History

The Progressive Era in the U.S. is a period that lasted from 1890 to 1920 and was actually known for two distinct characteristics:

1. It was a time where progressive social movements within the county sought to change various aspects of the country, specifically the government and the economy.
2. It was a period of time that was also known as the era of prohibition due to the desire of the “Progressives” to change all aspects of their society. They focused on removing what they described as “society’s ills” which resulted in the banning of various materials and activities with the most prominent of which being alcohol.

Unfortunately, what the progressives neglected to take into consideration was the fact that a vast majority of the local populace actually wanted the various vices that they were banning which actually caused a large percentage of the population to turn to illegal behavior (i.e. buying alcohol illegally).

Start of the Progressive Movement

First and foremost, what must be understood is that the progressive movement as a whole began as a social movement that focused on eradicating societal “ills” such as poverty, class warfare and racism through supposed changes in social and political structures (Rice 110). This social movement began at the grass roots level and slowly gained sufficient prominence to reach the national stage (Leonard 207). While its initial goals can be considered as admirable since it considered providing broad educational opportunities, safer communities and better workplaces where a person could earn a living, the fact remains that it was somewhat naive in its consideration towards creating what the progressive’s deemed as a utopian society (Leonard 210). The greatest mistake of the progressive movement was that it attempted to tackle human vice; however, neglected to take into consideration human nature (Gross 509).

The Era of Prohibition

The Era of Prohibition can be considered as a point in time where religious groups gained sufficient influence over the progressive movement to the extent that they enacted their version of what can be considered as “societal improvement” in the form of outlawing the sale and manufacturing of alcohol based on its supposed harmful effects (Kiel 419). As a result, the ban on alcohol achieved success by 1917 resulting in a general ban on its sale and production. Predictably, despite the ban on alcohol, the local population of the U.S. still demanded it which, as a result, caused many of them to either illegally manufacture it themselves or resort to smuggling it into the U.S (Beshears 198). What the progressives failed to understand is that the more a substance is banned the more likely it is people will want to try it. In fact, the era of Prohibition actually caused more alcohol to be consumed as compared to when the ban was not in place within the country (Beshears 200).

Conclusion

Based on the facts presented in this paper, it can be said that the Progressive movement was both positive and negative. The legacy of the movement can be seen today in positive practices related to corporate monitoring, allowing women and minorities to vote and combating public fears against immigrants entering into the country. However, it cannot be entirely stated that the progressives were not without their own faults wherein their over-zealousness lead to a point in time where large segments of the American population violated the law due to the equivalent of far right wing conservatives gaining power they had no ability to wield without wisdom.

Works Cited

Beshears, Laura. “Honorable Style in Dishonorable Times American Gangsters of the 1920s and 1930s.” Journal of American Culture 33.3 (2010): 197-206. Print

Gross, Robert N. “Public Regulation And The Origins Of Modern School-Choice Policies In The Progressive Era.” Journal Of Policy History 26.4 (2014): 509-533. Print

Kiel, Doug. “Competing Visions Of Empowerment: Oneida Progressive-Era Politics And Writing Tribal Histories.” Ethnohistory 61.3 (2014): 419-444. Print

Leonard, Thomas C. “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19.4 (2005): 207-224. Print

Rice, Danielle. “Things American: Art Museums And Civic Culture In The Progressive Era.” Winterthur Portfolio 48.1 (2014): 109-110. Print

Schachter, Hindy Lauer. “The Two Faces Of Progressive-Era Professions.” Administrative Theory & Praxis (M.E. Sharpe) 36.4 (2014): 489-509. Print

From 1861 to 1865, there was a civil war between the southern and northern states in the United States of America. The issues leading to the war mainly revolved around slavery which was widespread in the south and generally opposed in the north. The civil war led to the reconstruction era which was aimed at restoring civil and human rights for all and focus on building a new and better America. The paper in part outlines the roles of the federal government and Supreme Court in enhancing the civil rights of African Americans during the 1870s, but mainly emphasizes how and why they retreated from defending the civil rights of African Americans during the same era.

After the civil war, there was an era known as reconstruction. During this time, the United States federal government helped the newly freed slaves get jobs, shelter, and education. Racism was however a huge stumbling block for the achievement of this. It was widespread and posed a challenge to most black people.

Black people had no right to free movement, were not allowed to participate in elections or even acquire property. Abuse and murder of African Americans were also a frequent occurrence. The federal government grew less and less effective at giving support and protection to African Americans, but they began to build their institutions that played a key role in the struggle for freedom and equal rights (Smith 3).

Congress established the bureau of refugees to help the freed slaves and whites who did not have homes. The agency, also called the freedmen’s bureau, worked from 1865 to 1872. It provided food and supplies to black people, built a big number of hospitals, settled thousands of people, and founded thousands of schools (Kent 26).

African Americans however continued to suffer in terms of economic power even with the bureau in place. They were subjected to barbaric laws, racism, and blackmail. They were free, but their freedom was turning out to be nothing more than neo-slavery. Southern state governments made it illegal for colored people to have land title deeds and their unemployed were subject to punishment by imprisonment. These pieces of legislation were unacceptable to congressmen from the north, allied to the Republican Party, who pushed for the civil rights act that allowed blacks full citizenship without any discrimination.

Blacks now participated more actively in national politics and could now vote in the south. However, by the early 1870s, the whites in the north had lost their zeal in ensuring equal rights for all and no longer offered solid support to their associates down in the south. The federal government then gradually withdrew Federal troops sent to the South to protect blacks (Smith 9). Blacks and whites allied to the Republican Party soon lost control of government and its institutions in the south as a result of the reduced support from their northern counterparts. In 1877, the federal government withdrew the final federal troops from the south; an indication that they were not as committed to the reconstruction ideology.

The Supreme Court also caused even more strife in civil rights because of some of its rulings. It ruled against the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases that sought to block the centralization of slaughterhouses in the United States of America. The decision restricted the power of the federal government to protect black people by confining its power to influence the states on behalf of individual rights. The Supreme Court also put down the 1875 Civil Rights Bill and declared the law, not by the constitution in the Civil Rights Cases. It ruled that the 13^th and 14^th amendments did not give the state powers to prosecute individuals for discriminating against colored people. This was an obvious blow to the civil rights of black people as they lost all five cases presented to the court. The majority submitted that individuals were relegated to charming state governments, which proved unpopular to blacks in the south, to end such discrimination (Rosen 12). The two blacks serving at the time, James O’Hara and Robert Smalls tried in vain to revive parts of the civil rights bill thereafter.

