War Hawks and the War of 1812

War Hawks and the War of 1812 The War Hawks were members of Congress who put pressure on President James Madison to declare war against Britain in 1812. The War Hawks tended to be younger congressmen from southern and western  states. Their  desire for war was prompted by expansionist tendencies. Their agenda included adding Canada and Florida to the territory of the United States as well as pushing the frontier further west despite resistance from Native American tribes. Reasons for War The War Hawks cited multiple tensions between the two 19th-century powerhouses as arguments for war. Tensions included violations that the British committed regarding U.S. maritime rights, the effects of the Napoleonic Wars and lingering animosity from the Revolutionary War.   At the same time, the western frontier was feeling pressure from Native Americans, who formed an alliance to stop the encroachment of white settlers. The War Hawks believed that the British were financing the Native Americans in their resistance, which only incentivized them to declare war against Great Britain even more. Henry Clay Although they were young and even called the boys in Congress, the War Hawks gained influence given the leadership and charisma of Henry Clay. In December 1811, the U.S. Congress elected  Henry Clay  of Kentucky as speaker of the house. Clay became a spokesperson for the War Hawks and pushed the agenda of war against Britain. Disagreement in Congress Congressmen mainly from northeastern states disagreed with the War Hawks. They did not want to wage war against Great Britain because they believed their coastal states would bear the physical and economic consequences of an attack by the British fleet more than southern or western states would. War of 1812 Eventually, the War Hawks swayed Congress. President Madison was eventually convinced to go along with the demands of the War Hawks, and the  vote to go to war  with Great Britain passed by a relatively small margin in the U.S. Congress. The War of 1812 lasted from June 1812 to February 1815. The resulting war was costly to the United States. At one point British troops marched on Washington, D.C. and  burned the White House and the Capitol. In the end, the expansionist goals of the War Hawks were not achieved as there were no changes in territorial boundaries. Treaty of Ghent After 3 years of war, the War of 1812 concluded with the Treaty of Ghent. It was signed on December 24, 1814 in Ghent, Belgium. The war was a stalemate, thus the purpose of the treaty was to restore relations to status quo ante bellum. This means that U.S. and Great Britain borders were to be restored to the condition they were in before the War of 1812. All captured lands, prisoners of war and military resources, such as ships, were restored.   Modern Usage The term hawk still persists in American speech today. The word describes someone who is in favor of beginning a war.

War Hawks and the War of 1812

War Hawks and the War of 1812 The War Hawks were members of Congress who put pressure on President James Madison to declare war against Britain in 1812. The War Hawks tended to be younger congressmen from southern and western  states. Their  desire for war was prompted by expansionist tendencies. Their agenda included adding Canada and Florida to the territory of the United States as well as pushing the frontier further west despite resistance from Native American tribes. Reasons for War The War Hawks cited multiple tensions between the two 19th-century powerhouses as arguments for war. Tensions included violations that the British committed regarding U.S. maritime rights, the effects of the Napoleonic Wars and lingering animosity from the Revolutionary War.   At the same time, the western frontier was feeling pressure from Native Americans, who formed an alliance to stop the encroachment of white settlers. The War Hawks believed that the British were financing the Native Americans in their resistance, which only incentivized them to declare war against Great Britain even more. Henry Clay Although they were young and even called the boys in Congress, the War Hawks gained influence given the leadership and charisma of Henry Clay. In December 1811, the U.S. Congress elected  Henry Clay  of Kentucky as speaker of the house. Clay became a spokesperson for the War Hawks and pushed the agenda of war against Britain. Disagreement in Congress Congressmen mainly from northeastern states disagreed with the War Hawks. They did not want to wage war against Great Britain because they believed their coastal states would bear the physical and economic consequences of an attack by the British fleet more than southern or western states would. War of 1812 Eventually, the War Hawks swayed Congress. President Madison was eventually convinced to go along with the demands of the War Hawks, and the  vote to go to war  with Great Britain passed by a relatively small margin in the U.S. Congress. The War of 1812 lasted from June 1812 to February 1815. The resulting war was costly to the United States. At one point British troops marched on Washington, D.C. and  burned the White House and the Capitol. In the end, the expansionist goals of the War Hawks were not achieved as there were no changes in territorial boundaries. Treaty of Ghent After 3 years of war, the War of 1812 concluded with the Treaty of Ghent. It was signed on December 24, 1814 in Ghent, Belgium. The war was a stalemate, thus the purpose of the treaty was to restore relations to status quo ante bellum. This means that U.S. and Great Britain borders were to be restored to the condition they were in before the War of 1812. All captured lands, prisoners of war and military resources, such as ships, were restored.   Modern Usage The term hawk still persists in American speech today. The word describes someone who is in favor of beginning a war.

