Defining and Understanding the Tea Party

American politics has always been a hotbed of debate and discussion, with the two major political parties constantly bickering, pointing fingers, and issuing challenges. Throughout the centuries that United States has existed, the term "tea party" has become synonymous with the word "protest." The term has its origins in the 1773 protest where colonists in Boston, Massachusetts, protested the Tea Act of the British government. The colonists boarded a ship bound for England and pitched crates of tea, the ship’s cargo that had been taxed by the British government, into the Boston Harbor. The complaint by the angry colonists was that they were being taxed by the British government without having any representation in Parliament. Since that time, the term "tea party" has come to represent a protest by citizens who do not believe their elected officials are adequately representing their interests.

The modern Tea Party movement of today started gathering steam shortly after President Barack Obama was sworn into office, when he and the Democrats in the House of Republicans passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009-without a single vote by a Republican. Three Republicans in the Senate-Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter (who later became a Democrat)-crossed their party lines to vote in favor of the legislation.

This lack of bipartisanship was an outrage to many conservatives, as well as to a handful of political moderates, who viewed the $787 billion "emergency" act to be proof of the intent to rapidly grow big government and a demonstration of wasteful spending. In the following weeks, as word began to spread about Democrat plans to increase estate taxes, capital gains taxes, federal income taxes, and cigarette taxes, a massive national protest was organized by conservative to take place on April 15-a date significantly chosen because it is when local, state, and federal taxes are all due. The protest were scheduled to happen simultaneously in 300 cities around the country.

In spite of wide efforts to publicize the coverage of the protests, there was astonishingly little coverage in advance of April 15. This fact only validated the opinions of most conservatives that most media outlets are operated by liberals who have fully embraced President Obama’s political and societal agendas. The only network news channel that provided full coverage of the protests was the FOXNews channel.

On April 15, 2009, when the Tax Day Tea Party protest was actually held, it was mocked and derided by the same news outlets that had ignored it from the very beginning. One of the most famous examples of this was when Susan Roesgen, a CNN correspondent covering the protests, actually started to argue with some of the people she had been interviewing. Roesgen, who was supposed to be an objective newscaster, called them "anti-government." When the crowd began booing her, she called them "anti-CNN" and said the protests were backed by FOX. Although conservative media outlets were highly critical of Roesgen, and rightfully so, most of the liberal media outlets that had been happy to ignore the planned protests beforehand were all to ready to defend her actions. However, none of them went so far as to say that Roesgen’s coverage was at all similar to conservative coverage of liberal-themed protests such as anti-war demonstrations or anti-Bush protests. In most cases, a reporter calmly asks protesters why they attended and what they are hoping to achieve. Roesgen crossed that line, but liberal media outlets defended her unprofessional attitude.

David H. Koch, the head of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative grassroots advocacy group, has taken credit for launching the idea of the Tea Party protests. FreedomWorks, also a conservative advocacy group, was a partner in planning the events. As a result, the liberal media marginalized the entire phenomenon of Tea Party activism as "astroturfing." However, regardless of who actually came up with the idea of organizing the tea parties, the people who attended them were not the professional protesters who show up at liberally themed demonstrations such as anti-war and gay rights protests. The attendees who showed up at the Tea Party protests were hard-working Americans who hold real jobs, who have real concerns about the direction the country is headed.

Other tea party protests have been held, both large and small, since the initial Tax Day protest. over the summer there was an organization called "the Tea Party Express," which began planning a cross-country tour to protest the Obama administration. The tour lasted from August 28 through September 12, 2009, stopping in several large American cities along the way. Another tour was sponsored from October 28 through November 12. As the debate over the health care overhaul began to heat up, the Tea Party protests became more intense. In addition to protesting excessive government spending and government waste, the organizers added to its long list of issues the opposition to government-owned and government-operated health care. The Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, which was co-founded by Heritage Foundation policy analyst and former White House speech writer Michael Johns, began to take a lead role and helped lend the movement a legitimacy that it had been lacking.

