The Irish Participation in the American Civil War Essay

The Irish Participation in the American Civil War - Essay Example As the discussion highlights the Fighting 69th is lead by Thomas Francis Meagher during the American Civil war and led the said Union through the main visions. One is to have a clear message towards Britain on an action supporting the Union in Ireland regarding the interventions favoring the opposing group. For that matter, it also confirmed the second objective that is to set the goals of the Irish people to have a unified support for the group. Lastly is to have a unified cooperation from the Catholic minority. This paper outlines that Thomas Francis Meagher and the Fighting 69th had been chosen to represent the significant characters in the American Civil War on the basis of the courage and determination that they possess in helping the people of the US. It can be perceived that even with the conflicts in their homeland, the members of the group went to fight their battles to be able to contribute if not for the achievement of the unified goals of the people in Ireland but in the United States. Meagher although an Irish exile due to political reasons, had been able to contribute in the American Civil War by leading the Union. Included in the contributions of the Union can be related to the lineage and history of service through the period of the American Civil War. From the 1st Regiment of the Irish Brigade, the 182d Infantry New York State Volunteers and the 69th National Guard Infantry, the contributions of the group can be considered notable. These groups were united by Meagher under th e Irish Brigade with the historical fight during the Seven Days battles.

Gummy Bear Lab Essay Example for Free

Gummy Bear Lab Essay Question- If the percent of the concentration of a solution varies, will the amount of water gained or lost vary in a linear fashion? Hypothesis- If the concentration of a solution varies, then the amount of water lost or gain will not vary in a linear fashion Prediction- I think that the amount of water lost will not vary in a linear fashion. I think the water will vary like one gummy bear would lose 4 grams while another would lose 6 grams while another would lose 3. 56 grams. Just numbers all over the place. Experiment- 1. Materials needed: a. 5 gummy bears b. 5 beakers c. A scale d. Distilled water e. Salt f. A cover for each beaker g. A paper to put on the scale h. Tweezers The independent variable is the salt in the water. The dependent variable is whether the amount of water lost or gained in the gummy bears varies in a linear fashion. The constants are the type of gummy bear used in this experiment, the type of salt, the type of beaker, the type of scale, the cover, amount of water, and the amount of time the gummy bears have. The control is the beaker without the salt in it; Beaker A. Safety procedures  include washing your hands before and after the experiment. Day 1: Get 5 beakers and 5 gummy bears. Put a paper on the scale and find the weight of the gummy bears. Then put the gummy bears in each beaker and label the beakers A-E. Put 100 ml of water in each beaker. Pick a solution you want each beaker to have. For this experiment the solutions were: Beaker A- 0%; Beaker B- 5%; Beaker C- 10%; Beaker D- 15%, and Beaker E- 20%. So to put the solutions into the beaker, first take salt and find the weight of it. It you want a 5% solution; the salt’s weight has to be 5 grams or close to 5 grams. Do the same for the other beakers. Of course, Beaker A will have no salt in it because it doesn’t have a solution with salt. Cover each beaker with the same kind of cover and wait for 24 hours to see what happens. Day 2: Take the beakers out of the place they were in. Spill all the liquid out of all the beakers. Make sure to identify which gummy bear is which. It is best to do this one at a time. Take the gummy bear out of the beaker with tweezers. Put a paper on the scale and weigh each gummy bear. Record the weight. When you are done weighing each, throw the gummy bears and all waste away and wash your hands. Analysis: Observations were that all the gummy bears lost their pale yellow color and turned into a clear color. Some gummy bears had salt sticking to it. Another gummy bear lost its shape completely and it looked like glob. Some gummy bears looked like it gained weight and some looked like it lost weight. Errors were that a little bit of salt was added into the control group; Beaker A. Results from Alexis’s group were that all the gummy bears gained weight and Justin told me that all his gummy bear’s also gained weight although I don’t know what their solution were for each beaker or the difference from the final weight to the initial weight. Their results didn’t vary in a linear fashion. Mathematical calculations were to subtract the final weight of the gummy bear with the initial weight of the gummy bear. Conclusion The results of the experiment were that the water lost or gained didn’t vary in a linear fashion. It went from one number to another. Even though the amount of solute varied in a linear fashion, the differences did not. They vary at a nonlinear rate. These results matched the hypothesis and proved it correct. Errors that happened in this experiment were that some salt was added to the control group; Beaker A. This could have affected the dependent variable by gummy bear losing a little bit of weight because of the salt. The results from the other groups were that their results didn’t vary in a linear fashion. This is consistent with my results because the difference in grams also didn’t vary in a linear fashion. This means that my lab was done correctly. Other experiments that can be done are by taking a jar and filling it with water. Then secure the paper towel on the jar with a rubber band. Make a water filled chamber to put food coloring drops it in and see what happens. The paper towel is the cell membrane and the food coloring is the water molecules crossing the cell membrane. Another experiment is by filling two beakers of water, making them  ¾ full and labeling them. Then add salt to one beaker and mix it into the water until no more salt can dissolve. Put a carrot, celery, and 3 raisins in each beaker and see what happens in 24 hours.

The Issue Of Legalising Homosexuality And Prostitution Philosophy Essay

The Issue Of Legalising Homosexuality And Prostitution Philosophy Essay The issue of legalising of homosexuality and prostitution was investigated by the Wolfenden Committee headed by Sir John Wolfenden.   The Report claimed that it is not the duty of the law to concern itself with immorality. This gave rise to a debate on morality and social norms. Lord Devlin and Professor Hart argued extensively attempting to define morality. Is society able to enforce its own morality or ought morality to be enforced by law? Devlin appealed to the idea of societys moral fabric. He argued that the criminal law must respect and reinforce the moral norms of society in order to keep social order from unravelling. Societies disintegrate from within more frequently than they are broken up by external pressures. There is disintegration when no common morality is observed and history shows that the loosening of moral bonds is often the first stage of disintegration, so that society is justified in taking the same steps to preserve its moral code as it does to preserve its government the suppression of vice is as much the laws business as the suppression of subversive activities. Devlin argued that immorality is what every right-minded person considered immoral. Devlin argued that there could be no theoretical limit to the reach of law; no acts are none of the laws business. Breaches of the shared morality do not cause harm to other individuals in the way that murder and assault do, but none the less they harm society by undermining its moral structure. Even acts like homosexuality between consenting adults in private can threaten the existence of society, and therefore society has the right to suppress them. Devlin believed that the limits of tolerance are reached when the feelings of the ordinary person towards a particular form of conduct reaches a certain intensity of intolerance, indignation and disgust. If, for example, it is the genuine feeling of society that homosexuality is a vice so abominable that its mere presence is an offence, then society may eradicate it. Moral laws or enforcing morality is much wider than one thinks, if we base it on the survival of our society then what is classed a society? Individualism of individuals come together with common interest and form communities but not every community is common to each other. Although they might share common moral issues, there are still some immoral practises within their communities by which other standards might be considered moral. Professor Hart argued with Lord Devlin over issues of enforcing morality. Lord Devlin in his book, The Enforcement of Morals in one of his essays quotes; it argues from the majoritys rights to follow its own convictions in defending its social environment from change it opposes. Does this mean that the majority rules even if they are wrong? A society made up of like minded individuals being the majority, there, must be toleration of the maximum individual freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society. Is Lord Devlin saying that society consist s of the majority of like minded individuals and that the majority enforces their morals on every other individual that would not otherwise take part in the thinking of the majority Rule, forcing individuals to think in the same way as the majority of society. Going back to the question of whom and what is a society? Is Lord Devlin referring to the powers that have been given to certain individuals that represent society (Not necessary the majority) to enforce morality? Taking South Africa for example during the Apartheid era were a minority class enforced immorality on its majority. Lord Devlin believed that society is entitled to preserve itself without vouching for the morality that holds it together. Professor H.L.A. Hart responded to Lord Devlin, If one holds anything like a conventional notion of a society, he said, it is absurd to suggest that every practice the society views as profoundly immoral and disgusting threaten its survival, Professor Hart went on to say that this so silly as arguing that societys existence is threatened by the death of one of its members or the birth of another. Professor Hart goes on to say that Lord Devlins argument fails whether a conventional or an artificial sense of society is taken. Lord Devlin in response to Professor Hart comments, I do not assert that any deviation from a societys shared morality threatens its existence any more than I assert that any subversive activity threatens its existence. I assert that they are both activities which are capable in their nature of threatening the existence of society so that neither can be put beyond the law. The two main issues that are argued between Lord Devlin and Professor Hart is firstly the freedom of choice and secondly the privacy of morality. Lord Devlins is of the opinion that you can not have Law without morality à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦destroys freedom of conscience and is the paved road to tyranny. Devlins argument centres on what he regards as an important function of the criminal law in enforcing the generally shared moral values of a society which are associated with its important institutions. The case for the laws enforcement of societys shared morality is based on several different considerations, most of which are embodied in two doctrines which Hart has labelled the disintegration thesis and the conservative thesis respectively. According to the disintegration thesis, a shared morality is what holds a society together, and hence the enforcement of this morality is necessary to prevent society from collapsing, or at least weakening. On the other hand, the conservative thesis maintains that the majority have a right to follow their moral convictions that their moral environment is a thing of value to be defended from change. Lord Devlin in his works refers to man reason or reasoning. Is man able to be rational? This I find is important and integral makeup for human beings to be moral. Unfortunately both Devlin and Hart in their arguments are attempting to establish or determine what the glue is that holds society together? Where Professor Hart is being more liberal and believing in the very nature of man, Devlin being more conservative saying that man is not capable of being rational. Drinking, drug-taking, homosexuality, abortion, suicide and fornication may cause serious social problems if they are indiscriminately practised. But so also would birth control, or the very practice of having very large families, or even, as Devlin himself acknowledges, celibacy. It is therefore not breaches of the shared morality that certain activities can become harmful to society, and hence their being harmful does not in any way support Devlins disintegration thesis. Devlin writes of harm to society as opposed to harm to individuals, On this account harm to individuals is constituted by injury to specific individuals such as is caused by acts of homicide, assault, and robbery. On the other hand, public harm consists of the impairment of institutional practices and regulatory systems that are in the public interest. Devlins disintegration thesis, with its notion of harm to society, is really an application of the public harm principle that coercion is necessary to prevent public harm. If this is the case, then there is no disagreement of principle between Devlin and Mill, for Mills principle of harm, embraces both private and public harm. If Devlins claims are correct, then even on Mills liberty principle there is a case for the legal enforcement of the shared morality. Devlins disintegration thesis, the harm which justifies legal intervention is not identical with the mere feelings of intolerance, indignation and disgust which arise when the majority in a society learn that their moral values have been breached. However, when one moves from his disintegration to his conservative thesis, the notion of public harm is either dropped, or else it is transformed in such a manner as to be indistinguishable from the mere feelings of intolerance, indignation, and disgust in the majority. In either case the conservative thesis is incompatible with Mills liberty principle. Hart warned against the dangers of populism.   Why should the conventional morality of a few members of the population be justification for preventing people doing what they want? This is based on the theory that most peoples views are coloured by superstition and prejudice. Hart reiterated Mills harm principle, Hart pointed out that societies survive changes in basic moral views. It is absurd to suppose that when such a change occurs, to say one society has disintegrated and been succeeded by another. Both Hart and Devlin raise important issues. Devlins view is practical and focused on the majority rule. Harts is more human and individual. Dworkin suggests that we should abandon the Hart-Devlin debate and concentrate of Liberties.   If a behaviour is a Basic Liberty like sex, this should never be taken away, even if someone has a different way of doing sex e.g. R v   Brown (1993) HL, general liberties could be restricted if they cause harm.   But, it is not clear how you tell the difference between a basic and a general liberty? Thomas Hobbes explains that morality is determined by reason and that reason has as its goal self-preservation seems to lead to the conclusion that morality also has as its goal self-preservation. But it is not the self-preservation of an individual person that is the goal of morality, but of people as citizens of a state. That is, moral virtues are those habits of persons that make it rational for all other people to praise them. These habits are not those that merely lead to an individuals own preservation, but to the preservation of all; i.e., to peace and a stable society. Thus, Good dispositions are those that are suitable for entering into civil society; and good manners (that is, moral virtues) are those whereby what was entered upon can be best preserved. In the state of nature, people have no education or training, so there is continual fear, and danger of violent death, and the life of man, [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. But real people have been brought up in families; they are, at least to some degree, civilized persons, and how they will behave depends on how they are brought up. Hobbes does not say that society is a collection of misfits and that this is why we have all the trouble that we do a position congenial to the psychological egoist. But he does acknowledge that many also (perhaps most men) either through defect of mind, or want of education, remain unfit during the whole course of their lives; yet have they, infants as well as those of riper years, a human nature; wherefore man is made fit for society not by nature, but by education. Education and training may change people so that they act out of genuine moral motives. That is why it is one of the most important functions of the sovereign to provide for the proper training and education of the citizens. I believe that this is by far more relevant than attempting to impose laws on society to control individuals or communities. Law as Morality is just one of the many laws that differentiate between state to state but this one also differentiates from person to person. Law as morality is a law that comes from what you think is morally correct. Morality is the choices we make, and the actions we take. Moral people behave according to personal and public ethics. Immoral people deviate from established behavior. Since the purpose of laws is to condone one type of behavior and condemn another, the making of laws impacts our actions. In a situation such as a set of twins whom are connected at birth and one is going to have to die to save the other. The only thing is, is that one of the twins is healthier than the other, so which one do you kill? Law and morality play a large role here, mainly because there is a legal issue and a moral issue associates with the predicament. The reason law has a part is that after the decision is made; it will be examined legally and must be accountable for the consequences. Morali ty has its place because many will find it morally wrong to take ones life despite any justification. Morality is based off of right and wrong and good and evil and people have different opinion as to what is right and wrong due to their different upbringings and socialisation. Summary If, like Hobbes, we regard morality as applying primarily to those manners or habits that lead to peace, then his view seems satisfactory. It yields, as he notes, all of the moral virtues that are ordinarily considered such, and further, it allows one to distinguish courage, prudence, and temperance from the moral virtues. Perhaps most important, it provides, in almost self-evident fashion, the justification of morality. For what is it to justify morality but to show that reason favours it? Reason, seeking self-preservation, must favour morality, which seeks peace and a stable society. For reason knows that peace and a stable society are essential for lasting preservation. This simple and elegant justification of morality does not reduce morality to prudence; rather it is an attempt, in a great philosophical tradition stemming from Plato, to reconcile reason or rational self-interest and morality. To summarize Hobbess system: people, insofar as they are rational, want to live out their natural lives in peace and security. To do this, they must come together into cities or states of sufficient size to deter attack by any group. But when people come together in such a large group there will always be some that cannot be trusted, and thus it is necessary to set up a government with the power to make and enforce laws. This government, which gets both its right to govern and its power to do so from the consent of the governed, has as its primary duty the peoples safety. As long as the government provides this safety the citizens are obliged to obey the laws of the state in all things. Thus, the rationality of seeking lasting preservation requires seeking peace; this in turn requires setting up a state with sufficient power to keep the peace. Anything that threatens the stability of the state is to be avoided. Margaret Thatcher once declared, Theres no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families. Civility is not just good manners; it is part of democracy and respecting people that are different from ourselves with whom we differ maybe even very sharply. But maintaining a balance in which we can have respect for the rights of other people who have different views.

JEdgar Hoover :: essays papers

JEdgar Hoover J. Edgar Hoover was a young 25-year-old when he became the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations. His first federal job was as a clerk in the files division, and he quickly became one of the most respected and feared men in the free world. Even presidents knew better than to cross him. A consummate politician, Hoover was one of the first to ride the â€Å"media train† to power. He used the media as a tool and he knew that what people read and what they see and hear directly affect what they think. A brief biography, as an introduction to the man will aid us in the understanding of who he was, and through this we may gain incite into the reasons for why he did the things he did. Hoover was born New Years Day 1895 in Washington D.C. the youngest of three children. He had an older brother and sister that lived and an older sister that died as a baby. His mother, Annie Hoover had the greatest influence on him as a child. She was strong willed and militaristic in her approach to raising her children and running a family. She instilled in him a strong sense of right and wrong, and taught him the work ethic for which he would live by. Hoover was a winner, during his school years and beyond. As a boy Hoover was afflicted with a speech impediment. He was so determined to overcome this handicap that he read aloud for hours a day until he no longer stuttered. Hoover was short and slight in stature but he was athletic and quite agile. He was a member of his high school track team that went all-American. He was on the debate team and did quite well. This is probably where he got his combative nature. He was also the captain of his ROTC company in college. Giving him the leadership skills that he would need in later years. Hoover graduated near the top of his class from George Washington University with a bachelor’s degree in Law. (Powers, pp.48-52) With all of this going for him one might expect him to join the army as an officer as other men his age were being drafted to war, but as sole provider for his mother he was exempt from the draft. He also got his first taste of federal service when his uncle got him a position as a clerk in the files office of the Department of Justice.

Are You There, Reader? Its Me Margaret Essays -- Literary Analysis

Joseph Michael Sommers, has written an article on one of Judy Blume’s most iconic coming of age story; Are You There, God? It’s Me Margaret. In this article he speaks about the nature of this novel and how it speaks to young adolescent females. He speaks about the connection the novel has between the protagonist and the reader. Sommer’s argument is that the protagonist breaks the fourth wall and seeks outside intervention to her troubles in her life. The author speaks about the boundaries Judy Blume has tested. One is â€Å"sororal dialogism† in the novel, and how he will show it as a recast of avuncularism. Also how sororal bond can be found and interpreted in the novel. Another issue is, how Are You There God? It’s Me Margaret, has been described as a problem novel. As well as what position the reader plays. One thing that stood out was that Sommers in the title of the essay puts â€Å"reader† in the spot where the word â€Å"God† should be. The author uses first person point of view in his article, to connect with his audience, but his connection is not a personal one he wants it to be one of logic. He puts emphasis on the fact that we as reader are somewhat put in a position, that if we are the same gender and have gone through the same adolescent troubles (puberty, menstruation, boys, etc), we are compelled to identify with the main character. Sommer’s states: The reader reads in order to feel sorrow for the protagonist in a manner the reader can assimilate. Yet, it seems that the nature of Margaret’s thoughts is inherently dialogic or, to work with Duke’s terms, empathic: neither Margaret nor the reader uses the text in order to solicit pity from the other. What function would a â€Å"pity party† serve a reader by herself? To the contra... ...oached. Such as: how the reader is seen as having so many roles, and to which one do they take. This article is well- written and he has some significant points about the novel. Sommer’s tactics of constructing his argument in a logical manner was the right thing to do. It helps the reader to separate their feelings that they may have had when reading the novel, and look at facts. In some parts of the article he used reader-response, which helped you to question what others have said about this novel. Although there were parts where his argument is not clear, it did consist of some valid points. Works Cited Joseph Michael Sommers. "Are You There, Reader? It’s Me, Margaret: A Reconsideration of Judy Blume’s Prose as Sororal Dialogism." Children's Literature Association Quarterly 33.3 (2008): 258-279. Project MUSE. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. .

Geoffrey Chaucer :: Biographies Poet Poetry Essays

Geoffrey Chaucer Before William Shakespeare, Geoffrey Chaucer was the preeminent English poet, and still retains the position as the most significant poet to write in Middle English. Chaucer was born in the early 1340s to a middle-class family. His father, John Chaucer, was a vintner and deputy to the king's butler. His family's financial success came from work in the wine and leather businesses. Little information exists about Chaucer's education, but his writings demonstrate a close familiarity with a number of important books of his contemporaries and of earlier times. Chaucer was likely fluent in several languages, including French, Italian and Latin. Chaucer first appears in public records in 1357 as a member of the house of Elizabeth, Countess of Ulster. This was a conventional arrangement in which sons of middle-class households were placed in royal service so that they may obtain a courtly education. Two years later Chaucer served in the army under Edward III and was captured during an unsuccessful offensive at Reims, although he was later ransomed. Chaucer served under a number of diplomatic missions. By 1366 Chaucer had married Philippa Pan, who had been in service with the Countess of Ulster. Chaucer married well for his position, for Philippa Chaucer received an annuity from the queen consort of Edward III. Chaucer himself secured an annuity as yeoman of the king and was listed as one of the king's esquires. Chaucer's first published work was The Book of the Duchess, a poem of over 1,300 lines that is an elegy for the Duchess of Lancaster. For this first of his important poems, which was published in 1370, Chaucer used the dream-vision form, a genre made popular by the highly influential 13th-century French poem of courtly love, the Roman de la Rose, which Chaucer translated into English. Throughout the following decade, Chaucer continued with his diplomatic career, traveling to Italy for negotiations to open a Genoa port to Britain as well as military negotiations with Milan. During his missions to Italy, Chaucer encountered the work of Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, which were later to have profound influence upon his own writing. In 1374 Chaucer was appointed comptroller of the customs and subsidy of wool, skins, and tanned hides for the Port of London, his first position away from the British court.

Liberal Media Gone Too Far

Liberal Media Gone Too Far This article GOP Convention Exposes Bigotry and Hatred on Left, on investors. com posted on August 29, 2012, shows the ignorant statements of the media to stir the American people. Written by a Republican point of view, they are sick of all the media bashing they get from liberals. The Democrats use fear to get their fellow Democrats to follow them. There are more destructive ads on Facebook and news sites against Republicans than I have ever seen.The Democrats want everyone to focus on the negative ads and statements and scare people, so they won’t think about what bad shape this country is in today. The GOP wants us to know that they have the experience to run this country. The Democrats always pull the race and religious card whenever they don’t want the true facts to be known. The race card plays a significant role in the 2012 Democrat campaign. The race card was used excessively during the 2008 presidential election. Bill Clinton played t he race card in an attack on voter ID laws in his September 6th speech at the Democratic convention.He wants Democrats to believe the GOP doesn’t want any minorities, young, poor, and disable voters to vote. That couldn’t be farther from the truth. There have been so many democrats prosecuted over voters’ fraud from the 2011 elections, it just wasn’t believable. ACORN showed us all how easy it was to manipulate the system. Voters ID are important to maintain the integrity of our voter’s registration laws. When 74% of Americans favor having people an ID when they vote, including 65% of African Americans and 64% of Hispanics.Most voters believe showing ID, a necessity in our daily lives, is common sense. As long as the democrats continue to stir up racial fears and tensions, this problem of using the race card will continued. I hope the Americans people can see how reckless and irresponsible this practice is to our voter’s confidence in our el ection process. Mia Love was unfairly judged by the liberals in this article. For the liberals to label Mia Love as a â€Å"house nigger†, â€Å"dirty worthless whore† and an Aunt Tom, is very cruel and uneducated.She is a highly educated woman from Haitian immigrants, who is a Mormon running for Congress in Utah’s fourth district. If she wins, she would be the first black woman that Republicans have ever elected to Congress. Mia Love stands for physical discipline, limited government and personal responsibility. Liberals likes to bash the person and not the politics. Politicians use the religious card all the time. Liberals judge people by their appearance and what their background is, they will make an ugly comment about it instead of sticking with the issues.Mitt Romney believes in Mormonism and the liberals think he shouldn’t be running for president. Chris Matthews called Mormons â€Å"cultist†, and New York Times columnist Charles Blow tweete d that Mitt Romney should â€Å"stick that in our magic underwear† a remark referring to a Mormon religious practice. Again why don’t liberals worry about the issues instead of someone’s background? In the early 1960s, people thought that John F. Kennedy shouldn’t be running for president because he was a catholic and it turned out that he was elected president of the United States of America.Your faith is important no matter what party the candidate is with; his or her faith is a personal choice. This article opened by eyes to the importance of doing my own research on the candidates and issues instead of believing everything that I read. I believe that liberals think that all republicans are white men in the corporate world. That is a stereotypical view point of a liberal. People need to stop focusing on badmouthing each other and start thinking what it is going to take to make this country a stronger and safer country.