War Hawks and the War of 1812

War Hawks and the War of 1812 The War Hawks were members of Congress who put pressure on President James Madison to declare war against Britain in 1812. The War Hawks tended to be younger congressmen from southern and western  states. Their  desire for war was prompted by expansionist tendencies. Their agenda included adding Canada and Florida to the territory of the United States as well as pushing the frontier further west despite resistance from Native American tribes. Reasons for War The War Hawks cited multiple tensions between the two 19th-century powerhouses as arguments for war. Tensions included violations that the British committed regarding U.S. maritime rights, the effects of the Napoleonic Wars and lingering animosity from the Revolutionary War.   At the same time, the western frontier was feeling pressure from Native Americans, who formed an alliance to stop the encroachment of white settlers. The War Hawks believed that the British were financing the Native Americans in their resistance, which only incentivized them to declare war against Great Britain even more. Henry Clay Although they were young and even called the boys in Congress, the War Hawks gained influence given the leadership and charisma of Henry Clay. In December 1811, the U.S. Congress elected  Henry Clay  of Kentucky as speaker of the house. Clay became a spokesperson for the War Hawks and pushed the agenda of war against Britain. Disagreement in Congress Congressmen mainly from northeastern states disagreed with the War Hawks. They did not want to wage war against Great Britain because they believed their coastal states would bear the physical and economic consequences of an attack by the British fleet more than southern or western states would. War of 1812 Eventually, the War Hawks swayed Congress. President Madison was eventually convinced to go along with the demands of the War Hawks, and the  vote to go to war  with Great Britain passed by a relatively small margin in the U.S. Congress. The War of 1812 lasted from June 1812 to February 1815. The resulting war was costly to the United States. At one point British troops marched on Washington, D.C. and  burned the White House and the Capitol. In the end, the expansionist goals of the War Hawks were not achieved as there were no changes in territorial boundaries. Treaty of Ghent After 3 years of war, the War of 1812 concluded with the Treaty of Ghent. It was signed on December 24, 1814 in Ghent, Belgium. The war was a stalemate, thus the purpose of the treaty was to restore relations to status quo ante bellum. This means that U.S. and Great Britain borders were to be restored to the condition they were in before the War of 1812. All captured lands, prisoners of war and military resources, such as ships, were restored.   Modern Usage The term hawk still persists in American speech today. The word describes someone who is in favor of beginning a war.

Equal access to computing technology HW Research Paper

Equal access to computing technology HW - Research Paper Example The United Nations has explicitly reaffirmed its importance: â€Å"[k]nowledge, more than ever, is power† (as cited in Best, 2004). To show their sincerity, the U.N. has made a declaration stating that the access to the Internet is one of the fundamental human rights. However, it is a wonder why the U.N. bothered to make such kind of declaration. Michael L. Best (2004) discovered certain aspect of symmetry of information rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He quoted Article 19 of the Declaration saying that people have the right to â€Å"hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers† (Best, 2004). The words â€Å"seek† and â€Å"receive† refer to the access of, but not limited to, the Internet. Best (2004) claimed that those words sound like the information rights. On the other hand, the Internet seems to be perceived as â€Å"ubiquitous† in our contemporary epoch (Halpin, Hick, & Hoskins, 2000). In fact, Internet cafes can be found almost in every corner. It’s either you are with it or not (Halpin et al., 2000). It is interesting to note though about the sharp contrast between the ubiquitous appearance of the Internet and the presence of a wide digital divide. Ultimately, the difference is the asymmetry between the Internet and its access. But why is the Internet access a human right? Best appears to be puzzled by this inquiry. He then made an attempt to review the debate -- although it seems a blasà © -- connected to the digital divide. To his mind, the right to information requires the Internet â€Å"to some extent† (Best, 2004). There are three things that one could decipher on Best’s â€Å"to some extent:† (1) when books and other information materials go extinct like the prehistoric dinosaurs; (2) when, at certain time and place, information materials are nonexistent but the Internet; and (3) when ideas and information offered in the available

Apperendi V. New Jersey Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Apperendi V. New Jersey - Assignment Example fore in this case was whether the Due Process Clause as contained in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution that requires that a factual determination to increase a prison term by more that between ten to twenty years be determined by a jury after a proof of beyond reasonable doubt. This case was important to the criminal justice system is that it found it unconstitutional for a legislature to purport to remove from the jury the assessment of the facts which makes an increase in the range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is liable for. It should therefore be clear that the facts have been established by a proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the rights of an accused to liberty and the following of the due process of law, which guarantees a public and speedy trial, carried out by an impartial jury as well as the application of the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases in order to limit error. However, in a dissenting opinion, the honorable judges found that the courts by deciding so had limited the power of the legislatures to define criminal offences and the punishment for them (Reuters, 56). As a prosecutor, my role would be to ensure that criminal cases are proved beyond reasonable doubt, as it is the prosecution that subjects the defendant to the possibility of losing liberty on conviction, which would certainly stigmatize him in the