Category: Free Papers Samples on History

After the Union was broken up by 11 Southern states, the Civil War broke out in 1861. The battle between The Northern States of America (USA) lasted until 1865. 680,000 to 800,000 men died. The Civil War was caused by slavery, States rights and Lincoln’s election. These factors impacted Americans on a cultural, geographic, and sociological level. It would make sense to start with what was the most significant cause of civil war. This would be the Civil War’s cultural perspective. Agriculture was the basis of the South’s economy.

Many believe that the South at that time was a one-crop nation. Two-thirds Southerners didn’t own slaves. However, due to the insistence on maintaining the farms the economy was ensconced in slavery. Many Southerners felt they weren’t getting enough state rights, even before the war. Although this topic is not often discussed due to its importance, it caused many arguments and violent altercations. This sentiment was best illustrated by the June 1856 speech of an abolitionist U. S. senator against Kansas’ pro-slavery settlers. A Southern congressman entered the Senate two days later and beat the abolitionist severely with a walking cane made of gold.

This crime is usually punished with a heavy fine and time in prison. It made the South’s congressman a hero. The Richmond Enquirer published the following editorial. They have become savage and are willing to offend gentlemen. They are now a low-skilled, mean, scurvy trio, with little knowledge of books, but as empty of spirit or honor of any peck of curs. “… The truth is they’ve been allowed to run too long sans collars.

“They should be made to submit… Let them know that for every word of contempt they speak against the South it will cause them so many stripes. And soon they will begin to behave like normal dogs …” (Causes attributed to the American Civil War). This is a great summary of the many fights that occurred as tension increased between the North-South. Newspapers full scathing words and absurd fights were all around.

“Douglas was a prominent Democrat in Congress and had pushed for the passage of Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854), that declared that each territory’s voters, not the federal government, could decide whether it should be free or slave. (Abraham Lincoln). The Civil War was greatly influenced and facilitated by the conflicts between the North, South, and those that followed. The Northern states saw more industry and this was soon the foundation of their economy.

The advantage of having more natural resources was also a benefit for the north. These differences became evident in 1860, when 25% of Northerners lived within urban areas and only 10% lived in rural areas. Between 1800-1861, the proportion of agriculture-related laborers fell from 70% to 40%. With 80% of their labor force working on farms, the Southern states are most prominent.

