User:Canadian/sandbox

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_Abuse_in_Kuwait.jpg. Retrieved 2008-02-02. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)</ref>]]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian/templates_i_use

Canadian/sandbox
Candian
Born	(1981-09-14)September 14, 1981 United Kingdom
Nationality	United Nations
Citizenship	Canada
Scientific career
Fields	Medicine, Chemistry, Economics

The development of political parties

Introduction

During 1820 -- 1840 the two party system emerged because of two major reasons which are major political personalities and each parties different view on the economy of the country. Major political personalities helped the creation of the two party system, this includes the bitter rivalry of John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. Each man appealed to certain types of voters thorough their family background, place of residence and their personal beliefs. The two party system also emerged economically because of the idea of protecting northern industries by hurting the southern farmer, the support of a strong central banking system and on debates on internal improvements. If a certain group of people within the same political party have different views, then they would separate and form two new parties. This happened after the one party Era of Good Feelings.

Political personalities' effects on parties

Political personalities were critical in the creation of the two party system. The Democrat-Republicans, more commonly known as the Democrats, formed from the Republican Party, after the presidential election of 1824 in which John Quincy Adams was proclaimed the president even though he did not a majority of the popular vote. In that election no one won the majority of the electoral vote and thus the United States House of Representatives had to intervene and declare the president thorough votes in the House. Before this in the Era of Good Feelings when Monroe was the president, there were no political parties. In the election of 1824, all candidates declared themselves as Republicans. After the election, the Republicans split into the Democratic-Republicans, who were the supporters of Andrew Jackson, and the supporters of Adams, called themselves the National-Republicans.

The personal images of the candidates determined who would be the president. Jackson had tremendous support from the west and the small poor farmers because he symbolized the common man from the back-country. They made a connection with the hard life that Jackson faced from being orphaned at a very young age, and emigrating “up West” to Tennessee. People also prized his toughness. He was portrayed as a war hero because of his victory in the Battle of the New Orleans in the War of 1812, and the defeat of the Creeks in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. The people of the West and the common man (who were small dirt farmers with no or few slaves) supported Jackson’s qualities because they saw him as an Indian fighter; the Indians were seen as a major threat of the security of the West.

On the other hand, Adams was seen by the common hard working folk as being too aristocratic and snobbish, thus he gained the support of business men and generally the richer populace. This exemplifies the fact that the common men were dedicated to Jackson because they could relate to him that and they saw his quality of a commoner more appealing to Adams and supported Jackson to be the president of the United States even though Jackson did not win constitutionally 1824. The support of the common people helped the create the Democratic Party of Jackson. Even though Jackson had many flaws during his presidency such as dealing with the “nullies” of South Carolina and leading the national economy to the panic of 1837, the fact that he won the presidential election twice in 1828 and 1332 through a new political party called the Democrats proved that a strong contender had formed against the National Republicans by separating from the mother party -- the Republicans and now there were two political parties instead of one.

The Whig Party

The nomination of William Henry Harrison greatly strengthened the Whig Party during the election of 1840. He was portrayed by his party as being as a commoner of log cabin background who also drank hard cider, to gain to vote of the common poor man. Martin Van Buren was shown by the Whigs as a wealthy man. Added with poor economic policies of the panic of 1837, Harrison easily won the election. This proves that both the economic condition of the country, the personal background and the achievements of the presidential candidate helped soundly create a new political party once again; now there are two major contenders for the presidency -- Democrats and the Whigs. Harrison used the same technique as Jackson by appealing to the masses to win the election.

Economics

Economic issues greatly affected the creation of the two party system that is seen in the United States to this day. The Bank of the United States was one of the foremost reasons for the creation of different political parties. Its main function was to stabilize the American currency and to serve as a repository for federal funds. The Bank of the United States was to expire in 1832 and Henry Clay proposed to have the bank’s charter renewed before it was to expire, but President Jackson vetoed it on the basis that it was monopoly that benefited the rich and foreigners (they owned 25 percent of the stocks). This later led to the creation of the Whig Party in 1934 by Clay oppose Jackson’s policy of slowly removing federal funds it and declaring it unconstitutional. If Jackson had not decided to not re-charter the Bank of the United States, then there would not had been any arguments, thus no political parties would have been created to oppose Jackson and create a two party system of the National Republicans and the Democrats and later the Whigs and the Democrats.

Political/legislative actions

The series of high tariffs designed to help New England industries led to downfall of the National Republicans because the southern states thought that the “Yankee tariff” discriminated against by raising the prices of cheaper goods that the south imported. Later disagreement between Adams and his vice-president John C. Calhoun on the tariff issue led to the writing of “The South Carolina Exposition” which protested that the tariffs were detrimental to the southern society and also hinted nullification of the law. This further intensified in the government of Jackson where Calhoun resigned because of tariff issues and later joined the Whigs along with Clay. Other than that later many other people joined the Whigs, namely southern states’ righters offended by Jackson’s stand on nullification, larger northern industrialists and merchants and later members of the Anti-Masonic Party who feared the Masons a secret society with many unusual rituals. The raising of the tariffs shows that different groups opposed (the Whigs) and some supported the it (the Democrats) and that led to the creation of the two party system.

Economic distresses

The panic of 1837 during the presidency of Martin Van Buren was another reason that fuelled the creation of another major political party. The panic was primarily caused by speculation on western lands through borrowed funds in unstable currency from “wildcat banks” and the policy of specie circular which required federals lands to be purchased only in hard currency such as gold. The government lost millions of dollars to “pet banks” that failed during the panic of 1837. The Whigs sensed panic in the air and proposed various remedies ranging from the expansion of bank credit, higher tariffs to subsidies for internal improvements. The Whigs benefited from the distress and they were seen as advocates of positive governmental steps to stimulate the economy and thorough much campaigning they won the presidential election of 1840. The Whigs would never have developed into a huge political power if there the poor economic policies of the Democrats had not aggravated the population through weak economic reforms.

Effects/conclusion

With the difference in ideas, especially economic issues and also by the leadership different of political personalities led to the two party system as know today. Second parties remain to have a potent effect on democracy and to criticize the current government in order to gain more voters. Whatever the reason, the two most important reasons for their creation is a major political personality who has not been satisfied or the bad economic conditions of the current regime.

Works cited Thomas A. Bailey, David M. Kennedy, and Lizabeth Cohen. The American Pageant 11th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

||||||||

The American Constitution -- A Reactionary Phase in History

Introduction

The American Constitution as a “reactionary” phase of the Revolutionary era is correct even though it does include some ideas that can be thought of as “revolutionary”. Reactionary means extreme conservation of ideas where as revolutionary means to progress towards newer ideas by any means. Socially, the constitution denied to voting rights to women, slaves and Native Americans. Politically, the legislatures’ in the United States lost some power with the advent of the Constitution. Economically the Constitution never mentioned moving west of the Appalachians or no state practiced mercantilism upon another state like the British had done. The Constitution never does specifically state that only wealthy white men can run the government or that women cannot vote, but the interpretation of the Constitution by different people in different ways led to the creation of different political parties. The Democratic-Republicans, the political “party” Thomas Jefferson believed that in revolutionary ideals where the masses should rule; but later in the arguments to ratify the Constitution, the conservative (reactionary) Federalists won. They believed that the “best people” should rule and also thought that a powerful central government was necessary. This shows similarity to the British Governing structure. The Constitution of the United States included both reactionary and revolutionary ideals, but the interpretation of the constitution of led to the creation of political parties.

Socially

Socially the American Constitution can be seen as being reactionary. It retained many customs that the British had already put into place including slavery which was not prohibited by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in 1865 and later all black males were given the vote in the 15th Amendment in 1870. The Native American populace were not recognized as American citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and until then they were removed further out west due to acts such as the Indian Removal Act of 1830 in order to make land for the Americans. This clearly shows that the U.S. Constitution as being reactionary. The newly independent Americans treated the Indians even more badly than the British had treated the Americans by removing them their ancestral lands and in no part of the Constitution was this condemned as being unconstitutional. The British did the same thing when they removed them by battling and then signing treaties such as the peace treaty of 1646 to end the Second Anglo-Powhata War in 1644. Women were not given the vote until 1920 in the 19th Amendment and the Poll Tax on the election of the President, Vice-President and federal senators was banned in the 24th Amendment so that people of poorer background who did not have the financial capabilities could vote. If the Constitution was meant to be a revolutionary document, then all elements of British America would have been erased. No political parties established themselves for the suffrage and equality of slaves, women or Native Americans, but Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party would erect the banner that all informed people white men regardless of their social standing due to wealth would be able to run the government. His ideals of the informed masses ruling did not become a success, while he was the friend of the poorer people he himself build a huge mansion and drank imported wines. While he wasted a country run by the masses, he himself was a wealthy aristocrat with many slaves. Jefferson to the common poor man was just another wealthy governor of the new country. He also wanted to retain the United States as an agricultural country instead of building industries and supporting businesses that the Federalists supported The British wanted to conserve trade and the Federalists believed in these ideals too and when the liberal Jefferson came to power, he retained all of Hamilton’s financial structure and only ridded the country of the excise tax. He virtually kept the Bank of the United States (based on the British Bank of England) and also the tariff intact Later as time elapsed he began to like Federalist ideas and even charted a bigger bank and also raised the tariffs. Tariffs were a way to preserve ones industry with the expense of the farmers (or importers) losing money. The British supported their own British industries by forcing the Americans to not compete with the British goods such as fur hats which hurt Americans. After the independence of the United States, the government came to support the industrialists at the expense of the farmers of the south and the west. These exchanging of ideas are major factors in creating political parties. The people who engineered the American Revolution were radical revolutionaries and when the revolution completed, the reactionaries/conservatives enacted laws to keep them from ever arranging a revolution in the Constitution. Patrick Henry, a revolutionary open denounced the Constitution and according to Thomas Bailey, if all men had to right the vote, then the Constitution could have faced defeat.

Politically

Politically the time of Salutary Neglect gave the Americans the chance to practice legislature, and later just before the Revolutionary War, the British closed several, including the New York legislature. The writers of the constitutions especially concentrated on creating a legislature that would represent the American populace and the states. The conservative Federalists wanted a well balanced legislature that did not become all powerful, and again the Democratic-Republicans wanted the opposite. This can be seen through their support for a executive branch that balanced the powers of the congress by having the power to veto a law that the president thinks of as unconstitutional or for other reasons that the president thinks would hurt the United States. Finally with the Constitution written, the conservative Federalists succeeded by creating a well balanced government where the legislature did not have absolute powers and it was modeled somewhat like the colonial colonies where they also had a governor with some important powers. The expansion of Quebec through the Quebec Act of 1774 by the British affected the colonials in a bad way. The American colonists wanted to revert back to the days where they could settle freely in any region in the western frontier. The Constitution does not specifically state if people should settle in the frontier or not, but since it states the process of statehood for newer states, it indirectly hints that people should settle there. This idea is another issue that led to the creation of political parties. The Federalists craved a large and powerful country, while the Democratic-Republicans favored a smaller and certainly a much manageable country. Here, the Federalists are practicing the ideals of the British of having a powerful and a large country or empire. The autonomy of the states is another issue that required a lot of discussion when the Constitution was being written. It started with the revocation of the Massachusetts Bay Charter when the colony lost most of its powers to the Royal Crown. The first Articles of the Confederation granted the states a lot of autonomy, but the Constitution took away some independence which can be thought of as a reactionary move that is comparable to the actions of the British. The Federalist and the Democrat-Republicans debated this and ultimately the Federalists won, thus the power of the state was not as wide as in the Articles of the Confederation period. If everyone believed in the same ideals then political parties would never be required.

Where is the gray area?

The Constitution did include one grey area where it was revolutionary. The structure of the American economy changed because immediately after independence the Americans were free to trade. The Constitution does not directly protect this. In Article IV, Section II, it states that slaves who have escaped to another state should be returned to that state as a mutual respect for each other, thus no states can officially benefit from another state without benefiting that one. This leaves no room for mercantilist or other types of behavior where one benefits at the expense of the other. When Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist wanted to raise the tariff to protect northern industries, the Democratic-Republicans retaliated by opposing it because now the southern importer had to pay more to buy locally made American goods. The right to protect northern exports can be backed by the Elastic Clause. The Federalists supported a strong navy to protect the shipping by loosely interpreting the constitution while the Democratic-Republicans opposed it by strictly interpreting the constitution. This opposition between the two parties developed each party’s identity and each gained a pool of supporters from different types of people.

Conclusion

The Constitution revoked the new powers of the states and set it very similarly to the British colonial era. Like the British, the unprivileged, women and non-whites were not given their right to vote. The new powers that the states gained in the Articles of the Confederation would be lost again to the Constitution. The writing process of the Constitution led to the creation of political parties and later they debated in every process of the creation of the new government. The reactionaries/conservatives and the revolutionaries/liberals debate to this date the interpretation of the Constitution and how the government should function. The conservatives won because the British and the American governments are very similar; the Americans did not create a new structure of the government.

Works Cited Thomas A. Bailey, David M. Kennedy, and Lizabeth Cohen. The American Pageant. 11th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998.

Fazale Rana
Born	United States
Nationality	American
Citizenship	United States
Alma mater	Ohio University
Known for	Creationism
Scientific career
Fields	Chemistry

Fazale (Fuz) Rana is the son of a Muslim scientist and currently serves as the vice president for science apologetics at Reasons To Believe. His research in biochemistry there provided him with the initial evidence that life must have been created. A personal challenge daring him to read the Bible led him to the scriptural evidence that the Creator is the God of the Bible.

Education

Fazale attended West Virginia State College (WVSC) as a Presidential Scholar where he earned a BS degree in chemistry with honors. He also completed a Ph.D. in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry at Ohio University, where he twice won the Donald Clippinger Research Award. His postdoctoral studies took him to the University of Virginia and University of Georgia

Professional History

Before joining Reasons To Believe, Fuz worked for seven years as a Senior Scientist in product development for Procter & Gamble.

Publications and Conferences

Fazale has published numerous articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals including Biochemistry, Applied Spectroscopy, FEBS Letters, Journal of Microbiology Methods, and The Journal of Chemical Education. He has made presentations at twenty international scientific meetings and co-authored a chapter on Biological and Synthetic Membranes.

Books

Fazale coauthored (along with Hugh Ross) the books Origins of Life (NavPress, 2004) and Who Was Adam? (NavPress, 2005). He has recently completed his newest book on biochemical design entitled The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry.

Current Projects

Today Fazale travels widely speaking on science and faith issues at churches, business firms, and universities. He also participates in the weekly podcast Creation Update, another podcast Science News Flash, and has made guest appearances on The John Ankerberg Show, Harvest Show, and Newsmakers (hosted by Jerry Rose on The Total Living Network).

Fazale is currently an adjunct faculty member at Biola University.

Personal Life

Fazale is a Christian and lives in Southern California with his wife, Amy, and their three daughters.