Despite liberal criticism and efforts to silence its effectiveness, the Tea Party movement has shown no evidence of slowing down. On the contrary, conservative organizers planned hundreds more events for 2010, and the movement has become a driving force behind many conservative groups’ plans to "take back America" in the elections this November. In early December 2009, a Rasmussen poll was published that showed that if the Tea Party movement were to become a political party, politicians affiliated with it would draw more votes than politicians affiliated with the Republican Party. Although the poll results may be considered representative of declining support for the Republican Party, they can also be seen as firm validation of the Tea Party movement, which is becoming a growing force to be reckoned with in American politics.

Proclamation of 1763

United States and Canada, as all of us know, were parts of the Great Britain common wealth and the French Empire respectively, before they gained independence. The 7 Years of war was a very important event in the history of the New World colonies and the European Empires. The Proclamation of 1763 was a proclamation by King George III of Great Britain the then ruler of the colonies. The Proclamation was basically an administrative initiative by the Crown to establish better governments in the North American colonies and also establish a disciplined rule of the Crown, and forms an integral part of the American history. In order to understand the Proclamation of 1763, it is necessary to understand the history and background of the colonies and their mother Empires. You may also read more about European history.

Proclamation of 1763: Background

The Royal proclamation of 1763 was made after the Treaty of Paris, that concluded the rivalry between the British and French who had fought against each other in the 7 year war. The North American colonies belonging to several European powers significantly clashed against each other during the entire war and the British armies and navy stationed in the North American areas had a significant advantage over the small number of French troops in the region. The British military might have proved favorable in the established colonies of America as the empire was able to conquer Canada, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Tobago, which were colonies of France. During the Treaty of Paris, the French colonies of Canada, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tobago were handed over to Great Britain. French Louisiana, a portion that spans from the Mississippi river to the Appalachian mountain range was also handed over to Great Britain. In addition to that, Great Britain was also ceded the Spanish territory of Florida to Great Britain. With effect, a partial modern day map of the United States of America had already taken physical form with the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris. With a broader view it must be noted that the French and Spanish gained a lot of territories and advantages in the remaining part of the world, especially Asia. The British crown, however, gained substantially in the New World, that is the Americans.

What was the Proclamation of 1763: Provisions

The Proclamation of 1763 definition can be stated as a governance policy by the Crown and an attempt to govern and manage the new lands which had been gained in the treaty. The proclamation of 1763 summary, can be divided into three parts, namely, the new governments, the proclamation line and the relation between the colonies and the British Commonwealth.

One of the initial actions of King George was to establish a concrete method to dominate the North American colonies. This was easily done by establishing Quebec, West Florida, East Florida, and Grenada governments. The second prominent aspect of the treaty was to bring about a harmony in the settlers, rulers and the natives. The land between the Mississippi river and the Appalachian mountain range was dominated by some genuine populations of Native Indians. In the regions around the Great lakes, this aspect of the proclamation was very important owing to the fact that the natives has a very friendly and close alliance with the French, especially in the trading sectors. In fact after the treat and implementation of the proclamation, some natives made an attempt to resist the British sovereignty, in a rebellion that is known as Pontiac's rebellion.

In order to further cement the relations in the three parties the Crown also put forth a line along the Appalachian mountain range, which is known as the 'proclamation line'. The settlers were not exactly happy with line as they were not allowed to move beyond, towards the west of this line. Apart from that, private land purchase from the Indians were banned. The future purchases and business dealings were strictly to be conducted in the Crowns name and solicitations. Effectively the Crown had monopoly over several land dealings. The outrage and objections of the colonists were later resolved with the help of several new treaties namely Treaty of Fort Stanwix, Treaty of Hard Labor, Treaty of Lochaber, which bought in West Virgina and Kentucky for further settlement. Over all the Proclamation of 1763 and the following three treaties were quite well balanced proclamations by the British crown.

Some historians mark the Royal Proclamation of 1763 as the beginning of resentment period which finally led to the American revolution and declaration of independence, as the British interference in the colonies began to considerably increase. The Proclamation of 1763 and its follow up treaties is one apt example in the world history where the decisions were well thought out by a monarch and aimed at the well being of all the parties involved. Good luck.

Enlightenment Period

The term Enlightenment has a very deep meaning, the common literary definition being: 'wisdom and understanding and ability to think and reason rationally'. There are two broad meanings of the term enlightenment, religious or spiritual enlightenment and intellectual enlightenment. The Enlightenment Period or Age of Enlightenment, which is sometimes also known as an Enlightenment era, refers to the intellectual enlightenment in the American history and also the European history.