These Supreme Court decisions limiting the power of congress to effect the amendments made during reconstruction led to deeper civil strife as the states in the south passed laws that kept white and black people apart in both public and private circles. Racially discriminative policies were later enacted into laws especially in the southern states following the loss of the civil rights cases.

.An amendment was made to the commerce bill banning discrimination in the public transport system. Backed by representative Smalls on December 17, they made arguments fighting for the Civil Rights Bill. However, many congressmen of the republican party downplayed the racial issue deeming it too sensitive for discussion.

The Supreme Court made many amendments to the law to ensure equal rights for all. However, there were some loopholes because after the fifteenth amendment; only black males were allowed to vote.

In brief conclusion, the federal government and the Supreme Court certainly did less than they could have done to ensure African Americans had their civil rights. They could have done more in terms of legislation and goodwill to ensure equal rights for all. The ruling by the supreme court against the civil cases was also an impairing move to the achievement of an equal America. The central government and supreme court instead acted with neglect and carelessness in some instances, leading to delayed justice in terms of empowering the black man. The black man, therefore, took a much longer time to fully enjoy equal civil and human rights.

Works cited

Kent, J.African Americans during the civil war New York: Macmillan publishers.2001.15-19.

Robert N. Rosen.Confederate Charleston: an illustrated history of the city and the people. University of South Carolina Press, 1994.

Smith. Black Soldiers in Blue: African American Troops in the Civil War Era. UNC Press. 2003, p 2-5.

Introduction

The term civil rights refer to a set of permissions and entitlements given to an individual so as to protect him or her from government power and enable one to willfully participate in any form of civil or political life. Objectives of civil rights include ensuring the safety of the people and their physical integrity, protection from any form of discrimination, procedural fairness in legal affairs, and all political freedoms such as freedom of movement, the press thought, and so on.

They top the list in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is therefore fair to say that civil rights are the most important form of rights and many entities share this sentiment. Civil rights are entrenched in many countries’ constitutions and are also included in their respective bill of rights. In most countries across the globe, civil rights are natural rights that are generally upheld However, citizens enjoy ‘more’ civil and political rights than non-citizens despite the notion that they apply to all persons universally. Discrepancies in guaranteeing civil rights have led to social unrest in many a country throughout history. Variably in America’s history, the civil rights movement is considered one of the most famous movements. (Morris 101)

Brown v. Board of Education

The above-mentioned case was a landmark decision made in 1954 by the United States Supreme Court. The decision overturned earlier rulings that had set out separation grounds in public schools for black and white students. The decision concluded that this separation denied children of African descent equal education opportunities. The “unanimous 9-0 landmark decision” came to the conclusion that there existed unequal facilities in education that were based on separation.

This contravened the Equal Protection clause in the United States Constitution. The Brown v. Board of Education decision was one of the initial steps towards the civil rights movement and ultimately integration. The case came at the backdrop of poor race relations and a long history of racial segregation. An earlier Supreme Court case dated 1896 had concluded that as long as separate facilities were equal then segregation of this nature did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

The argument presented by the plaintiffs stated that separating races brought about inferior accommodation, services, and poor treatment of African Americans. Brown’s inspiration came from an earlier statement from UNESCO titled ‘The Race Question’. The UNESCO paper denounced justifying racism using science. This was seen as trying to approve such injustice as moral while it was not. The Board of Education of the Kansas City of Topeka had an official policy of racial segregation.

Thirteen parents representing their 20 children wanted these policies reversed. One of the African Americans was Oliver Brown who was both a pastor and welder in the community he was in and his third-grade daughter, Linda, had to travel a mile away to her black school even though a white school was seven blocks from her home. Following a directive from NAACP, the parents were allowed to enroll their children in the schools that were closest to them. They were however refused enrollment by the white schools under the pretext of segregation policies. The Brown case inspired desegregation in American institutions.

Rosa Parks

She was an African American civil rights activist who came to earn the title ‘mother of modern-day civil rights movement’. Rosa Parks is renowned for her stance of refusing to give up a seat for a white passenger, a requirement that was forced on all blacks. In Montgomery for example, certain parts of the bus were specifically reserved for either whites or blacks and the two could not mix. The whites were allocated the first four rows and the rest which were termed as the colored section was left for the African Americans. This was even though more than seventy-five percent of bus riders were blacks. (Morris 101)

The colored section was usually at the rear and the bus driver moved the sign according to the number of white passengers on the bus. It was quite dehumanizing for the Blacks because they had to board the bus first and pay their fare then disembark and reenter through the back entrance. Parks had earlier been sent out of the bus and forced to walk five miles from her home. The following day parks boarded the same bus and sat in the black section.

The bus however picked white passengers on the way and four African Americans including Parks were ordered to give up their seats for the whites. She refused upon which she was arrested leading to what is commonly referred to as the famous Montgomery bus boycott. A new organization was founded and named Montgomery Improvement Association with a relatively unknown minister by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. picked as its president.

Montgomery’s black community boycotted the buses to protest the arrest and trial of Rosa Parks. The boycott run for 381 days and damaged the bus company’s finances. The segregation law was lifted. During the boycott, supporters of segregation hit back with terrorism. They burnt churches, bombed the home of Martin Luther, and attacked E.D. Nixon’s home. The boycott was one of the most successful black civil rights movements. It elevated Martin Luther as the de jure leader of the civil rights movement and also sparked many protests. (Williams 19)

Greensboro sit-ins (1960)

North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University students David Richmond, Jibreel Khazan, Joseph McNeil, and Franklin McCain sat at the segregated lunch counter at a Woolworth store. They were fully cognizant of the fact that they could not be served since during this time blacks were never allowed to sit leave alone being served. The store manager called the police but did not order their arrest.

