West Africa bearing in mind that the aftermath of the process is still being felt in modern day West Africa. The decolonization of West African nations like Senegal, Ghana and Mali was done in a strategic way and style which left France with huge influence of the region. The incorporation of their colonies (provinces) in all affairs of France made decolonization a strategic tool of attaching these nations to France economically and politically.

Okoth (2006, p.400) denotes that France would continue benefiting from West Africa now that there was Africans living in France as legal citizens. Post colonial trade would thrive and experience a great stability now that the colonies had learned how to do it right from their colonial masters (Huillery 2011, p.266). The Africans both in France and in West Africa had adopted the French culture and were comfortable with the French language. Decolonization put West Africa in a position where they had to choose either to remain or to pack and go a choice which would retard them in all aspects of development-political, social and economic. France safeguarded its economic and political dominance over West Africa by ensuring a smooth interchange of foreign and internal self governance.

In addition, it was tactful for France and Britain to decolonize West Africa in a way that ensured that their contact and involvement were retained. The cooperation with the West Africans ensured that economic and political- social engagements were preserved. This has resulted into great interdependence of West African nations with the two European nations. This has greatly resulted into the safe guarding of Britain’s and French special interest in West Africa.

Conclusions

To recap it all, it is certain that decolonization of Africa by Britain and France was not meant to benefit Africa but to safeguard their selfish interests. Certainly, the colonial powers wanted to spearhead economic and political interests in West Africa indirectly. Moreover, the colonial powers wanted to maintain good relations with West Africa in order to exploit them through neo-colonialism.

This was indeed made possible by the fact that the imperialists manipulated African policies and institutions to ensure that they adhered to the interest of their former colonial masters. Moreover, the imperialist realized that they could exploit the colonies effectively by decolonizing them since this would minimize armed struggle. Additionally, they realized that colonizing territories to exploit them was uneconomical since much resource was being used to avert armed struggle. It is evident that even after decolonization; colonial powers did not end their links with African states, a factor that suggests that neo-colonialism is still being used to exploit states in West Africa.

References

Birmingham, D 1995. The Decolonization of Africa, Taylor & Francis, London.

Duara, P 2004, Decolonization: Perspectives from Now and Then, Roputledge, New York.

Huillery, E 2011,“The Impact of European Settlement within French West Africa: Did.

Pre-colonial Prosperous Areas Fall Behind?” journal of African Economies, vol. 20 no. 2, pp. 263-270.

Johnston, H 2011, A History of the Colonization of Africa by Alien Races, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Le Sueur, D 2003, The Decolonization Reader, Routledge, New York.

OKoth, A 2006, A History of Africa: African societies and the establishment of colonial rule, East African publishers, Nairobi.

Slave trade was crucial to the colonialists during the colonial times. It supplied slaves that provided manpower to their farms. Despite its essence, African slaves were not many. Majority of the colonial masters had not agreed on enslaving Africans because they related them with the indentured white servants that were residing in the southern colonies. However, the demand for more manpower due to advancement in agricultural activities made the colonialists reconsider having blacks working for them; they started enslaving Africans. “Just as in Africa, the trafficking of slaves also increased in America because of increase in demand for more laborers” (Parker 166).

Various factors contributed to the advancement of slavery and liberty in the 17^th and 18^th centuries. Some of the factors that led to the advancement of slavery include the participation of the natives in the capturing of the slaves and the possession of sophisticated weapons by the Europeans. For instance, the Chickasaw, Savannah and other native groups embarked on predatory sweeps of their own people leading to the emergence of violent environment in southeastern region of America.

The partnering of some black Americans with the Europeans also enhanced the success of 17^th and 18^th centuries’ slavery. The partnering of the native people with the Europeans also played a significant role towards the advancement of liberty. It led to the emergence of military conflicts among the natives that resulted in a steep decline of slave trade in America (Parker 166).

The steep decline of slave trade in America played a significant role towards the advancement of slavery in Africa. Its decline led to the colonialists diverting their attention to Africa. “It led to the slave trafficking in Africa to grow to extraordinary proportions” (Parker 166). Additionally, it made the colonialists draft a system of laws that entrenched Africans as slaves. In addition, “the excessive increase in demand for slaves at the coastal parts as a result of decline of slave trade in America led to the advancement of the slavers to the interior parts of Africa” (Parker 166).