The Enlightenment Period in the western world, that is the European and North American nations, kingdoms and colonies, is referred to the time surrounding the 18th century, more precisely in between the Thirty Years' War and the French Revolution. This period is not a revolution, thought or acceptance of one single philosophy, but is a process and time period where the society evolved a bit more. The significant change that was observed was the way in which people thought. Reason and rationality of facts became the foundation of any thought. In this process, authority of monarchs was challenged and religious customs that sounded irrational were questioned.

Enlightenment: Etymology and Timespan

The genesis of the concept of the period of enlightenment is often attributed to several events. An afterwave of the Renaissance, the era of Enlightenment is often said to have triggered the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799 as the French revolution was largely attributed to common thought and rational behavior by society. The people wanted to do what was right and what was rational. Some scholars conclude that the actual intellectual change started, much before in 1648 when the 30 years war was concluded. It was a replicating after effect of Renaissance. The Enlightenment Period timeline is quite debatable, though a literary record that triggered the interest of intellectuals to give momentum to the Age, was published in 1784-83, by Immanuel Kant, a philosopher and thinker, who published the essay Answering the Question: What Is Enlightenment. The literary meaning was new found and the concept of 'Enlightenment' or Aufklärung (Greman word), was used quite strongly for the first time with reference to intellectual rationality and thought.

The essay was moreover an observance of the ongoing change that probably gave the era its name. The first paragraph of the essay was quite influential, and in some famous words Kents argued that people or society at large was not capable to think rationally or independently. The reason for this incapability as cited by Kent was fear, lack of right education and to some extent the element of unwillingness, and was not due to the lack of intellect. From the historical chronology of all historic events, the time period between 1648 (end of Thirty years war) to 1789 (French Revolution) are generally cited to the beginning and ending of the Era of Enlightenment in Europe.

It is often concluded that the Enlightenment Period was not initiated on a certain event date or time, but was assimilated by the society to such an extent that dogma was broken down by rationality. Believe it or not the Enlightenment Period per se was said to have concluded with the complete change in the though or more rudely the mentality of the society, that the beginning of the era or the World Wars. In several ways the Enlightenment Period has not ended in several primitive society and the genesis of ideas and acceptance of rationalism, empiricism and other schools of thoughts have become social institutions that are integrated it our minds quite naturally and to some extent by the promotion of education such as mathematics, science, history philosophy and economics. The 'why' element in the human thought is infinite and everlasting. All we need to do is find the answer to it naturally, rationally and in some cases through certain experience. That is something that the Enlightenment Period re-imbibed into into mankind and that is probably the way to live life and the way with which one can find the meaning of life and truth about life.

Enlightenment Period: Literature, Arts and Philosophers

The Enlightenment Period literature was quite revolutionary owing to the fact that unlike in the pre-Renaissance era, the prominent writings were in complicated languages such as Latin. In the Enlightenment Period folk languages such as English, French and German were used quite prominently. The literature itself, had broadened and scientific, historical, economic and mathematical works were published that considerably enriched the rational thought process.

The Novum Organum by Francis Bacon, is often attributed to be a pioneering work of the era and also an important initiation of what today is known as Scientific Method. Philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau talked widely about social contract, political models and also inequalities in his works, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and On the Social Contract. Ideas of Rousseau, have heavily influenced the French Revolution and the American Revolution not mention the reawakening of free though in the minds of the society. The psychology of man was depicted in two very notable works Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and A Treatise of Human Nature.

On the technical side, Issac Newton's Principia Mathematica, and his theories regarding physics, mathematics, astronomy and very simple logic that promotes a rational thought, have been of utmost importance. Two legendary economics on whose thoughts, observations and works the, modern economics is based on also made a mammoth and pioneering contributions to the field. Francois Quesney wrote the Tableau économique, a pioneering table for the Physiocratic School of thought and Adam Smith write the Wealth of Nations, a legendary set of economic theories that from the basis of economics.

The Enlightenment Period art was no less progressive than the Enlightenment Period philosophers. Mozart, a legend, composed some the most unchallenged music in the era. Requiem (an unfinished work), The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni and Così fan tutte are undoubtedly the best of the musical compositions to be ever written.