In his opinion, the protest will last a short time and everything will be back to normal. However, the following day the students brought along with them twenty-seven other people. Four days later, the number of protesters showing up for the Woolworth’s sit-ins, mainly African American students, had reached more than 300. Tensions between blacks and whites increased at the lunch counter which was closely followed by a bomb scare. The Greensboro sit-ins sparked economic boycotts and sit-ins, especially throughout the Southern states. President Dwight Eisenhower expressed his support for the students taking part in the protests. (Marable 240)

Freedom Ride (1961)

The Boynton v. Virginia case had banned segregation based on race in waiting rooms, restraints, and buses. Activists referred to as ‘freedom riders’ made their journeys on buses to the segregated states of the south to put the above hurling to test. African Americans and whites as well rode to the south to challenge segregation laws and customs. The freedom rides had the following impact:

• Provoked violent reactions.
• The American Civil Rights Movements’ credibility was bolstered
• Laws enforcing racial segregation in the south caught national attention.
• Many riders were arrested and allegations of trespass state and local law violations were leveled against them.
• Gave credibility to non-violent resistance. (Marable 240)

Freedom rides run for several months and despite the Kennedys calling for a cooling-off period, the rides persisted. “Most large companies feared that boycotts would affect the north and therefore desegregated their businesses”(Marable 240). Later Robert Kennedy will influence the Interstate Commerce Commission to enforce the ICC rule. White and colored signs in terminals, restraints, toilets and many other places came down. (Marable 240)

Religion, Dr. King, and the SNCC

It is almost impossible to talk about American Civil Rights Movement and not talk about Martin Luther King Jr. He is globally recognized as a human rights icon and is also a Nobel peace laureate. “He was also awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1977 and in 2004 was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom”. He is recognized as a martyr by various churches. He played a leading role in the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He also had the chance of leading the Rosa Parks Montgomery Bus Boycott. He is also recognized as one of the greatest orators in the history of the United States. He advocated for civil disobedience and the use of non-violent means to seek an end to racial segregation and discrimination. (Garrow 51)

In 1957 Martin Luther and other activists founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and led the outfit until his demise. The organization was to harness the organizing power and moral authority of African American churches to organize non-violent protests. The SCLC was therefore a very important part of the civil rights movements and always advocated for nonviolent means of protest. They were by and large very successful in their strategies and in achieving their desired objectives. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (pronounced sink) on the other hand was another organization at the heart of the civil rights movement during these years. It played a major role in the earlier mentioned sit-ins and freedom rides and were also involved in:

• Important contribution in fieldwork
• Organizing voter registration
• Protesting against Vietnam War (Garrow 51)

End of Segregation

The Kennedy administration implemented the Interstate Commerce Commission rule on 1^st November 1961 during the active times of the freedom rides. This effectively saw the bringing down of ‘white’ and ‘colored’ signs in previously segregated areas. “In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act that facilitated black voters’ registration on spite of state barriers. The Voting Rights Act came to effect in 1965”. (Williams 19)

Conclusion

The story of the rights of African Americans fight for their rights is a long and painful one that predates this era. African Americans have been subjected to all forms of cruelty and injustice but today they can at least say that it is not that bad. Though they still continue to face numerous challenges in the American society as a result of legacy, nothing can be compared to past times. The American society has transformed in a great way that today the president of the United States of America is an African American.

Work Cited

Garrow, David J. Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. New York: William Morrow, 1986 34-59.

Marable, Manning. Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America, 1945-1982. University Press of Mississippi, 1984. 234-246.

Morris, Aldon D. The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black Communities Organizing for Change. New York: The Free Press, 1984 100-123.

Williams, Juan. Eyes on the Prize: America’s Civil Rights Years, 1954-1965. New York: Penguin Books 11-23.

Introduction

To begin with, it is necessary to mention that the transformation of American society through the period of the 1960s – 1970s was subjected to serious and essential changes. Originally, these changes were reasoned by the essential changes in cultural and social spheres of life, as Black Power movements, women emancipation movements, and the youth counterculture movements shocked the United States.

Black Power Movement

The fact is that all the states were subjected to non-violent demonstrations, devoted to the civil rights movements. Originally, these movements were caused by the increased dissatisfaction among the African-American population, and, in order to gain their won rights, eradicate the issues of discrimination, strikes all over the country were arranged. As for the effects of these movements, it should be stated that all the actions contributed to the allover change of the social image of the American society. In spite of the fact that the number of racists stayed the same, the young generation realized all the uselessness and meaninglessness of racism and any type of discrimination.

In spite of the discrimination that stayed on the same level, the African-Americans received extensive freedoms. (Boyer, 2001) They were free to choose public professions, some of the music bands entered the professional stage, and the whole country could enjoy their progressive music. African-American actors got an opportunity to star in the movies etc. As for the rest of the society, black music and African traditions became rather popular. Now, whites listen to rep and reggae, are fond of VooDoo, and make African ethnic tattoos.

Women’s Liberation Movement

First of all, it should be stated that the feminist movements affected American society even more seriously than the black power movements. Women got the right to initiate the divorce process and “no-fault” divorce. Women gained the right to make their own decisions on the matters of pregnancy (contraception and abortions). Women now had the right to get more equitable salaries and access the university education.

Nasstrom (2003) states the following on this matter: “The United Nations Human Development Report 2004 estimated that when both paid employment and unpaid household tasks are accounted for, on average women work more than men. In rural areas of selected developing countries, women performed an average of 20% more work than men, or an additional 102 minutes per day. At the UN’s Pan Pacific Southeast Asia Women’s Association 21st International Conference in 2001 it was stated that “in the world as a whole, women comprise 51 percent of the population, do 66 percent of the work”

The fact is that the social climate in the USA has changed essentially throughout the historical period of the 1960s – 1970s. The steady process of occupying initially male professions by women started. It is claimed, that these processes also initiated the process of occupying leading and heading posts by women. Women were no longer secretaries, but they could occupy managing posts. Natural skills helped them to occupy analytical jobs as well.

Youth’s counterculture

Another factor that has essentially changed the social climate of the conservative USA is the counterculture. It was the reaction against conservative social standards of the 1950s, the Cold War, and the military intervention in Vietnam. The new idols appeared. Bob Dylan, the Beatles who supported the anti-war movements. The liberal wave has covered the whole territory of the USA, it became popular and fashionable to smoke cannabis, grow long hair (among boys), have free sex, etc.

Consumer Culture

AS for the allover consumer culture, it should be stated, that every social movement changed the image of the society thus, the way of thinking changed, which caused the changes in the consumers’ behavior. More female goods were advertised in mass media, the image of a businesswoman was broadly popularized, and more and more advertisements were targeted at women, their health, beauty, success, and their children. (Phillips, 1998)

As for the counterculture, it increased the illegal sales of cannabis, and it should be stated, that the images, associated with war and brutal force were no longer popular among customers

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to mention that there are numerous dimensions of the changes, and there is no space to mention each of them. The American culture was subjected to essential changes, and the three mentioned factors were the most powerful. On the other hand, they incorporated into each other, and the changes in the society linked with Black power movements empowered the effect of feminist movements, as women had the shared experience of struggling for their rights.

Counterculture changed the overall image of juvenile society. If some just smoked cannabis and had absolutely no goal, the others left their homes and chased their life goals (conservative norms generally adjudicated such escapers).

References

Boyer. The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People Concise. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.