The growth of criticism also enhanced the advancement of liberty. As colonists continued to enslave Africans, “criticism slavery started to grow with enlightenment, which stressed innate human dignity and equality under the law” (Parker 124). Additionally, many Christian denominations, especially Quakers, quested for abolition of slavery on moral and religious practices. Freed slaves and some of those, who managed to escape from slavery (Olaudah Equiano), also took part in advancement of liberty. They achieved this via spreading messages about inhuman treatment of the slaves that were under the colonialists’ control (Parker 124).

Economic challenges also played a significant role for advancement of liberty. As critiques were emanating concerning slavery in the Southern United States, “economic vitality of the slaves was also waning in the early 1800s. Slave revolts and fear of new uprisings raised the cost of maintaining control on plantations. Overexpansion in the sugar industry also led to the decline of profits” (Parker 124). Thus, the drop in economic production in the colonial states contributed significantly towards the end of the Atlantic slavery regime.

The position and views of the British were also the factors that advanced liberty in America. During slave trade period, they reconsidered liberating slaves from slavery. They also agreed on leaving their American colonies alone so that they would have a chance of governing themselves. Thus, the activity of the British made colonialists perceive the liberation of slaves as a natural practice that required no questioning.

The enlightenment of the colonists also triggered the advancement of liberty. During the time of the Revolution, things happened in a unique way; the developments of slavery and liberalization ideas were strange. Immediately after the war between the French and the Indian, the colonists started realizing that their masters, the British, were depriving them enjoyment by taking away their rights. They equated the acts of the British with slavery. They also started believing that the British were enslaving their subjects because they lacked rights that could aid in barring government intervention. Therefore, the colonists thought it wise to rebel against the British government despite their involvement in slavery practice.

The American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution are considered the most momentous years between 1775 and 1800. The American Revolution enhanced the creation of a new and vital nation. It rescued the Americans from tyranny. It also paved way for the creation of new republic that was to become one of the greatest nations in the universe (Bonwick 1).

The American Revolution aided significantly in resolving American issues pertaining independence and oppressions from the British. However, there were many reasons that made the colonists fight against England. For instance, they were revolting against taxation and England’s monopoly. They were also fighting against the advancement of England’s control in their colonies; the British had deployed their soldiers in private households and outlawed public meetings. Additionally, the installation of a British soldier as a governor of Massachusetts had intensified their ill perception of the British. Thus, the Revolution played a significant role towards the attainment of colonists’ independence.

The writing of the Constitution was also very essential. It took part in resolving many issues that were not settled by Revolution. For instance, it aided significantly in defining power among the colonists, the government the country will use, and the relationship of interstates (Bonwick 124).

The Constitution solved many issues including the ones that had potential of causing negative effects to the Americans in the future. For instance, it provided more power to the national government than the state government (Bonwick 131). It also enforced practice of indirect democracy in America. According to the above, the elites were entitled to more power than the common people.

Although most believe that it is the Constitution that created future tensions and social conflicts, it is evident that those problems existed in the past before its drafting. The drafting of the Constitution only prevented them from being the main cause of problems in 1787. The Constitution only postponed the problems to be resolved by future generations. For instance, it indirectly barred African Americans from participating in politics by allowing slavery (Bonwick 167).

The barring of African Americans from politics helped deter Civil Wars. It also helped the blacks seek for their rights after formation of one unified nation. The exclusion of women from politics also played and still plays a significant role towards fighting for women rights. The exclusion of women and blacks from the drafted Constitution also created an opportunity for a debate to be held between proponents and opponents on the rights of women and blacks in America. From the above, it is evident that the Constitution did not create problems as many people think. Therefore, it will be good for one to say that the Constitution dodged from solving some issues that existed by then so as to have a united nation with the potential of solving problems in future.

Works Cited

Bonwick, Colin. The American Revolution. New York: University of Virginia Press, 1991. Print.

Parker, Charles. Global Interactions in the Early Modern Age, 1400–1800. New York: Cambridge University Press. Print.