The American Enlightenment Period was dominated by the Declaration of Independence and by thoughts of thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who have laid the founding stones of the modern free world that we enjoy today. Benjamin Franklin and his several works also cannot be ignited Simon Bolivar was another freedom fighter who though free and fought to become free. Voltaire, is the pen name of another legend, François-Marie Arouet, whose several writings and thoughts influenced the French Revolution and the American Independence. Apart from that this thoughts also greatly provoked the thirst for truth in the minds of people. The Rights and Duties that we today enjoy or our Bill of Rights, have been inspired by these works. You may also read more on philosophy topics.

The Enlightenment Period might be termed to be 'over' in the words of academicians or intellectuals. However, as a free and rational mankind, we need to understand that every other day is a day of enlightenment as we reach and learn a new rational logic every day, a new logic whose conclusion we add to the dictionary of our thoughts. Living every rational logic freely and fully, experiencing it's truthfulness through a lifetime will some how give me a nice laugh for a couple of minutes before I die. Life I feel is enlightening and is logically and rationally stupid…

Nullification Doctrine

When nullification is spoken about, the most common point of reference is the nullification crisis of 1832. However, there is much more to nullification, other than just the crisis, which happened in the state of South Carolina. Before we turn towards the nullification doctrine, we will first try to understand the meaning of the word nullification. Nullification stands for the act of nullifying something. It can also be explained as making something null and void. Overriding the effect of something is also termed as nullification. Having understood the meaning of nullification, we will turn towards the doctrine itself.

Nullification Theory

The nullification doctrine states, that any U.S. State can rightfully nullify or invalidate any law passed by the federal government, which the state government deems unconstitutional. If one has to look at American history, it is clear that different sovereign states came together to form an Union. Since, the states together formed the Union, the final authority in regards to the deciding the limits of the power of the federal government rest with the state. In other words, the extent to which federal government can exercise their authority will be decided by the state governments. This was also called as compact theory. It is important to note, that any efforts by governments of any state to declare a federal law null and void have never been upheld. There is also an extreme case of assertion of sovereignty by the states, which is known as secession. In this, the state can decide to terminate its political affiliation with the Federal government.

Who was the Most Significant Proponent of the Nullification Doctrine?

The origin of the doctrine of nullification is said to be in the famous resolutions of Kentucky and Virginia. These resolutions were made in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. The foremost proponents of this doctrine were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They opined, the ultimate authority of interpreting the Constitution rests with the state governments. At the same time, the state government can interfere to protect the citizens of the state from the unconstitutional laws passed by the Federal government. Over a period of time, there were talks about secession after Jefferson’s party came to power and formed the Federal government. It is important to note, that the nullification doctrine came to be more associated with matters related to slavery.

John C. Calhoun gave out the most famous statement in regards to nullification. His words appeared in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828. The nullification crisis took place in 1832. In this year, South Carolina undertook upon itself to nullify the tariff of 1832 law passed by the Federal government. Then, there was an attempt by the northern states to block enforcement of the pro-slavery Federal Fugitive Slave Acts passed in 1793 and 1850. Although, the laws were not declared nullified, the actions were such that it nullified the effectiveness of the Federal law.

The nullification doctrine came up again in the 1950’s. It was in response to Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education case. According to this ruling, it was decided that segregation of schools was illegal. Almost ten schools in the South undertook different measures, whereby they preserved the segregation and did not follow Brown. However, after the Supreme court ruling, which said, "the Brown decision can neither be nullified openly or directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through schemes for segregation", that there was a stop on nullification process.

From the discussion on nullification doctrine, we have seen in this write up, it is clear that steps taken by any of the state government to nullify any of the Federal law are going to be futile. Ultimately, the Federal law will prevail on the state governments and they will have to enforce the laws.

Alcohol Prohibition and the Criminal Underworld it Spawned

When considering the "Roaring Twenties" in the U.S., prohibition is perhaps the most relevant and interesting facet of that period of the nation’s history. Referred to by some as "The Noble Experiment," alcohol prohibition in the U.S. was pushed forward by temperance leagues around the nation and eventually codified by the federal government in the form of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The amendment was proposed by the U.S. Senate on December 18, 1917. After having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was officially ratified on January 16, 1919 after being vetoed by President Woodrow Wilson and subsequently went into effect on January 16, 1920.