America was a country of rapid economic growth and change at the end 19th century. American’s faced the dilemma of living in a resource-rich country without the ability to produce (machines or labourers), these resources. The second industrial revolution enabled production to become easier than ever. Production went from hand-made products to mass-produced, mechanised goods. These products could now travel across the country via the transcontinental railroad system. This resulted in a shift in the demographics of the country. A laissez-faire governance system encouraged rapid urbanization, big business and immigration. This was facilitated by the ideology known as Manifest Destiny. These pioneers of capitalism believed that they had all rights and responsibilities to exploit North America’s resources and expand their pursuit of the ideals. The idea of Manifest Destiny, the land of resource and those who exploited them, were the most important factors in America’s economic success at the beginning of the 21st century. Manifest Destiny, which was a form of territorial expansionism, was a key component to American economic growth. It was widely believed that the US’ settlers were destined for expansion across North America in the middle of the 19th century. It often had three main themes: The virtue of American citizens and their institutions; spreading these institutions to redeem and remake the world in America’s image; and the destiny of God to do this work. Because the East coast is close to Europe, it was the preferred location for settlement. However, increasing numbers of immigrants required more land. Americans argued for the settlement of new immigrants in the western and central regions (the Great Plains) on the continent. John O’Sullivan wrote an 1845 editorial in which he advocated Texas’ annexation. In it, he stated that “Manifest Destiny” was a term that referred to the fact that it was “our manifest fate to overspread Texas’ continent given by Providence for our yearly multiplying billions”. Railways were the best means of expanding Texas. Americans inherited technology from Europe and were quick to create new methods of iron making using steam power. Congress passed in 1862 the Pacific Railway Act. It authorized the construction and funding of transcontinental railroads. Private railway investors were also granted large land grants. The first transcontinental link was built between the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad at Promontory Point in Utah, May 1869. Four transcontinental railways were operational by 1884. Around the stations, new settlements were established. By 1890, four transcontinental lines had been in operation. Between 1870-1899, 430,000,000 acres were settled. More than in any American history. The 1862 Homestead Act was also responsible for this increase. This act was used by Congress to establish a program for public land grants to small farmers. 160 acres of the public land was offered to settlers, most of them located in the Great Plains. They were required to live on the land continuously for five year and make improvements while on it. 15,000 homestead applications were approved in the first four years. This program presented some challenges for immigrants. Many were not familiar with modern farming techniques and many weren’t given arable land. These homesteads helped to create communities on land previously uninhabited by Native Americans. The homesteads were eventually replaced by smaller, more efficient farms. However many small towns grew around them. It is important to note that the expansionist ideology, which was beneficial for many new immigrant families, also caused thousands of Native Americans to be displaced. Over this time the Native American population dropped rapidly, tribal land was lost, and the Native Americans became the poorest section of American society. The Native Americans were in great distress, and the Americans didn’t have much time for reflection as they pursued economic growth. America saw key opportunities for economic growth in both mobility of goods as well as land. This was due to the expansion of territorial territories fueled by belief in manifest destiny. American citizens had huge amounts of land at their disposal and were quick to exploit this resource. The availability of large quantities of arable land gave rise to the first set, agricultural produce. Americans planted more acres of land between 1870-1899 (225M acres) than in 1607 (1607: 189M acres). Farmers gave up their east-facing, small farms and built new, more fertile farms west and mid-west. They also used new innovations from second industrial revolution – one family could increase their acreage and production without having to hire large numbers of workers. In the period 1860-1900, America’s agricultural workforce declined from more than half to 40%. But agricultural productivity increased, making it possible to export surplus. The nation’s industry was fueled by the exports of farmers abroad. The country’s natural resources were key to the development of American industry. These included coal and oil. While commercial coal mining has been going on since 1740, it was still a relatively small industry. Early settlers preferred to use wood as a fuel. By the 1800s, Pennsylvanian miners had started to extract anthracite, a higher-carbon form of coal. It became a popular heating source in many North-eastern towns. By the 1840s, it was the most common form of coal on the Eastern seaboard. The coal industry was expanding throughout the century. Twenty states had become coal mines by 1861. Civil war increased the demand for coal, causing prices to rise by nearly 50%. Railroads now had access to the new coalfields. In fact, they eventually purchased coalfields from mining companies to lease. New technology led to industrial change. Coal was extracted underground, and purification methods were standard. This cleaning method produced coke, which is a fuel that has low impurities but high carbon, essential for making steel and iron. By 1880, national production had reached 80 millions tons due to increased coal mining. The story of oil was similar. In 1859, the country’s first petroleum industry began with a well extending 69ft into Western Pennsylvania. These wells were used to extract oil that was made into kerosene. This was cheaper than oil from whales and safer than camphene, which is a highly explosive fuel. Standard Oil was founded by John D. Rockefeller 1859 in Cleveland. Drilling expanded into other states and reached California in 1892. Standard Oil, however, owned the majority of the major pipelines. Rockefeller brought down oil prices from 58c to 8c per gallon by 1885. This gave people the ability to light their homes and offices, and allowed them to work late into the night. While Edison’s 1879 invention of an incandescent light seemed to be the end of oil, with the advent automobiles, excess was no problem. The United States had more oil production than the rest of the globe combined by 1909. They were the largest oil supplier to other countries and still met their own needs. American productivity in the utilization of its resources enabled it to become the largest agricultural economy in the world and the biggest industrial producer. Despite all the technology, land, and natural resources, America’s economy is still a formidable force. The unique problem faced by American’s was that they had both land, machinery and resources, but not enough labour. However, many were attracted to the young nation’s promise of great opportunities. This resulted in an influx of immigrants. In the period 1877-1900, there were 7,248,000 immigrants. Although immigrants were primarily from China and Western Europe before 1800, the majority of them came from the east and south. Many immigrants arrived in America to seek economic opportunities. The country offered cheap land and high wages, which was a major advantage over their home countries. This was especially true with the Homestead Act. Early immigrants made it known that they would be bringing their families and friends with them to America, thus forming networks and chains. Wage labour was also increasing in America’s rapid industrial growth. For the first times in America’s historical history, wage workers outnumbered self-employed. In fact, by 1873, these wage labourers were more common than ever. Furthermore, large corporations began to employ them. According to the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics and Labour, wage labour is universal. This means that it can be used in any religion, government, or language. In the 1880s, skilled workers had to struggle to keep their job due to the high wages of skilled workers. Employees sought ways to replace them with unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Henry Ford’s assembly-line example is the most cited example of how mechanisation can be used to reduce the work force and lower wages. Immigrants dominated this unskilled job, which provided America with much-needed labor to supplement its capital and land. In the latter part of the 19th century, entrepreneurs were a fourth factor in production. A few early investors, both in steel and oil, were able create huge business empires by using savvy business practices. John D Rockefeller, who had made investments in oil through Standard Oil, went on to purchase his competitors and in 1881 placed all of Standard Oil’s affiliates in the first US trust. Standard Oil was a near monopoly in the oil industry, controlling 90% of all pipelines and refineries. There were no business taxes or minimum wage under the government’s laissez faire economic rule. Additionally, the government’s laissez-faire economic rule, which was enacted by the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act did not have strong support. Many of these powerful figures benefited from it. Trusts also became more common, decreasing fair business competition. As a result, a number of millionaires or billionaires rose to become the leaders of huge conglomerates. These companies provided jobs for unskilled labourers as well as a platform to feed the nation’s ever-growing population. They also traded surplus foreign currency. The American economy’s success in the 20th-century was due to the growth of immigration and the wise exploitation of natural resources. The US held half the world’s manufacturing capacities by 1900. It was also expanding its economic interests and becoming a worldwide power. The US was able to make such significant gains partly because of its speed in a slow competition. In fact, the entire period between 1873 and 1900 was known as West Europe’s long depression. America’s economic power was largely due to how they used the land and resources that they discovered. While the discovery of such a resource rich continent was a blessing for the settlers, it was America’s pioneering spirit when it came to territorial expansion and the harnessing resources that made America a major economic player by the end of the twentieth century.