Nasstrom, Kathryn L. “Sisters in the Struggle: African American Women in the Civil Rights-Black Power Movement.” Journal of Southern History 69.4 (2003): 981.

Phillips, Anne, ed. Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Introduction

There are reasons for many countries to go into the First World War; indeed, some of the protagonists were protecting their very existence and as such, did not have a choice but to take up arms. In these countries, an outcome that came as a fall out of the war could be justified as being worth it for the sake of retaining a sovereign state.

Little can be said about the reason that Canada went into the war since she became a protagonist by default (rather than active decision). This was because, by the time of the outbreak of the war, the country was still a dominion of the British Empire and as such was obliged to go to war on behalf of Great Britain.

The war had many outcomes; some of them are responsible for what we know Canada as today and can be considered as positive. For example, the Canadians developed a sense of nationalism separate and distinct from the British Empire and set the country well on its way to the attainment of full independence and sovereignty. The war also resulted in the deaths of 67,000 Canadians and the wounding of 173,000 others¹.

Entry of Canada Into the War

When, therefore, Britain declared war on Germany on August 5^th, 1914, all the colonies of the empire were also involved as a matter of automatic obligation. As such, Great Britain did not even presume that it had to consult the Canadian society in order to get a consensus in regards to the involvement of the country in the conflict; and on the fifth of the same month, the General Governor of Canada went ahead to singularly declare war on Germany².

On the ground, however, there was no consensus regarding the recruitment of Canadians to fight in a war whose only outcome would benefit Britain; the French-Canadians, in particular, did not feel that they owed the British Empire any allegiance so as they would be obliged to fight in the war. On the other hand, Canadians of English descent were of total support of the war and were of the view the Canadian involvement was necessary if not unavoidable³. At this juncture, the then Canadian Prime Minister Robert Borden had an opportunity to exercise democracy (through which he was elected) to determine whether his country went to war or not; he however squandered this chance by offering help to Britain which was quickly snapped up.

Preparedness for the War

The First World War was essentially a European war; as such, the protagonists had spent years building up to the war through provocative stances and minor conflicts that resulted in the ballooning of tensions that exploded into a cataclysmic crash. A such, these protagonists had seen the war coming and had responded accordingly by raising mighty armies, arming themselves, and generally reorienting their industries to power a major conflict.

On the other hand, Canada, on the other side of the planet did not have any direct interests in the power struggle across the ocean; thus compared to the European powers that fought in the war, Canada was at the very least ill-prepared to enter into a conflict the scale of a world war.

For starters, the Canadian military was not very advanced; the standing army had a total of 3,110 and the navy was only in its formative stages; while these, together with the Canadian militia, were sufficient in maintaining the security status of the country at the tie, they were not sufficient enough for the war ⁴.

However, and again through the action of Robert Borden who gave orders to the then minister of militia Sam Hughes to raise an army for the war, and within two months of the declaration of war, Canada had an army of over 32,000 men. A racial slant was however adopted during recruitment as Canadian blacks were initially allowed to join the army⁵.

Apart from the investment of men both immediately at the onset of the war and in the course of the conflict Canada also invested a lot of resources to run the war; this includes a reorientation of the industry to produce military equipment both as armament and supporting gear for the soldiers.

While these investments would have been partially justifiable in a country where the economy was healthy, the same could not be said for Canada; in the period preceding the onset of the war, the country was already experiencing poor performance due to various reasons. For starters, a severe drought had caused a drastic reduction in the production of wheat in the country in 1914; for a country heavily dependent on agriculture, this came as a major blow as the economy was deprived of the crucial foreign exchange it gained from exporting wheat.

In the same and the following year, over 50,000 jobs were lost in the railway sector as the industry buckled under the weight of massive debt. Additionally, other sectors, such as construction and real estate also suffered from an acute shortage of capital. In a modern economy, these would have been sufficient disincentives for preventing a country from entering into an avoidable conflict.

Canada undisputedly had a significant effect on the outcome of the First World War; some of their escapades earned them respect as being among the most effective during the war, and they were pivotal in several significant victories during the war^{6 7}. Additionally, by fighting in a major conflict as a country, Canada was well on its way to earning complete emancipation from the British Empire. This however was a pyrrhic victory given the dent created in the economy both in terms of direct expenditures, misappropriation of energy, and missed economic opportunity.

War and the Economy

As with any major conflict, the short-term effect on the economy is that of increased activity; some of the peacetime realities in any free economy such as unemployment virtually disappear. The same can be said for Canada; with the entry into the war, there was an increase in the demand for manpower both to fight in the waterfront and to support the war in various means such as nurses; and to work in factories producing military material. The drought that had previously ravaged the agricultural sector resolved to allow a return to maximum productivity; as a result, the country regained its international wheat market and went ahead to export large volumes of wheat particularly to Britain.

In a bid to channel more resources to the war, Prime Minister Borden moved the War Measures Act; this legislation gave the government sweeping powers to determine how the resources of the country would be used in a war situation to aid in the victory; apart from this, the act also gave the government discretion to do many other things some of which were grossly abused; such as arbitrary arresting and incarceration of persons regarded as being of enemy predisposition as perceived from their ethnic or national origin; this affected immigrants from the countries involved in the conflict as adversaries to Britain and Canada, particularly Austrians and Hungarians.

A good example of the redistribution of national resources is the Imperial Munitions Board; for a body that was virtually non-existent before the outbreak of the war in 1914, it must have taken massive investments to result in it being the largest single employer in Canada with 250,000 workers in 1916, barely two years later. Created to provide munitions for the allied forces, IMB supplied approximately 1 million rounds a very month, accounting for about 30% of the shells spent by the British army on the western front⁸.

In addition to these, Canada was in full swing producing ships, submarines, and planes for the conflict; at the peak of the war, there were over 100 industrial plants in the country. As a result, the workforce of Canada was gradually depleted resulting in a 0% unemployment rate; indeed, even housewives were recruited into the workforce to plug the labor shortage.

All these developments involved expenditures of amounts of money; as such, it is estimated that by the year 1915, the money spent by the military to fight the war was equal to the budget of the entire Canadian government in the year 1913. Additionally, in 1918, it was estimated that the military spent $2.5 million every day on the war. Such astronomic expenditures could not go unfelt by the already struggling Canadian economy.

One of the areas to be affected first was the financing of the government; for example, compared to the budget deficit of 10% in 1913, the deficits of 15% during the period of involvement were an alarming development. With the demand for more money far outstripping the supply from the traditional sources of government revenue, that is tariffs imposed on goods brought into the country, the government resulted in other tactics to plug this gap.

Such include the issuance of ‘Victory bonds’; these, together with other similar bonds were responsible for the collection of approximately $2 billion from the public (that is in addition to paying their normal taxes) during the period of conflict. The government also moved to increase the amount of tax imposed on some select items such as tobacco and alcohol to raise more revenue.

All these measures were, however, not sufficient in satisfying the demand for the revenue; and the government had to find even more sources of revenue. Through the instrument of legislation, the government was able to fulfill, albeit in part, some of its goals. The 1917 Income War Tax Act serves as a good example⁹.

The Economic Fallout of the War

As mentioned before, a significant amount of the funds used to finance the war were obtained in form of debt both to individuals in form of bonds; and to corporations. As at the end of the war, the federal government was in debt amounting to approximately $164 million. On the other hand, the government had also employed a large number of Canadians as soldiers for the war; as such, the country was also burdened with paying pensions for the soldiers amounting to $76 million every year. Combined, these two expenditures amounted to the total annual budget of the federal government before the war; consequently, some of the ‘temporary’ imposed during the war became more-or-less permanent; a good example is the income tax¹⁰.

The manufacturing sector buoyed by the war also suffered a setback after the end of the war; with no demand for their good, many plants started to shut down; the more affected were the steel and the chemical industries. The level of unemployment rose drastically as a result of this¹¹.

War; The Wrong Economic Decision

While many arguments can be made regarding the legitimacy of Canadian involvement in the First World War, the economic angle of the debate leaves little room for discussion. The enormous amount of resources spent in the war could have been invested elsewhere for the benefit of the Canadians.

While the involvement of Canada in the war was a matter of automatic declaration by the then governor-general, the prime minister could have taken steps if not to prevent the involvement, at least to make such involvement be of a lesser scale or even nominal. Such a decision would have been justified by the grim economic outlook that had already engulfed the country before the war. Such efforts would have saved the Canadian economy all the years it spent recovering from the negative effects of the war; and who knows where the economy would have been today?

Bibliography

Aitken, W.M. Canadian War Records Office: Report Submitted by the Officer in Charge.  1917, p. 2, RG 9, series III-D-I, vol. 4746.

Buckner, Philip, ed. Canada and the British World: Culture, Migration, and Identity. p1. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 2006.

Cook, Tim. Shock troops: Canadians fighting the Great War, 1917-1918. 2008. Toronto: Viking.

Desmond Morton. When Your Number is Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War Toronto: Vintage Canada, 1994.

Finkel, Alvin, and Margaret Conrad. History of the Canadian Peoples: 1867 to the Present. 2nd ed. Vol. II. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1998.

Horn, Michiel. Dirty thirties: Canadians in the Great Depression. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1972.

LaFranchi, Howard. “World Events.” World Events 91. EBSCO support. 1998. Web.

“1914–1918 – Effects of World War I on the Canadian Economy.” Canadian economy online. Ed. Government of Canada. Government of Canada. Web.

“One of Canada’s last WWI veterans dies.” CBC.ca – Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. 2007. Web.

Welcome to the Library and Archives Canada website | Bienvenue au site Web Biblioth..Que Et Archives Canada. Ed. Library and Archives Canada. 2009. Web.

Footnotes

1. Finkel, Alvin, and Margaret Conrad. History of the Canadian Peoples: 1867 to the Present. 2nd ed. Vol. II. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1998.
2. LaFranchi, Howard. “World Events.” World Events 91. EBSCO support. 1998. EBSCO support Group. 2009.
3. Buckner, Philip, ed. Canada and the British World: Culture, Migration, and Identity. p1. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. 2006.
4. Cook, Tim. Shock troops: Canadians Fighting the Great War, 1917-1918. 2008. Toronto: Viking.
5. Finkel, Alvin, and Margaret Conrad. History of the Canadian Peoples: 1867 to the Present. 2nd ed. Vol. II. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1998.
6. Cook, Tim. Shock troops: Canadians Fighting the Great War, 1917-1918. 2008. Toronto: Viking.
7. Desmond Morton, When Your Number is Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War (Toronto: Vintage Canada, 1994).
8. “1914–1918 – Effects of World War I on the Canadian Economy.” Canadian economy online. Ed. Government of Canada. Government of Canada.
9. “1914–1918 – Effects of World War I on the Canadian Economy.” Canadian economy online. Ed. Government of Canada. Government of Canada.
10. “1914–1918 – Effects of World War I on the Canadian Economy.” Canadian economy online. Ed. Government of Canada. Government of Canada.
11. Horn, Michiel. Dirty thirties: Canadians in the Great Depression. Toronto: Copp Clark, 1972.

Feminism can be defined as a way of thinking in terms of power ownership; that is who has power, how power is used or misused by the ones who hold it in relation to gender. It looks into the way power relations are considering the chances that are available for different genders for instance the job opportunities and public service. Feminism is a subject that was declared lifeless, and beside the point so often that the works on the topic of feminism served as a reprieve from such assumptions. Ruth Rosen’s work which looks at the history of both the radical and the liberal feminists’ movement and the transformations that they have brought is an example of such books.

In a statement on the issue that the efforts of women had gone beyond the backlash, Rosen said that “the young women these days enjoy a lot of freedom in many fields. These fields include education, profession, writing, even the field of expressing themselves, and variety from which they can choose. As they enjoy these freedoms, they should always remember that other women in the past fought so hard and paid greatly for them to start enjoying such privileges in today’s world. In return, they are expected to show their gratitude to these great women by continuing the fight and bringing progress to the changes that the predecessors had laid a foundation for. They are expected to do this in accordance with the current trends in society. The change they should fight for should be helpful to them at that particular time and help those who will be coming after them in the future. Modern-day women are expected to take the fight a step higher than they found it. Because the feminists in the past fought for them, they should also fight for themselves during their time and fight for those who will come in then future.”(Rosen R. pg 345).

The above statement clearly articulates the need for the current generation to keep in mind whatever sacrifice was put up for their sake and carry on the fight for the sake of the future generations. It calls for the memorization of the struggles that had been put forward for them and share the knowledge that they have about the struggle. This was the major reason why Ruth Rosen wrote down about feminism so that the females in the scene could have a glimpse of how the freedom they are enjoying came about. She even talks about the role of women in modern-day society concerning feminists’ struggles, which is her major concern in the writing. (Rosen, R. pg 346).

Rosen has started her work by looking at the world before feminism. She has described the world before feminism as a world that, if brought back to this time, we know would be unrecognizable to the young women today. There have been key changes in society that were brought about by the feminist movements. Young women rejected the old ways of their mothers and started embracing news liberal ways that were defined by feminism. Although in this struggle they were branded anti-motherhood, they pressed on and never gave up. Before the feminist movements, there existed a patriarchal society in which the power was in the hands of men, and women were discriminated against, not because of any particular reason but simply because they are women. With the rise of feminist movements, there was the questioning of the system. This was not an easy thing. There were many challenges that the women went through that slackened the success. Among other numerous challenges was the backlash. This refers to the criticism, counterattack, and the hostile response that came from the men and the women alike to stop them from achieving success in the fight against discrimination of women. Some of the areas where they were criticized include the demand for equal participation in the labor force. (Rosen, R. pg 20) Although there were demands in the labor market for more jobs, we see the way the men were so discriminative of the job areas to an extent that they would rather take the jobs that they considered were for the black men, in areas of racial discrimination than being found taking up the tasks they believed belonged to the women. In relation to this, they totally did not consider it a possibility for there to be an equal opportunity for both men and women in the job area. As a result, there was resistance to the attempt to amend any laws that could allow for such conditions. Even though this was a difficult thing, the women applied all the force that they could to ensure that their demands were met. In an attempt to show that they would meet the match in whatever field they were in, they excelled whenever they were given a chance to work in the various areas initially reserved for being for men only. This already sets the ground for the modern-day woman and she learns that to keep up the fight, there is a need to excel in whatever it is that she does so that she can prove worth the job. This is just one of the ways in which she is supposed to carry on the light of feminists’ struggle. Success comes by merit.

By looking at the weaknesses that were there in the feminists’ movement, Rosen equips the modern-day woman with a choice to ensure that they escape the weaknesses as they can learn from the mistakes made by their predecessors. There were divisions in the feminists movement. There were the liberal feminists and the radical feminists. There was a lack of trust among these two groups such that the government had dismissed them “as people without a leader or direction” (Rosen, R. pg. 246). While the liberal feminists looked into the welfare the woman all around, the radical feminists sought to transform the sexual culture in America. They addressed issues on prostitution, abortion, pornography, rape, and sex. They looked at the involvement of women in these activities and aimed at creating awareness to the whole society, not only among women. This is when the women started to show the rebellious tactics that were believed or rather associated with masculinity. When the target of radical feminists changed and started addressing the sexism issues, the media coverage for them increased and as a result, created publicity for the liberation hence, the liberation started, despite the criticism that they had faced earlier. This gives the women an example of the ways in which they should carry out their fight. They should apply diplomacy and check their unity to ensure that they get results as a group.

The feminist movement’s initiative brought about changes in the women’s lives in communities whereby there was an initiative from them to excel in academics, religion, and even at job areas. Women developed in academic leadership, entrepreneurship, and even in politics. Their participation and success created a completely different picture which eventually brought about permanent changes for instance women being employed in key positions in American society, later. Initially, the success was ignored by all including the media and the leaders, but they had to work for attention. “They wanted equal rights that men had at work in the society.” (Rosen, R.: How pg 242). With these in mind, the modern woman is ready for all the challenges that they might face. Even in these times, the challenges are still so common and as a result, there can be discouragements. The message Ruth passes across is, if the women in the past made it, what would hinder those in the present time from succeeding? The role of the modern woman now was to ensure that they carry on with the fight strongly because they owe their predecessors for fighting for them.

Rosen looks at the various avenues through which the feminists fought their fights. By forming the organizations that supported the struggle, there were higher chances of succeeding. Initially, there had been women organizations that did not do anything to fight for the liberalization of women. They were sectarian, that is, they rigidly held on to the set of doctrines that had been laid down earlier without considering the views that the feminists wanted to bring in, those of having the rights of women respected and avoiding discrimination. This was through the creation of the movements through which they aired their views. An organization like the National Organization of Women (NOW) was considered to be one example of a sectarian organization. It was dismissed by the young feminists as being a mother’s organization. The young feminists wanted to form their own dogmas that could reflect their time and represent their need for a socially just society.

Because of the ignorance and lack of attention that the feminists got from the leaders and the public, including the media, they decided that they would use all means to ensure that their goals were met. This included even the advocating violently in their actions, which is associated with masculinity more that felinity. They took to this men-like ways because there had never been any women’s way of rebelling. They copied the male visions of rebellion in all its forms, that is, sexually, academically and socially. To them, success was inevitable.

Another book that addressed the feminist theory was Nancy Woloch’s “Women and the American Experience’ in this book that looked into the great dejection that the women suffered because of the roles they played in the society for example the at home, in public life and at work. Nancy clarifies the fact that there was need for additional labor in the production sector even though national leaders insisted that the women could not chip in- for the simple reason that their role is basically to dedicate herself to the domestic chores in the society. In her opinion, the economic emergency made it a mandatory requirement that the women be involved, there numbers be increased especially in the areas that were initially preserved for the men alone. Even though initially the African- American women and the poor whites were already involved, the middle class white women started to enter the labor force. Roosevelt E. and Perkins F. became the leaders who represented the exceptional women who worked in the government programs in the new deals instead of involving themselves sin what was considered then as inappropriate feminists’ politics. This set the grounds for the women who are now in the various positions serving the nation. With the opportunity to participate, the women are given a chance to improve the economy of their country. The participation in the development of the economy, the modern woman makes her contribution to the supplying of the labor force for her country.

Nancy Woloch did not just look at the participation of women in the government offered jobs. There were other areas that needed to be looked into to enable the nation progress towards the twenty first century. There was need for women participation in the political scenes in the country. In this line, the historian described the early suffragists’ effort as a “crusade in the political enlightenment carried out by women and it would benefit the women and its existence mostly benefited the women who were seeking votes so that they could get a leeway into the political scene.”(Woloch, Nancy; pg 354) Following this effort, there were some women who were selected to represent the women in the senate, for instance, Rebecca Latimer became the senator for Georgia in the United States senate. Even though there was still an under representation, there had been some success levels. This marked the opening of the chances of the women to start their participation in the political activities in the country. Modern woman has a role of ensuring that the women politics are a landmark to the society.

After having started the fight to have women representatives in the political scenes, there was no going back. The new fight, which is carried on even today, and which got support from the other women gained root. Although it has not fully reached the levels that are expected, there was a turning point in the late 1880s and the 1890s when there came up so many volunteers from among the middle class women and they were willing to be involved in the activists’ actions in progressive causes. They were from the women’s clubs, self-control campaigner clubs, professional societies, and those who used to take part in the charity and local community organizations. These women were determined to expand the scope of activities further than the homes where they had been confined, and this helped in the process of speeding up the legitimization of the suffrage movement. The suffrage movements like American Women Suffrage Association (AWSA) and the National Women’s Suffrage Association (NWSA) got new impetus to carry out its activities. By 1890s, the two groups NWSA and AWSA came together to from National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA). (Woloch, Nancy pg 551) This has, however never been the end of the fight for the increased representation in the politics of a given country. The modern day woman is expected to continue with the fight to a level of totally equal representation in the politics of their particular countries. It is sad to mention that even though the general population of women is higher than that of the men, we still have the inequalities in which there are more men in the political scene than women. This is what, as a feminist, women should fight to see these discrepancies should be scraped from our society.

At the time when the fight for the rights of the women to be fought for coincided with the time when administration of the United States government was required to get involved in the First World War that was on. This played an important role in determining the acceptance by the government to grant the vote. This provided an opportunity for the women to be involved in running the government, something that provided a positive boost for their fight against discrimination on gender lines. As a result, there issues were well articulated due to the representation they got from the women who had made it to the senate and the congress. The modern-day woman with a feminist mind should be grateful, and make most of these opportunities. It is all for the benefit of the feminists, that is, the women.

In conclusion, feminism is a tool with which the modern-day woman should use to give their contribution to their community. Following the base that was put to ground by their predecessors, the present day feminists should create a better world for the women who are coming in the future. Although feminism is not presented as a single voice, and might never be presented in the same way by different groups and their procedures are not unified, it inspired, and still inspires people with its impressive notion that is far reaching that the future of a baby should not be controlled by the mere fact that it belongs to a certain gender, but it reflected by the ideals and the creativity the baby is born with.

Works Cited

Weiss, J. Review of Rosen, Ruth, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women’s Movement Changed America. The H-Women H-Net. 2002. Web.

Woloch, Nancy A History of the American People: Women and the American Experience, A Concise History. McGraw Hill Professional 4th ed. 2001.

A Review of the Literature

Debates have been raging on for some years over the participation of the United States in the Vietnam War. This Research Paper tries to review the literature on the United State’s interest in Vietnam, Its concerns in the region, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and the congressional resolution commonly known as “The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.”

The United States Interest in Vietnam

President Lyndon B Johnson took up leadership at a time the United States of America faced a difficult fight against communism. According to a Joint Chief of Staff memo in 1964, it was noted that South Vietnam was a key measure of the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. The United States felt that the failure of its programs in South Vietnam would reduce its influence and judgments of Japan, the Republic of North Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, Burma, and the Republic of Philippines. Furthermore, it would send corresponding signals to Latin America and Africa. Based on this thinking, President Johnson aimed to force a direct involvement in the Vietnam War rather than covert participation. Meanwhile, communism continued to gain more ground at the time Vietnam was a conflict (Goldman, 1969). This was of great concern to the United States. The United States had suffered some significant drawbacks in its efforts to fight communism before the Vietnam War. For instance, the country had registered defeats in Cuba, East Germany (Berlin Wall), and in Laos. This was a clear indication of the success of communism to expand the world over. The impression here was that the United States was losing the cold war and therefore had to do something to deter this development. In this respect, the U.S identified Vietnam as a frontier to launch its defense against the spread of communism (Goldman, 1969).

The United States Concerns in the Region

The Vietnam War pitted communist North Vietnam and capitalist South Vietnam. The United States considered that the victory for North Vietnam over South Vietnam to have greater ramifications in the entire region and throughout the world (Stanley, 1983). In this respect, the government of the United States decided to assist South Vietnam in a collaborative manner to win the war against North Vietnam and enhance its influence in the region and beyond. It had to do that in a way the world could not suspect her as an aggressor. The aim of the U.S was apparently to get a way of destroying the networks of communism. As tension between the two neighbors continued to escalate, the U.S realized that South Vietnam did not have the capacity and resources to register a victory against communist North Vietnam. This made the U.S Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, under President Lyndon B. Johnson to urge for plans to be put in place to enhance pressure on North Vietnam. According to him, the South Vietnamese government did not have the capacity to resist North Vietnamese aggression (Goldman, 1969). This prompted President Lyndon Johnson to see it vital to deploy more military advisors and supplies to South Vietnam with the sole purpose of protecting its wider interest of curbing the spread of communism (Goldman, 1969). The aim was also to make amends for the losses against communists encountered during President John Kennedy’s Administration (Goldman, 1969).

Consequently, President Johnson decided to address the people of the United States, stating to them that the government was helping South Vietnam to defend its freedom with military advisors, arms, and supplies. This, he said, was in accordance with the obligations under Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. He also made it clear to the American public that the U.S was not at war and had no intention to engage in one (Goldman, 1969). The real intention of the President was to ensure that the American citizens and the international community do not view the U.S as the aggressor of the looming conflict (Goldman, 1969). At this point, it became necessary for President Johnson to view any North Vietnamese real or imagined actions to his political advantage.

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident

There were two separate incidents that involved the U.S navy and North Vietnam in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964. In the first incident, North Vietnamese torpedo boats engaged a U.S vessel, Maddox. This naval engagement between the USS Maddox and three torpedo boats of North Vietnam on August 2, 1964, happened after two maritime raids had been carried out on North Vietnam’s coastal targets. Two days later, on August 4, 1964, a second engagement with North Vietnams vessels was reported. The Maddox escorted by C Turner destroyer returned to the Tonkin Gulf region to continue with its covert activities. As the two ships were cruising in the middle of the night, the radar screens recorded unidentified ships cruising with high speed. Due to the proximity of the ships, the U.S crew concluded that they had ill intentions and fired upon them. This attack happened at night and in poor visibility.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution

A review of the second incident would later reveal that there was no actual attack from North Vietnam. President Johnson and his cabinet took full advantage of this incident in order to get congressional approval that gave the President official mandate to escalate U.S involvement in Vietnam (Mann, 2001). The manner in which President Johnson reported the particulars of these incidents convinced congress to give him the full authority he had sought for. He received the right to start a war and fight against communism without revealing important facts and information to the house of congress and the American public. Public opinion on the United States policy in Southeast Asia was sharply divided, and therefore President Johnson required an affirmation of support. To obtain this affirmation, President Johnson presented the United States as an innocent party patrolling international waters (Goldman, 1969). This made him succeed in capturing the entire public opinion to meet his intended agenda.

At the time of the attacks, President Johnson had portrayed that the U.S would not entertain any unprovoked aggression on its military and would enforce actions necessary to deter future attacks (Mann, 2001). At that point, he requested congress to grand him full authority to engage in a war in Southeast Asia with the main aim of fighting communism. Congress was convinced and granted President Johnson the broad authority he had hoped for. This was the main goal President Johnson had hoped to achieve as it offered him total freedom to decide as to the level of military involvement the United States would aggressively pursue. The Resolution passed by Congress gave the President total control of the military operation against North Vietnam. It should be noted that congress had the mandate to declare war but rather granted the president the authority to engage in one. Throughout, Johnson Administration maintained the position that it had not provoked a naval confrontation with North Vietnam (Mann, 2001). In the Presidents submission to congress, it appeared that the Administration had shown tolerance and that America would only react under North Vietnamese provocation. What the American public did not know was that President Johnson’s intention was to attack North Vietnam directly (Mann, 2001).

According to President Johnson, the United States military and government had shown utmost restraint by refusing to be drawn into retaliating against the initial North Vietnams naval assault. The President rationalized that the airstrikes conducted by the U.S army were only ordered after the second naval assault against the USS Maddox on August 4, 1964. This scenario painted the United States of America as the victim rather than the instigator, thereby not allowing the American public to that the U.S was the aggressor in this incident. John McCrone, Director of Central Intelligence, later confirmed that the U.S was the true aggressor by saying that North Vietnamese were only reacting defensively against U.S attacks in their off-shore Islands. He further stated that they are reacting out of pride. President Johnson’s administration lied to the American public (Mann, 2004). The Administration’s assertions made the public believe that the U.S military did not provoke an attack on the U.S navy in the Tonkin Gulf. These assertions were meant to dupe the American public. What the American people did not know was that the Tonkin Incident happened immediately after the United States military had carried out two maritime attacks on North Vietnamese positions and on two off-shore Islands, Hon Me and Hon Ngu (Rice, 2004). The United States Secretary of defense, when asked about the attacks, stated that the raids were carried out by South Vietnamese naval forces and denied that the U.S had played any role in them. The true position was that these raids were directed by the U.S. It provided South Vietnam with all the logistics, including attack boats maintained by the U.S navy, and the targets raided were selected by the CIA. The entire operation was fully funded by the United States of America.

President Johnson’s Administration purposely stationed USS Maddox in the Tonkin with the clear intention of spying onshore communications of communist countries such as China, North Korea, and North Vietnam. Research reveals that the spying missions were labeled Desoto patrols (Goldman, 1969). The United States aimed at gathering military intelligence from radar installations it had deployed in various positions in the Tonkin Gulf. America deployed the Maddox in an area proximal to North Vietnam territory. Therefore when the 34A raids happened, it was logical for North Vietnam to suspect the Vessel to be part of the raids hence its assault on the Maddox (Rice, 2004). In a state briefing on the incident, the Administration spokesman McCloskey informed the public that the U.S was patrolling in the international waters and was not aware of any raids on North Vietnam’s military installations. The Johnson Administration was directly involved in these missions despite constant denials to the American people. More so, President Johnson was fully aware of the overall mission. To achieve the overall mission, the U.S deployment aimed at identifying North Vietnam’s military targets by conducting covert communication missions. The gathered intelligence was then relayed to South Vietnam to conduct the attacks on North Vietnam. The overall aim was to weaken North Vietnam and halt the spread of communism (Stanley, 1983).

In his statement at an August 5, 1964 staff meeting, McGeorge Bundy, Presidential security advisor, stated that the first incident that occurred on August 2, 1964, was clear, but the evidence for the second attack on August 4, 1964, was scanty. President Johnson had a predetermined agenda and therefore disregarded the advice and went ahead to sanction retaliatory airstrikes. There was no sufficient evidence to prove that the second incident happened. The president went ahead to meet his advisors and selected appropriate targets to assault in North Vietnam before he is receiving an official report that the U.S vessels were attacked on August 4, 1964. Through the National Security Archives press release of 2003, it is now revealed that on August 4, 1964, at 1.27p.m President Johnson received communication from Captain Herrick from the Maddox that showed clear doubt on the occurrence of the incident (Prados, 2003). He said: “Review of action makes many recorded contacts and torpedoes fired appear doubtful. Freak weather effects and overeager sonar men may have accounted for many reports. No visual sightings by the Maddox” (Stanley, 1983). Despite having this report, officials in Washington D.C went ahead with their actions. In fact, President decided on a swift strike on North Vietnamese targets prior to the receipt of Captain Herrick’s message (Stanley, 1983). In addition, the President approved an official statement from the Pentagon regarding the attack at 5 p.m on the same day. The President resorted to this action despite knowing that the Secretary of Defense, McNamara had twenty minutes earlier met with the joint Chief of Staff but failed to find clear evidence that indicated the raids had occurred. During the meeting, at 5.15p.m McNamara approved the message requiring the U.S military to conduct retaliatory attacks on North Vietnamese targets. At 6.45p.m President Johnson met with congress and did not disclose to them the fact that circumstances surrounding the attack on the United States vessels were unclear. Instead, he went ahead and presented his draft of the resolution, “The Tonkin Gulf Resolution.” At 11.36p.m President Johnson addressed the American public just hours before the actual airstrikes hit North Vietnam targets. Looking at the time frame provided by the national security archives, President Johnson’s conversations with his advisors openly indicated to the American people that he manipulated several events for him to gain total control of the military activities in Vietnam (Prados, 2003).

A taped conversation revealed President Johnson’s Plans prior to the August incidents. A conversation between him and McNamara reveals that they discussed “retaliatory” strikes against North Vietnam even though the raids had not happened then. The President had stated to his Defense Secretary that “the U.S should pull one of these things you’ve… been doing… one of the bridges or something”(Prados, 2003). This provided a clear reference to the OPLAN-34A raids. At that point, President Johnson suggested a measure that would have provoked North Vietnam to war (Rice, 2004).

In conclusion, President Johnson drugged the U.S. in a trumped-up war. He was preoccupied with his own agenda other than the safety of the American air force when he announced retaliatory strikes on North Vietnam. The Presidents actions plunged the United States into a war that drugged on for years, causing thousands of additional deaths to Americans. It was a triumph to President Johnson as he managed to execute his agenda using the resolution as a legal basis for his military policy in Vietnam.

Reference

Goldman F. (1969). The Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson. New York: Alfred A. Knopt.

Mann R. (2001). A Grand Delusion: American Decent into Vietnam. New York: Basic Books.

Rice E. (2004). Point of No Return: Tonkin Gulf and the Vietnam War. North Carolina: Morgan Reynolds Publishing, Inc.

Stanley. K. (1983). Vietnam, A History: The First Account of Vietnam at War. New York: The Viking Press.

Prados J. (2003). LBJ Tapes on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident: The National Security Archives, Press Release. Web.