Far from having the desired effect, however, prohibition did little or nothing to curb drinking in the country and, instead, spawned a rich, prosperous and violent criminal underworld that consisted of gangster who were all too happy to sell alcohol illicitly and at astronomical prices. It was during this era that some of the most infamous criminals in the history of the country first became prosperous and notorious.

Until about 1920, the U.S. mafia and other criminal groups had engaged primarily in gambling, prostitution and theft. After the 18th Amendment went into effect, however, it became increasingly profitable to smuggle liquor into the country from Canada and overseas, or to produce it in homemade "stills." The bootlegging, as the illegal production and distribution of alcohol came to be known, was made more profitable by watering down alcohol or substituting a portion of properly-manufactured alcohol with other alcoholic liquids.

In the largest cities in the U.S., "Speakeasies" came into being throughout the nation, leading to the enduring image of the "Roaring Twenties" in our collective minds. At the same time, notorious gangsters like Al Capone and his sworn enemy Bugs Moran made millions of dollars by fulfilling the nation’s desire for alcohol. It was the ongoing wars between gangsters during the 1920s that to this day defines the gangster era in the U.S. and that still are the subject of films made in the modern day. Capone himself controlled roughly 10,000 speakeasies in Chicago and was the de facto king of the bootlegging business from Florida to Canada. To stake his claim and maintain control of this illicit empire, Capone and his ilk engaged in bribery, murder, torture and many other forms of illegal and violent behavior that was, ultimately, much worse than the effects of alcohol had ever been on the nation.

As the Great Depression began, and people tended to turn toward drink as a way of metaphorically "drowning their sorrows," prohibition, previously lauded by most Americans, came under increasing scrutiny. When the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre occurred in 1929, it was the final straw in the public’s acceptance of prohibition. With the massacre the direct result of fighting between gangsters over the illegal liquor business, prohibition was on its last legs.

At long last, the 18th Amendment was overturned when President Franklin Roosevelt signed into law a new amendment - the 21st - on March 22, 1933. The new Cullen-Harrison Act allowed the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, but to this day, it is illegal to manufacture distilled spirits without overcoming a wide variety of federal licensing requirements. It is the last remaining vestige of a well-meaning law that wrought havoc on the country in numerous ways, contrary to the intentions of its proponents.

Dawes Act

Ever wondered why the western part of USA is mostly agrarian? Well the roots (pun unintended) of this mode of economic development were laid way back in 1880's. Since then, or in fact agriculture was being done before that in the USA. But there was one thing particularly which led to a dramatic change in the agriculture scene in the USA. The person responsible for that was US Senator Henry L Dawes, from Massachusetts. This incident I am talking about in American history is the Dawes Act. This act was enacted in connection with the Native Americans. If this blast from the past interests you, then read on!

What Was the Dawes Act

Simply put, the act was enacted in relation to the native Americans and distribution of land to them, the ones especially in Oklahoma. Signed into law on February 8, 1887, the name is given after its sponsor, Henry Dawes, as mentioned before. Primarily, the act, passed by the Congress facilitated the division of lands held by tribal in individually-owned parcels. This opened 'surplus lands' to non-Indian settlements and rail road development. The Dawes Act of 1887 brought into focus 4 primary concepts and which were believed to be the objectives of this act.

Allotment of Land
Allotment of land in severalty to individual Indians was basic premise of this act. Under this, the remaining land was made available to settlers and orphans under the age of 18 and other single people under eighteen received 40 acres. Moreover, under this act, heads of families and single people over eighteen years were given allotments of 160 acres. The reasons for doing all this was to protect the native Indians from getting swindled.

Vocational Training
Another answer to what was the purpose of the Dawes Act is that this act aimed at a gendered training, involving farming and agriculture for men and homemaking for Indian women. All this was also an apparent attempt to civilize the native Americans.

Education
The Dawes Act provided for 'civilized' channel of education for native American children in government schools. This was so stringent that the troops took children away if there was resistance from parents. Moreover, boarding was preferred to ensure that the children get away from the tribal influence.