The multifarious advancements that the campaign could enable enabled the abolitionist camp to grow momentum after it emerged from the post-war empire defeat. The British Abolitionists’ campaign success was due to many factors. The British Abolitionists used Christian morality to win sympathy and exposed the cruelties of slavery. These arguments were interconnected, but they had two different motivations. We will discuss them separately. This message was spread primarily through petitions to parliaments and freed-slaves describing the cruelty they suffered. Further, the political landscape of the time, including the defeat of America at its imperial epoch, created an opportunity for British pride to be exploited by the Abolitionists. They urged Britain to become the nation’s freedom-loving powerhouse. This essay will discuss the various arguments used by the Abolitionists, as well as how they were communicated and acted upon by the wider public. The result was a national demand to abolish slavery.

British Abolitionists emphasized the importance of moral and ethics virtues. This appealed to the hearts of the British public and highlighted the inequities that slaves faced. It doesn’t take long to discover the horrific cruelty and maltreatments that slaves were subjected to by their masters. Olaudah Equiano was a slave who was kidnapped, enslaved, and eventually freed. This provided the abolitionists an undisputed and reliable source for the inhumanity of the slave industry. Equiano traveled all over England to tell his tale and sell his book. He wrote a book about the tragic, long journey from Africa through England. It was a difficult one, as many had to travel. Equiano’s ability and skill to describe his horrific experience with such clarity shocked many Brits. Many people might have believed it was minor, or were blissfully unaware of the issue. However, Equiano was able highlight the horrific events and explain them to their horror, which shocked many Brits. Abolitionists used this foundation to place sailors before Parliament multiple times to detail the cruelty to slaves on their long journey from Africa in England. Many of these people were either traumatized or killed. Ministers of Parliament were able to hold firm on these criticisms because they received them from sailors who are more familiar with the industry’s inner workings than just looking. Many petitions were submitted to Parliament during this time in an attempt to achieve tangible, legislative reform. Between 1791-1792 the House of Commons received 500 petitions. It received nearly half of London’s signatures between 1791-1792. Anthony Page, historian, says that many Brits signed petitions for moral reasons. Although they didn’t care too much about the cause, they could just “sign petitions and feel good.” A large number of signatures were motivated by ethical ideals set forth by abolitionists. Appeal to public were also designed to generate momentum. These appeals described human rights violations like the “irresponsible. unconditional bondage” and “subjection to the will to individual man”. Such appeals included those made by the London Anti-Slavery Society (Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society) and the Ladies’ Anti-Slavery Society. Appeal to the public was used to inform the public about the horrific cruelty of slavery. They also utilized strong moral values to win sympathy. Thus, it is evident that morality and ethics were utilised at the forefront of the arguments by the abolitionists, and such propositions were conveyed through addresses and appeals to the public, as well as personal anecdotes by both the victims and the perpetrators of the industry.Accordingly, the rise of the Quakers and Evangelical movements, who upheld the belief in the equality of men due to an ‘inner light’, added momentum to the abolitionist movement, convincing many that Christian morals oppose the enslavement of fellow men. Although they weren’t a large organization, they managed to spread their influence throughout the society. According to historians, the abolitionist texts mention a distinct fear of divine interference. This is specifically Exodus 3-7, in which God hears the cries from the Israelites held in slavery and unleashes his wrath upon the Egyptian enslavers. The influence of the Evangelicals was a major factor in the conversion of many from nonchalant positions to steadfast abolitionists. Scholar Christopher Brown believes that Quakers saw the abolitionists as an opportunity in revolutionizing and revitalising their movements, and that Evangelicals saw it as an opportunity for greater reform. These religious movements gained support because of the abolitionists. They were motivated by the fear and the desire to redeem themselves. Rational Dissenters was a major force behind the abolitionists. They were strong opponents of slavery in religious terms, but also made a point of focusing equally on the other deterrents. William Wilberforce, an English politician and evangelical Christian, was a significant contributor to the abolitionists’ success in parliament. He was a vital leader of the abolitionist movement. He was also able to make significant political advances. Rational Dissenter John Jebb utilised a specific strategy. This pamphlet, which was widely read, defined slavery in a clear contradiction to “Christian Society” and stated that it “ought to not be tolerated”. The public was also addressed and appealed to with further addresses. These included a statement that “the buying or selling of slaves or the holding thereof” is against the Christian religion. Many supporters of the abolitionist struggle were attracted to the promotion of religious values. Evangelicals, Quakers, Rational Dissenters and Evangelicals all endorsed this, convincing many that slavery was not in line with Christian ethics.

The shock at the defeat of the empire shaken the British nation’s pride, and the parliamentarians had to make steps to restore that trust. Further, there was more pressure from the abolitionists to have democratic ideals bolstered by parliament regarding slavery policies. The economic and national pride of Britain was hurt by the loss of its colonies in North America. The defeat was shock to the nation. It allowed citizens to convert their concerns about Britain’s largest form labor into political action. Many people began losing confidence in the decision-making process of the parliamentarians. The future looked promising if slavery were abolished. Britain would then be an international powerhouse for freedom and national pride. The House of Commons rejected a petition signed by many people in 1783. This caused public discontent and cast doubts on parliament’s concern for democratic practices. One of most concerning aspects of the government’s attitude to slavery is the Zong massacre (1781), in which 132 African-slaved people were thrown onboard the ship Zong. The Zong massacre was a result of poor management of supplies. In the following months, the owner of the ship attempted to obtain insurance for the ‘cargo. The case did eventually reach a court in two years, but that was for insurance fraud, not murder. Olaudah Equiiano, an abolitionist, made great efforts to get the court to consider the case as mass murder. However, the court ruled that the “case against Slaves” was not a case of mass murder and treated it as an insurance claim. Eight years later, this case became a well-known story. The abolitionists were then able publicize the case to emphasize the horrible laws that dictate how slaves should be treated. Granville Sharp, one of the most vocal critics of the laws and implications of slavery trade legislation in the early days was Granville Sharp. Sharp wrote in his book “A Representation of the Justice and Dangerous Tendendency of Tolerating Savagery” that artificial laws did not alter the fact of all men being created equal. Accordingly, the laws must also be modified to match this fact. It can be concluded that the refusal to change the law by the government, especially after the loss of the war, created widespread discontent about a system that had long been in violation all the principles of British Constitution. These doubts were engendered by British society’s indifference to the abolitionists’ extensive publicization of parliaments indifference to public dissatisfaction in its propaganda. It is important to note that the payouts to slave-owners were astronomical, but not to the slaves. This shows the government’s surrender to the plutocracy.

While acknowledging the difficulties of defending slavery’s ethics, those who supported it argued that it was strategic and economically necessary, while also using racial or religious arguments. Joseph Priestley’s 1788 sermon, which was later transcribed, is perhaps the most well-known and respected response to these arguments. Priestley argues that the majority of barbaric practices mentioned in the bible are now banned and that modern religious views encourage empathy and compassion. Priestley pointed out that racial arguments claiming inferiority to Africans are absurd. Priestley suggested that Ancient Egyptians “famed because of their wisdom” were likely of color. Priestley moved to the more difficult economic arguments. Priestley criticized the sugar industry’s commodification and suggested that sugar is an unnecessary luxury. Priestley said that people who can’t afford sugar should avoid it “as they do for other things.” Due to the constant arguments of religious sects such as the Quakers, Evangelicals and others, many commercemen were forced to confront the difficult task of reconciling economic success with religious values. The result was a decrease in public support for the commercial class that benefited most from the slavery trade. Seymour Drescher (historian, scholar) has argued that the end of slavery was not due to a diminished value or view of it. Rather, the public demanded it which led to “econocide” by the government. Although the arguments for London’s economic detriment were strong, the proslavery movement lost its support over time due to the fear and mass popularity that abolitionism was gaining momentum, which in turn led to those in favor of slavery being silenced.

The mass production and distribution of propaganda detailing the morality and religious contradictions associated with slavery helped the abolitionists win support from the public. The Quakers as well the Evangelicals and Rational Dissidents stressed the direct association between sin and slavery through the inhumane treatment other men and the fearmongering within the religious milieu. After the defeat of the empire, Britain’s national pride was shaken, the cause gained immense momentum. The pro-slavery movement was slowly silenced as the abolitionist movement gained momentum and became more widespread. These interrelated factors ultimately led to the Abolition of Slavery Act (1833), which was the final product of the abolitionist movement. Granville Sharp’s reaction when he learned that both Houses of Congress had passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807, is a remarkable example of Granville Sharp’s joy. He was seen kneeling and offering a prayer of appreciation.

The British Empire and American colonists both suffered from the French and Indian War. It is often thought that it was the main cause of much of what led to the American Revolution. British Empire had a huge impact on the British Empire’s victory in the French-India War. It meant that the British Empire was able to expand its territorial claims in New World. However, the war’s cost had significantly increased Britain’s debt. In addition, there was a lot of anger among English leaders about the colonists, who weren’t happy with the financial support and military assistance they received. These factors all combined to convince many English leaders that the colonies required major restructuring and that London should have the central authority. These plans were part the colonial resentment at British imperial strategies that resulted in the American Revolution.

The war had a similar but quite different impact on American colonists. The colonists learned to work together against common enemies. The colonies shared little in common before the war and coexisted in mutual distrust. Now, the colonies realized they could become a formidable force. Britain would be their next foe. But the English government ruled otherwise. They issued a Royal Proclamation to prevent settlement westward of the Allegheny mountain crest. To enforce their meassure, they authorized a permanent army consisting of 10,000 regulars. These troops were paid for with taxes collected from the colonies. The British reacted furiously to this, and the Americans were forced back by France in their westward surge.

The British victory was devastating for the Indians of Ohio Valley, third largest party in the French and Indian War. The victorious English reacted with hostility to the alliance of tribes with the French. The Iroquois Confederacy allied itself with Britain and did only marginally better. The alliance fell apart quickly and the Confederacy started to fall from within. For another fifty years, the Iroquois fought the English for control over the Ohio Valley. But they were never again able to negotiate with their white counterparts in terms of political or military equality.

After World War I, American ambitions to innovate, expand and control new markets led to increased international trade.

It is the practice of exerting control over foreign entities by direct or indirect economic or political intervention. This is the practice of expanding power, sovereignty or both by acquiring territory or gaining political or economic control over other areas. This essay will focus on the American Presidents McKinley, Wilson, and Roosevelt’s role in American imperialism. Roosevelt’s most important achievement was the Panama Canal. It embodied American Imperialism. Roosevelt needed to intervene in foreign affairs to establish order and stability in order to be able to continue to exist in the world. Roosevelt organized a national uprising by Panamanian separatists to force Columbia to recognize the independence of Panama after Columbia’s government was difficult to negotiate with. This made Columbia a quasi-puppet state under American control and allowed the canal’s regulation to be dominated. Roosevelt proposed the Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. In it, the USA was allowed to ‘exercise global police power’ in Latin America when there were flagrant cases or impotence. This was done in order to demonstrate that the USA is a powerful country. This was a significant shift in American foreign policy. Roosevelt literally amended the Monroe Doctrine in order to justify his interventionalist strategy of gaining control over Panama Canal. This also shows America’s power to control a country.

Roosevelt’s imperialism was further supported by his collaborations in naval base construction with Alfred Thayer Mahan. Roosevelt was a close friend and Mahan was an investor in China. Therefore, Roosevelt accepted Mahan’s arguments and would pursue a forward-looking foreign strategy based on modern naval power. America would appear more powerful to countries with large sea powers than it does now, which would allow it to defend itself against other power attacks, especially those from Europe, and be able join the world’s top powers.

President McKinley was also an imperialist, as was President Roosevelt. The US provided significant support to Cuban nationalists who rebelled against Spanish rule in 1895. Although the US government was not interested in intervening in Cuba, McKinley felt that he could not resist being criticised by McKinley and so he decided to go to war. Congress passed the Teller Amendment, which prevented Cuba from becoming a US colony. American forces invaded Cuba to win the war. The Teller Amendment was repealed and the Platt Amendment of 2001 replaced it. This allowed the USA’s intervention in Cuba to protect its independence and stability if the situation was deemed ‘threat’. This would have allowed America to determine what was and was not a threat Cuba’s ‘independence. His use of force against Cuba by President McKinley made American imperialism the defining point of America’s isolationist status and displaying their imperialism.

The example of Mexico could suggest that President Wilson might have been an imperialist. Wilson sent American Marines to Vera Cruz in 1914 to restore order and occupy the territory. But this helped the military dictator Victoriano Huerta to consolidate his position, not overthrow it. Roosevelt was critical of Wilson’s toughness, while being criticized by the anti-imperialist forces for intervening. Wilson again intervened and sent in a large force of military personnel in 1916. American intervention proved unsuccessful and the army was disbanded in 1917. He did not intend to send American marines into Mexico. However, Wilson was not an imperialist. After the events in Mexico, Wilson returned to his original isolationist views.

The Monroe Doctrine was amended by Roosevelt to allow him to pursue his imperialist ideologies. McKinley had a major role in American colonialism, as he used force to subdue Cuba. However, this was his first presidential action, which demonstrates how imperialist McKinley’s motivations. Although President Wilson tried to use imperialist tactics in order to intervene Mexico, this was rebuffed and he returned to American isolationism.

Louis XIV France vs. Stuart Kings England. What happened? Why did the Stuart kings lose and Louis XIV win? William Jefferson Clinton was an American president who was more successful than Bush. Clinton proved the world our superiority through control, growth in economic activity, and policies that ranged from Israel, social security, to name a few. Bush’s victory proved that they were elected. Similarities can also be found between Louis XIV, the Stuart Kings, and Louis XIV. Louis XIV, a solid leader, was able to see the future and delegate authority to military and economic leaders. Many people thought that the Stuart Kings didn’t have any foresight, nor character. Their reckless and stupid way of governing their country was a reflection of their inability to see the future. Louis XIV flourished due to absolute control, growth in the economy, and military restructuring. Stuart Kings’ defeat was caused by economic turmoil, no control and civil war. Control was key to both the success and failure of Louis XIV.

Louis XIV had complete control of his subjects by supervising them, locating nobility, as well as the image he projected to them. Louis XIV was a diligent investigator, tale-bearer, and writer who took the time and effort to discover what was happening in private and public affairs. Louis would punish anyone suspected of wrongdoing. Louis realized that he had to manage his nobility. By requiring his nobility, he was able to keep his nobility under control by making them attend Versailles’s court. He could also watch over them and help them learn etiquette. They were too busy learning about plotting against him. Louis needed to be able to manage his subjects and the nobles. Louis painted himself as a true ruler capable of carrying out his duties. He was also an exemplary king who showed kindness and compassion. “Any man could have an opportunity to speak to him; he listened, and almost always replied, “I will see” (see http://history.hanover.edu/texts/louisxiv.html). Louis was trusted by France’s people. The Stuart Kings experienced great hostility during the reign. James I, first of the Stuart Kings arrived at the throne in hostility. James I was a Scottish citizen who succeeded Elizabeth I, an English legend. These two factors made James difficult to gain favor with his people. Charles I’s reign saw the Stuart Kings lose control. The Scottish were the first to rebel, followed by the Parliament, which supported the Scots against Charles I. Charles suffered complete control loss when the army crushed a royalist uprising. On 20 January 1649 he was tried and convicted of violating the liberties granted to his subjects. James II was another Stuart King that really lost control. James II was the final heir to the throne after a series of religious disputes between Parliament and James. While control was key to Louis’ success, the economic failure of the Stuart Kings was also a major contributor.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s fiscal reforms were key to France’s economic boom. In six years, Colbert transformed a 22 million debt into a surplus of 29, million. Colbert achieved this feat by not raising taxes but improving efficiency in the way they were collected. CW, 533. “Colbert cut the cost of collecting taxes, reduced graft and corruption, and adopted an accurate system of bookkeeping” (see http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/louisxiv.html). Colbert was also able to boost France’s trade and commercial growth, rivaling that of the Netherlands. Colbert was an able mind who helped Louis prosper. Before the Stuart Kings took the throne, financial misfortunes began. Elizabeth I began selling off lands to help with financial difficulties. James II adopted. England’s long term revenues were reduced by the sale of lands. Charles I and James I became heavily dependent on taxation once revenues began to drop. Charles I lost control of his finances due to taxation. Charles required taxation to fund his Army of Resistance in Scotland. The Parliament wouldn’t approve the grant of taxation. This was the catalyst for the English Revolutions. Louis XIV achieved financial stability using new innovative ideas. Stuart Kings didn’t use any creative thinking when trying to find a solution for their problems. Louis’ success was not only due to his economic genius, but also because of military reform.

Colbert was Louis’ chief minister for finance. Marquis de Louvois (a great minister for war) was another blessing. Louvois was a great reformer of the French army. The French army was larger and its organization was vastly improved. Another great reform was the promotion system that promoted merit over purchase, and the establishment of stores of arms and ammunitions in France (CW 533). However, the Stuart Kings made no changes to the military except for the belief that their king could not be defeated. Louis XIV was successful because he had control over the military and he also reform it. This is what led to the Stuart kings failing.

Louis was a great man, and the Stuart Kings were a great bunch of idiots. Louis was kind and reserved, while the Stuart Kings were more reserved. Louis understood the importance of relying on professionals to manage the affairs of the state, while the Stuart Kings were reliant on their own intelligence. Louis’s reign was characterized by control, increased revenues, military reform, and a lot of success. The Stuart Kings’ reign was marred by rebellion, depression, sabotage, and defiance. Louis achieved what Clinton did, a period of progress and sustainability. The Stuart Kings showed the world how to make bad situations worse by proving what Clinton accomplished.

A hundred and thirty year ago, Jack the Ripper committed five grisly murders in Whitechapel in East London. Newspapers began to circulate around the globe in 1888. This spread the news like wildfire. It burns brightly today. They are known as “Ripperologists” and they continue to carry that flame by coming up with sound theories or outlandish ones. Recent scientific evidence supporting a Ripper letter was found to be scientifically supported. This could alter the fate of the most notorious cold case ever: female DNA. I support the notion of a female Jack the Ripper. One theory that Jack was a female murderer, and another that Jack was a midwife is very popular. The third theory I have is that Jack was the Ripper himself.

The oldest theory of female Rippers is the midwife theory. Two letters were published in The Evening News 1888 claiming that the murderer might have been a woman. One, sent by a particular “J.O.” suggested that the murderer may have been a woman who is more likely to be unmarried and would be gentler and less violent but still derive perverse sexual pleasure from the deaths. Doctor Thomas Bond offered professional advice and support to the theory. He released a report listing all of his theories, which he had derived from previous murders and Kelly’s body. His eighth listing stated that the killer had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. They also claimed they did not have the technical know-how that butchers and animal slaughterers might have. This is in direct contradiction to J.O.’s statement and to the midwife theory. Midwives, however, would likely have a different skill set. They wouldn’t have any surgical or butchering knowledge. They would know the locations of the lower and uterine organs. All victims were taken at some point. This allows them to open bodies and remove any organs. Doctors used C-sections in 1888. However, they weren’t as successful today. A doctor would accompany the midwife, so they could observe the operation. This would enable her to examine the anatomy of a body in order to access the uterus. Five women would be mutilated by a midwife. