Drug Smuggling on the Bay

On March 11, 1987, The Free Lance-Star, a newspaper of Fredericksburg, VA published an article that would alarm numerous Americans and alert countless more. It was an issue, which was spreading like a wildfire within the American civilization, affecting both the domestic policy as well as the foreign policy. Around this time, drug smuggling was evolving in places where it had never before, the Chesapeake Bay region was seeing drug smuggling increase, striking terror into the government to get involved, this lead to domestic policy and foreign affair policy expressing itself in small places, such as on the Rappahannock River with the Daddy Warbucks incident of 1984.

             Many would have viewed the Chesapeake region as a small peaceful community, where nothing unusual or out of the ordinary took place such as drug smuggling. However, the drug smugglers around this time were getting smart; they realized that by going somewhere secluded they were more likely to succeed. Such lead to the events of 1984, when aboard the Daddy Warbucks six tons of marijuana within the ship lead to the arrest and downfall of a huge drug smuggling operation. However, such events would also take place around the Chesapeake Bay, leaving many to demand for a change and many more fearing what could become of their hometowns.

            To help ease these fears the government of Virginia promised that there would be change to the problems. The government held to their word and built in Reedville, VA a Customs Service, who with the help of the Coast Guard and federal law enforcements received the best training available at that time. However with all this pressure into fixing the drug smuggling problem, it was nowhere near perfect, the Coast Guard estimated during that time that only a quarter of all drugs being smuggled on the Chesapeake Bay was being intercepted. The problem it would seem is one that will not be stoppable anytime soon if ever, as Mason, who had at the time served with Custom Services for 22 years, shares that he feels the only way to fix the problem is through education.

            Also going on around the whole United States around this same time was the continuing battle of the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is a campaign of prohibition and foreign military aid and military intervention lead by the United States government, with the assistance of participating countries, intended to reduce the illegal drug trade. President Nixon was actually one of the first to use the term on June 17, 1971. As early as 1982, Vice President George H.W. Bush and his aides began pushing for the involvement of the CIA and U.S. military in drug interdiction efforts. In terms of Domestic policies, the War on Drugs led the incarnation rate to skyrocket; also, many new laws passed within the nation to control the drug spread and distribution within the United States. Foreign affairs also played a part during this time; the United States government many times throughout history have pumped money into the country and used troops to invade other countries. One of the first anti-drug efforts in the realm of foreign policy was President Nixon's Operation Intercept, announced in September 1969, targeted at reducing the amount of cannabis entering the United States from Mexico. The effort began with an intense inspection crackdown that resulted in an almost shutdown of cross-border traffic Because the burden on border crossings was controversial in border states, the effort only lasted twenty days. Overall, it had a huge impact on

            In conclusion, the War on Drugs had a huge impact all throughout the United States, the Daddy Warbucks incident of 1984 showed the influence the government had on controlling drug smuggling during this period. The Chesapeake Bay proved to be a good place for trade, until the government realized what had to happen to stop this smuggling. However, like smuggling before this war started it will most likely continue with no way to stop it totally. 

New funny video

How War and Violence Led to Unity

As a nation as a whole, it took numerous years for a sense of unity to form within the United States as a whole. Strange is it not, that battles, martyrs, blood, and even assassination should so condense a nationality. With that said, is it war and violence that defines American history, did the past actions of America’s great ancestors actually bring Americans together as a whole; many would argue it did and that it also helped to sort out the constitution.

            The year is 1763 and a new proclamation from the motherland of England is sweeping all around the young colonies of America. Within this proclamation, rules stated that the colonies were not to pass an invisible line drawn by the British. The British claimed it was for the colonies own good, for England realized that there was no way that the colonies would be safe from Indian attacks. However, many colonists did not see it this way and they argued that it was not fair. Many years went on and tension was rising rapidly within the colonies. One of the causes for this happened on the cold night in 1770, when crowds of defenseless people within Boston died from gunshot wounds; this had many within Boston shouting foul. The main cause of this increased tension was that England was imposing internal taxes such as the stamp act, as well as other taxes such the sugar act and Townsend acts. Such taxes angered the wealthy within the colonies and the masses were not much happier, leading to talk that maybe something needed to happen. Within Boston something did happen, the Boston Tea Party, where numerous people dressed up as Indians and dumped tea within the harbor. The message was one that would be hard to mistaken, the colonies made it clear to the king that they no longer considered themselves English. The king responded with shutting the port of Boston down and making sure group meetings did not happen, in hope to quite the talk of rebellion down. However it failed for the masses had already been heavily influenced by the wealthy to rebel against the British, that can be seen within the give me liberty or give me death speech. The final straw was broken within the battle of Lexington, where the first blood of the Revolutionary war dropped. The states as a whole came together and agreed to sign a document stating that they had their independence from Britain and that they were no longer part of England.

            For the first year of the revolutionary war, the people of the colonies lost every battle, not winning even one. The army fighting on the American side within that year saw the numbers of fighting soldiers drop from 20,000 soldiers to a measly 2,000 soldiers. George Washington knew that he needed to do something quickly or else the war would be lost. So he did the unthinkable on the night of December 25^th, 1776, he crossed the Delaware River in the dead of the night and attacked the English army. This tactic won the American armies there first battle, as well as reignite the fire within the hearts of the soldiers. Although the British considered George Washington as a terrorist, his unorthodox approach to that battle actually may have coaxed the spirits of rebels within America. For after that battle America won more and more battles and with each victory increased the volume of soldiers. Finally, after many years of fighting the battle ended after a major victory in Yorktown. The treaty of Paris and Britain came in to effect and with that, Britain rather hinted that they would be back and that they wished America good luck. For they figured that America had no money, and no way to tax itself that it would quickly fail. Sadly for the most part they were right, the states were in a state of freefall, this point within American history is where Americans were least united. With no way to govern this new nation, the wealthy were quick to realize something needed to be done and quickly. On September 17^th, 1787, the constitution came into effect within the nation. This new document forever would change what America did and believed. However, this document also managed for the first time within American history to regroup and unit Americans for the first time since the Revolutionary war.

            Everything continued and with this new constitution, it seemed things were starting to calm down. However, in 1799, after the election of Thomas Jefferson, an act that came into effect the night before Jefferson was to take office caused a total political bloodshed. This event was the Midnight Judges, where many judges were hired, thus increasing the size of total government, as well as keeping the total power of government to the previous group in office, before that of Thomas Jefferson. This “peaceful” change of power as said by Marshall was unconstitutional. However, it led to changes within the review system. However, one of the most controversial events in American history is the buying of the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson went against congress and the constitution went he told Monroe to purchase the land from Napoleon for 15,000 dollars. This lead too many people considering Jefferson to be a bad person for doing such a thing, but congress made it right by finding a way to pay for it all by selling land.

            Britain came back in 1812 for a second try to take back America. The war was a bloody war and if it was not for France, the States may have actually lost the war. However, with that victory of that war came a new since of pride and patriotism. That bloody war, for the first time in a long time actually brought Americans in all the states together, the nation was for a short time a whole. America stayed in a sort of peacefully time after that war until about 1820. Then crises started to take over within the states, in 1819 the first of many economical depressions started to take place. The economy all throughout antebellum period was quite unstable. Causes for this unstableness ranges however to name a few, there was the bank wars in 1835, the failures of banks and economy. However, with each depression the nation seemed to become more and more independent.

            The Missouri compromise intertwines with history that will take place later on. For the Missouri compromise was a debate about slavery states and if Missouri should or should not be a slave state. This lead too many debates within the nation and in the end the compromise made any state below an invisible line able to be a slave state and all the states above were not, thus the starting point of a splitting between south and north. For the territories, that were yet to be owned, or yet to be made into states, the states wanted to make sure no one touched them. So the Monroe Doctrine was passed that told everyone not American to stay out of this land, for this land was reserved for America. In exchange, America would not bother other countries.

            With the new land locked into place, many Americans under the Manifest Dynasty went to fight for new land. This lead to the removal of the Indians, even against the wishes of congress, as well as the killing of many Indians, such as in the trail of tears, this lead to disagreement in the American people. However, there was also a war not often talked about, and that is the Aroostook war, where there was a dispute between Canada and Maine’s boarder. However, the wealthy were quick to jump in and solve the problem before there was much bloodshed; the solution was the Webster-Ashburton treaty. Mexico posed a problem for the United States; however, in the two-year war that took place with them, a battle was never lost on the American side. In the end, half of Mexico was American land, for the price of 15,000,000 dollars; called the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This war was very popular with the people of America, thus bringing them together once again, however it also divided the government. For many Whigs questioned Polk’s motives for the war. There was also a renewed debate over slavery between the North Whigs and the growing number of abolitionists against all of the south and a majority of democrats.

            Leading up to 1860, historians argue greatly why the Civil war took place, however it is not hard to see that a great divide between south and north had formed. In all aspects, from political, to economy, to social issues, everything between both sides had changed. Government was quickly falling apart leading up to the war, from the destruction of the Whig party, to the pure destruction of government when four people ran for president in 1860. Next the economy of the north and south greatly differed, the south was a one sided economy and was suffering as such, while the north was a well round industrialized place. Then social was different at well, for the social way of life was outdated in the south while it was quickly transforming in the north. Many historians would argue that the cause was slavery, however whatever the reason, the civil war made a divide between the two sides. As the war went on many people died, gave blood, and even assassinated. This gore and destruction pitted friends and family against each other and ended up being one of the bloodiest wars known to most American. However, it did something that no other war before it could do; it actually brought the Americans together as a whole and kept it as a whole. Unlike in the past were it temporally became a whole, this time up to the present it stayed a whole. It also reshaped the constitution, as each battle and bloodshed before it had done.

            War and battle within America in fact did bring people together as a nation; the constitution in each

war and battle received a editing that made it reach a near perfect formula. A bunch of independence came 

together after that last war and finally actually became united, and not just looked at as a separate state. To 

sum it up war and terror within the United States was wrong in many levels; however, it made the nation one, 

and not many, thanks to the editing of the constitution.

Causes of the Civil War

                The day is April 12, 1861; a then 67-year-old Edmund Ruffin is waiting for what would be a single 10-inch mortar round that would be the signal to fire upon Fort Sumter. The gun shots fired that day would be the primarily shots of the American Civil War. However, what went wrong between the southern states and northern states? Many would argue that it was in fact multiple concepts that resulted in such conflict between the sides, the only concept that respected historians seem to agree on is that slavery had a tremendous impact on influencing the choice of war. However, there are many other concepts that they cannot seem to agree on, such as was it about economics or state rights, to prove this if you sat three historians down most likely all three would have a different reason for why the war started. However, with that said, there are some ideas that seem very likely that most people after careful research and analyzing would agree with that reason for why the war was fought.
            One of the most important events within American history is something most historians would most likely not argue about, the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney, Jr. somewhere around 1794. The cotton gin shaped the whole economics of the southern states, before the invention, cotton was worthless to most farmers, the cost, and time to pick out all the little seeds was just too much work for most farmers and thus proved to be not at the least a profitable crop. However, after the cotton gin’s invention, the new cash crop rose quickly, and with the rise, something much raunchier really took off, slavery. Although there had been slavery much before Whitney’s invention, it was not anywhere near the numbers of slavery after his invention. If one was to look at the numbers this would be made clear quickly, in 1790 there had been 681,777 slaves, however by 1810, only 17 years after his invention there were 1,005,685 slaves in the United States, and by 1860, 1,775,515 slaves. Logic would tell that the increase of numbers formed by an increased need for workers. Thus, this invention caused an increase in the need for slavery that would in two score or so a string of conflicts within the nation. 

            Over time, the northern states and southern states formed a divine with the economic and social differences, thus setting up for disagreements. The key differences are that while the south focused upon agriculture, while the north focused upon industry. The north actually would purchase the raw cotton and in the factories make their own products. The divide between the two sides was starting to form from the major difference in economic attitudes. This change in the Northern states meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. While, the South continued to hold onto an outdated and old fashioned social order. However, Slavery does pay a part in this because the one-sided economy that the south had come to form was greatly the fault of cotton and slavery.

            Another great argument that many historians have with each other is that state rights had a monstrous effect on the choice to go to war.  Nullification to an extent would have been a good idea, however if the states were able to nullify every single new federal act nothing would happen within the United States. However, the states did not see it this way and in terms of the southern states, it is very simple to see why it is that they, the people of the south were outraged when the federal government denied states this right. The southern states most likely felt that if they were able to have a voice within the new acts, they, the people of the south would never have to worry about losing slavery, for they would always be able to deny any acts concerning the topic. That is why it disastrously failed and when nullification would not work and states felt respect had vanished, the states moved towards secession. In addition, many people of the southern states argued that the black slaves were their property and that it would go against their rights if the government tried to take their property. Once again, it is easy to envision how slavery tied into the conflicts.

            States often argued what states should have slavery and which ones should not, it was often debated very critically; however, both sides felt for the longest time that there should be a equal number of slave states to free states. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During and after the Mexican war there was much debate with the plan for the new territories, such as if they would become slave states or be a non-slave states. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846, which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this too many appeared to be an extremely bad idea and it was denied with much support. As time went on the debating continued and in 1850, the compromise of 1850 came to be. This compromise formed to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. However, the most controversial issue of that was a provision called the Fugitive Slave Act, where a white man went to jail for not helping catch a slave. Naturally, this angered many southerners and even more Northerners. To make it worst four years later there was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which drastically added tension. The act said that people would vote whether or not they wanted to have slavery within their respected state. However, even though this seemed to be a good idea at the time, however it transformed into pure ciaos after pro-slavery Americans poured into Kansas. This caused the event, bleeding Kansas, where blood spelt while fighting for what people felt was their beliefs. The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina's Senator Preston Brooks. Things truly were becoming very iniquitous, it seemed that people were about to snap and do something drastic, such as start a war.

            However, the main reason for succession and later on the war was the election of 1860, when Abraham Lincoln became president of the United States. In truth, the government by this election was in a state of breakdown; both parties had no idea who they wanted to have run. In the end, four people actually ran for president. Even though Abraham Lincoln flat out said that he had no interest in removing the slaves, most in the south anathematized Lincoln until the day they died. For that reason, his name never showed up on any of the southern ballots. When he did win without the vote from the south, it angered the south to the breaking point. The fire-eaters concluded that they would not be able to expand slavery into the territories. The expansion of slavery into the territories was crucial to the south to keep a balance of free and slave states in the Senate, and now that they saw that under Lincoln, expansion of slavery was improbable, thus influencing the southern states to succeed. Back to Fort Sumter’s, Edmund Ruffin was a fire-eater and it should come as no surprise that he fired the first shots of the civil war.

            To conclude the war was essentially about slavery and protecting white supremacy. However as it can be seen there were many other things that influenced the Civil War, but it all ties into slavery. However, the over line reason war came to be is that the Cotton Gin was invented. Many would say that without its invention slavery would have died off after 1808, when the slave trade died away in the United States, however with that being said there is no way to be certain.

Stem Cell Research

"Embryonic stem-cell studies are controversial because they involve the destruction of human embryos”, as quoted from a New York Times article on May 6. However, with all the controversially revolving the topic, there are many positives within the subject stem cell research, and that is why research is much wanted. Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth. In addition, in many tissues they serve as a sort of internal repair system, dividing essentially without limit to replenish other cells as long as the person is still alive. What makes these cells so unique is their ability to renew themselves through cell division, even after a long period of inactivity. As well as the ability, to become tissue- or organ-specific cells with special functions, and in some cases even replace the old tissue with new, undamaged, and unworn tissue.

            However, with anything good, there is always a drawback, and it is no different here. In 1981, scientist found a method to derive embryonic stem cells from early mouse embryos. It would only take 17 more years of research until the discovery of how to derive stem cells from human embryos and grow the cells in the laboratory, known to most as human embryonic stem cells. Stem cells are important for living organisms for many reasons. In the 3- to 5-day-old embryo, called a blastocyst, the inner cells give rise to the entire body of the organism, including all of the many specialized cell types and organs such as the heart, lung, skin, sperm, eggs, and other tissues. However many consider these as living people, but more on that later.

Stem Cell research is a subject with much debate surrounding it, but it truly is very useful. For example, they proliferate extensively and generate sufficient quantities of tissue. Also, differentiate into the desired cell types, Survive in the recipient after transplant. That is pretty big in itself, scientist have tried many different methods to replace the old body organs, however the body usually rejects it, in this case it does not, thus helping show that stem cell research is much needed. Integrate into the surrounding tissue after transplant, something that no other replacement body part would, or could do. Function appropriately for the duration of the recipient's life, meaning that like a heart replacement in modern medicine, it would not stop working before your death. Avoid harming the recipient in any way, meaning that it is all, but safe. However many of what is said is still in the testing stages, for scientist need a lot more years of research to get everything right, as well as keep working on ways to make it so that the immune system does not reject new tissue. However if stem cell research is allowed to continue in the United States, as it should, then there is a very bright future ahead for Americans.

“The embryo is the size of the tip of George Washington’s nose on a quarter.” However, for many these embryos are living people. For this reason, many feel that by killing them, you are thus ending a life; however, the ones that scientist uses were doomed to die already. Another reason for the lack of wanting to research on these stem cells in that many people feel that scientist only want to do the research for it is a huge step into cloning humans. Now I am no expert on this subject, however I do know that if a scientist wanted to clone a human, it could be done without the use of stem cells. However, let us just say for some reason they could not, it is illegal to clone humans in America and I believe as well as in most the world. For with cloning comes an even greater controversial subject than stem cell research. Now read this quote very carefully and slowly, “it [the embryo] has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain, the smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential”. Shocking thing to write, however the quote makes a very good point these embryos that are only about three to five days old are not all that advance and thus are not a living person. However if you still think it’s bad then read this quote, “Is destroying that microscopic dot the exact moral equivalent of driving a knife through the heart of an innocent 6-year-old girl?” Any rational person would without a doubt say no to this question, so why would it be any different when asked differently. However, one more question should be posed before I move on, “Do you believe that a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder, just like a mother who hires a professional killer to off her teenage son?” If by now you are still saying no stem cell research, then you might want to look at the bigger picture. Every year thousands of Embryos are destroyed at abortion clinics, however you do not see people swarming into the place arresting all those poor girls for murder do you. Stem cell research is not something that is wrong.

            However, to ease some of the tension that you may be feeling for me right now let me say some of my own personal feelings. Yes I do support stem cell research all the way however to tell the truth, I do not know for sure if I could be the one killing a embryo, for the question still remains, is it murder. Science of course will say otherwise, however your heart will tell a different story. Lucky in the last few years much of the controversy has disappeared with new methods to extract stem cells, such as from the umbilical cord or from bone marrow. As well as a means found in Japan where skin cells are tricked to act like stem cells, but they are considered to be highly cancerous, for this reason most scientist still consider embryos to be one of the best sources to get stem cells. Knowing the possible health benefits, I would have to say that I support stem cell research. However, I would not want them to test cloning. I would only want them to find ways to improve the general health of people. However, it must be noted that it is going to take a lot more research until the cures that they are hoping for actually start to roll in, for too many people have exaggerated it. I believe that stem cell research with continued progress will end up transforming modern medicine, as we know it. However, I think that is exactly what many people are afraid of, for think about it where would all those stem cells come from. However, I think if it came to that scientist would figure out a way to cross that bridge.

To summarize I do feel that stem cell research is very important and something that needs to be studied, however when I read quotes like, “The destruction of human embryos to harvest stem cells is "not only devoid of the light of God but is also devoid of humanity" and "does not truly serve humanity”. I do start question what I truly believe, but as of now, I do feel as if stem cell research is something positive. Maybe Obama’s new bill will lead to a brighter future, as he has promised. Therefore, I want to leave you with a quote to think about from John Danforth, former U.S. senator and Episcopal priest, "My entire political career, I voted pro-life, and that is exactly why I favor the stem cell initiative. I believe in saving human life. I want cures to be found."
Sources:

Kinsley, Michael. "The False Controversy of Stem Cells - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 23 May 2004. Web. 17 Jan. 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040531-641157,00.html>

"Stem Cell Basics [Stem Cell Information]." NIH Stem Cell Information Home Page. Web. 17 Jan. 2011. <http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/>

Wanjek, Christopher. "Embryonic Stem Cells: 5 Misconceptions | LiveScience." LiveScience | Science, Technology, Health & Environmental News. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. <http://www.livescience.com/health/090317-bad-stem-cells.html>

ANALYSIS. "Quotes on Stem Cell Research from Political, Religious and Other Prominent Figures." Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 17 July 2008. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. <http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Quotes-on-Stem-Cell-Research-from-Political,-Religious-and-Other-Prominent-Figures.aspx>.

Save Engery!

its for a good cause

The other civil war, chapter 10 by howard zinn

THE OTHER CIVIL WAR

Thesis: The Anti-Rent movement, Dorr Rebellion, Flour Riot of 1837, Molly Maguires, the rise of labor unions, the Lowell girl’s movement, as well as numerous class struggles that caused dislike of the poor during the 19^th century helped to show the abuse of government power by corporations and the efforts by workers to resist those abuses. It was the beginning of the conflict between Capital and Labor or in other words the anger of poor against rich, rebellion against the dominant political and economic forces.

Two questions:

To what extent were the wealthy justified in the mistreatment of the poor during this period?

To what extent did the jacksonian democracy shape the United States during the late 1740’s to early 1750’s?

Reaction:

The other civil war seems to be very unspecific in terms of what exactly that other war was. The war between Rich and poor was one aspect; however, there were numerous others such as the conflict between Capital and Labor and the rebellion against the dominant political and economical forces. One thing that amazes is that with every crisis or downfall, such as in1835, when the bank of Maryland collapsed, people panic and go out and riot. Thus, starting even more trouble for the government, and making even more problems for the states. That is another thing it is understanding for people to be angry, but what does leaving your company and rioting that you will not work do. The answer in most cases during that time is nothing; some even ended up losing their jobs for the act, but for a few the riots did change what they were rioting, such as in Paterson, New Jersey mils.

            Kids and women working is another thing. During that time, it seemed like it was no big deal for either of them to work, something that is very shocking indeed. For in today’s time it is unimaginable for an 11 year old to be working in a mill, a woman however is not very surprising on second thought. The increase in new technology also paid a huge part in this chapter. With companies such as John Deer making new, improved, and faster ways to farm, people were very quickly losing jobs, and the technology boom did not stop there. It seemed no one was safe from this new boom and that made the people of the United States angry. However, it was not right for so many people to die during this time. In the end it seemed that no one won.