The Divine Intervention
According to Dawes Act, the churches were to intervene in policy making and missionary work related to the native Americans and near the tribes. Consequently a code of religious offense was established. In addition to this, the agents had the power and authority to convict red Indians if they practiced their religion.

So primarily these were the implications of the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887. Although some of these provisions seemed to be beneficial, some of the provisions clearly seemed to be atrocious and inflicting injustice on the tribals.

Aftermath of the Dawes Act

Just above I said that the American tribal experienced a lot of negativity as a result of this act, even if it emphasized on individual or private land ownership. The negativity marred the unity, culture and self government of the tribal community. The catch was that the land granted to the people was not adequate to provide financial security and it was not economically viable. Rather, the division of land amongst the heirs upon the death of the person being allotted the land, led to fractionalization. The allotment land, which for most part could be sold after 25 years was ultimately sold to non-native buyers at bargain prices. In addition to this, land marked as surplus, beyond what was left after allotment was opened to white settlers. However, the profits from the sales of these lands were many a times invested in programs meant to aid the American Indians.

The act, eventually was amended in 1891 and then once more again in 1906 by the Burke Act. That was all about the Dawes Act. This was just the Dawes Act summary. There were many repercussions and effects of this act, which have now been deeply buried in the pages of history. I close my treatise here!

Confederate Flag Meaning

The Confederate flag was used by some Confederate Army Units especially from the South. It was also known as the 'Rebel' or 'Dixie' flag which was more often than not confused and misinterpreted with the first National flag called as the 'Stars and Bars', though ironically the Stars and Bars has a completely different design as compared to the rectangular Confederate flag. The Confederate flag meaning has been a taboo for generations the USA, as many believe it represents 'White Supremacy', pro racism, slavery and hatred. Let us unravel the true meaning of the confederate flag and its mysteries.

Confederate Flag History
In order to know the actual Confederate flag meaning, it is necessary to understand why the Confederates needed to create a separate group. It all began with the presidential elections of 1860 when Abraham Lincoln and his Republican party campaigned for slavery to be curtailed and desist its expansion beyond the states in which slavery already existed. When the Republicans won the elections that year, 7 Southern states declared their rebellion against the anti slavery campaign. Colombia was the first state to declare it non-conformation against the anti slavery campaign, though this act was a combination of rebellion against the Northern stated from trying to enforce their overall political dominance upon the Southern states in general. They seceded before Abraham Lincoln took up the presidential office on March 4, 1861, this led to both the new president as well as the ex president James Buchanan to declare the act of the Southern states as violative of the US constitution and therefore illegal.

The concept of the confederate flag symbolism as depicted on the first Confederate flag (1862-1863) was to show the secession of the 11 Southern states from the Union and its declaration of unity to the Confederate. Later on 2 more states joined and the flag's design had to be changed, it took up the new design of the blue cross or X with 13 white stars in (1863-1865). The Confederate flag meaning was clear from the thirteen stars, which in actuality represented the total number of seceded Southern states or colonies, while the blue X represented their unified act of secession from the Union and other Northern states. This final act of rebellion is what led to the American Civil War from 1861 to 1865 which has been engraved as a part of its history. The Civil war was between all the Free states in the Union vs the Confederate States of America which was led by Senator Jefferson Davis who remained the president of the Confederate till the end of his time.

Though the Confederates lost the Civil war, it regained some minor popularity during the World War II. The flag became a local emblem among southern military units, for example one of the 26 United States Navy Cleveland-class light cruisers the USS Columbia (CL-56) adorned the Confederate flag as a battle insignia during the entire South Pacific war. This was done to pay tribute to the state of Columbia. This incident and a few more made the government declare that such acts were inappropriate and should not be practiced. The reason being firstly that the Confederate could not be used in place of the American flag. Secondly that the entire country was unitedly fighting in the World War II and not individual states who were exploiting and twisting the Confederate flag meaning to portray patriotism.

Controversy of the Confederate Flag
In modern times many Southerners still use the flag as they believe it represents the distinct development and uniqueness of the Southern culture. They believe its a part of their right to free speech and expression. Though the collateral damage the Confederate flag being displayed is that some feel disrespected and targeted racially. Symbols of the Confederacy are still in use and have become an issue of dispute that crops up every now and then across the United States. In the 1990s many Southern state legislatures attempted to allow the use of the Confederate flag as a part of its political and civic heritage as they consider it a part of the American history and do not view the flag as a representation of racism or any form of superiority.

Confederate Flag Meaning in Abroad
You would be surprised to know that the Confederate flag is often used as a symbol for culture and to display love for one's country. In Canada it is often used in Alberta. While in UK is represents the love for the American way of life, country music and line dancing. In Sweden the flag is the insignia of the 'Raggare' people who love to drive American auto mobiles and often follow their culture and lifestyle which is inspired from the 1940's to 1960's generation.

The Confederate flag meaning has been interpreted differently by different communities as well as different countries but the fact remains that it is still in use because it invokes strong emotional feelings. Whether positive or not may not be the defining issue. Many believe that the flag of Alabama, the recently changed flag of Georgia and the present flag of Mississippi are influenced by the Confederate flag. The flag of Mississippi represents the actual Confederate X on it, along with the blue, white and red stripes as the background. Though this flag was the choice of the citizens of Mississippi and the United States ratified their unified decision.

The Founding of Jamestown

The chosen location had its advantages like protection from Spanish ships, yet the most unwanted inconvenient was represented by the swamp waters as well as the terrible summer heat and last but certainly not least, the neighbors represented by the Powhatan Confederacy. We can ask ourselves why did these business men - most of whom, incidentally, claimed the title captain- came to the New World? Reasons varied, but many shared hopes, nurtured by the London Company, of achieving glory and quick fortunes- the same goals that had motivated the Spanish conquistadors a century earlier. Although some among this ambitious crowd looked for easy passage to the Pacific, most were obsessed with the search for gold.

In 1603, James I became king and he was eager to colonize North America. In 1606, he granted a charter to two companies of adventurers, one located in Plymouth and the other in London. In 1607, both of these companies established new colonies on the North American mainland. A fleet of three ships commanded by Christopher Newport - the flagship Susan Constant and two smaller escort vessels, the Discovery and the Godspeed- entered the Chesapeake Bay in May 1607, sailed up a river the colonists called the James, and thirty miles along, founded a settlement they called Jamestown. The site the colonists chose was a low, marshy peninsula jutting out into the river at a spot where the James narrowed considerably. One advantage of this location was its easy access to deep water; another was the protection it offered from Indian attacks. The London Company had made sure to carry aboard its ships experienced craftsmen - blacksmiths, carpenters, bricklayers, masons- who could accomplish the physical work necessary to build a permanent colony. These men were particularly important because another third of the 144 colonists who sailed to Virginia (104 survived the voyage) were, according to prevailing English standards, "gentlemen"- that is, they enjoyed at least some measure of wealth and status at home and considered their positions in the new settlement to be management rather than labor. They contributed little to the viability of Jamestown as a colony and generally refused to do anything, such as chopping down trees or plowing the soil that did not directly involve their private gain.

Good leadership was crucial, because the settlers faced grave problems: They had to construct defences against the Indians, they had to stockpile food for the winter, and they had to find something they could export to England so that the London Company would continue to support them.

Trouble with the Indians began early, because the Jamestown settlement encroached on some traditional hunting grounds. Most of the thirty or so tribes in the region that lay between the Potomac River and the Great Dismal Swamp belonged to what Thomas Jefferson later called the Powhatan Confederacy. Powhatan’s first personal contact with one of the Jamestown settlers came during the winter of 1607, when John Smith, who had been exploring the Chesapeake, was captured by Indians loyal to Powhatan and brought to the bark-covered house of the chief.

The colonists had had a difficult summer: once the heat set in, so did the epidemic diseases. Many colonists died, and those who didn’t were often too fatigued to work. The survival of Jamestown was now obviously in doubt, and food was the central concern. Therefore Smith, who had been deprived of his seat on the Jamestown governing council because of his excessive shipboard arrogance, proposed that he lead an expedition to find more trading partners. The leadership at Jamestown concluded that it had nothing to lose: If Smith returned with food, they would eat; if the Indians killed him, his death would be no loss. Although, Smith may have temporarily solved the colony’s Indian problem, Jamestown’s circumstances in early 1608 remained desperate.

Salvation came along with the discovery of tobacco and the financial gain that this product offered. Since 1619 Jamestown had exported 10 tons of tobacco to Europe and was a boom-town. The export was increasing to the extent that they were able to afford two imports which greatly improved their production and actually their whole life. Tobacco can well be credited with establishing Jamestown as the first permanent English colony in the New World.

What Was the Stamp Act

In the past couple of centuries, numerous laws and rules were quite stringent for the layman, especially under the rule of the British empire. Huge protests and strikes were common in the earlier centuries, especially when the interests of the peasants and laymen was in conflict. To understand 'what was the stamp act of 1765', we have to go back to the political situation that existed during the actual time of passing of the stamp act of 1765.

What Was the Stamp Act of 1765?
Under the ministry of George Grenville, the then Prime Minister of Great Britain, the British parliament proposed the stamp act on March 22, 1765, with an effective date of November 1. What was the stamp act about? The stamp act was the first direct tax levied in the American colonies. As per the rules of this direct tax, it was mandatory for all newspapers, pamphlets, legal documents, commercial documents, bills and all paper work issued in the jurisdiction of the American colonies, to bear a stamp. What was the stamp act for? It was to generate revenue for the British empire. The colonial people were to pay to the British empire, money in return of the embossed stamp on their documents, and that too, in British currency. It was not allowed to pay the taxes in American currencies. The embossed stamp manufacturing was done in London and brought to the American British colonies.

What Was the Stamp Act Crisis: Background
When George Grenville was elected as the prime minister, he had to deal with the national debt that was burdening the financial system of the British empire. Moreover, for reasons of colonial defense in North America, the British regime had to raise a strong army. All this required money and the newly formed prime minister, Mr. George, observed some ways to generate income. Since the political climate back home in Britain was not favorable for increasing tax rates, he introduced two acts in succession in the American colonies, under the British rule. Firstly, in April 1764, the Sugar Act was passed in the American colonies, which was initially not welcomed, but it didn't attract opposition from a large number of people. Following the sugar act, the stamp act was passed, and it was met with stiff resistance from the masses.

What Was the Stamp Act: Colonial Response
As the prime minister began aggressively hiring stamp agents for every colony, this act was opposed vehemently. The colonial leaders were worried about the losses the common man and professionals may have to bear due to the stamp act. Since they had been informed a year before, in the sugar act, about passing of the stamp act, they were already alarmed. The official announcement of passing of the stamp act just triggered the anger of civilians. Following reasons majorly caused the stamp act crisis in the American British colonies.

    * As per the stamp act, the admiralty courts was to handle people who won't pay the taxes. This was seen by people as a dominance of British parliament and diminishing of the power of colonial courts.
    * As per the 1689 English Bill of Rights, it was established that there must be no "taxation without representation". Since colonial people didn't have representation in British parliaments, it was a clear cut violation of their rights, as Englishmen.
    * Almost all colonies elected their own legislatures and so the tax laws introduced by British parliament was seen as a breach of the rights of colonial people.

Owing to stiff opposition, violence erupted in many colonies and some stamp agents were beaten by colonial people. The mob went a step ahead to attack government officials, businesses, buildings and houses of stamp agents. Unrest in public was followed by a "closed door" meeting of delegates of several colonies.

What Was the Stamp Act Congress
In June 1765, on a call by the Massachusetts Assembly, nearly nine colonies gathered for Stamp Act Congress in New York and the "Declaration of Rights and Grievances" was produced for all colonies. It was decided that they will oppose the stamp tax and won't step back. After October 1765, Lord Rockingham (successor of Grenville) realized it was important for British business and economy to repeal the act, as protests and strikes had already caused huge losses for the British government. Hence, the stamp act was repealed from the same day. The unrest in mobs subsided after few days of repealing the stamp act. However, numerous groups like Committees of Correspondence, Sons of Liberty, and System of Boycotts, were not dissolved, but colonies vouched to make them stronger to protest for any future taxes. The issue of "taxation without representation" also remained unheard and unresolved.

So did you get what was the stamp act? It was certainly a tiny shock wave for the British empire, probably a reminder of the larger American Revolution that was destined to occur. Many historians believe that the mass unity of American British colonies in things like the stamp act pushed the way for the greatest battle of freedom – the American revolution.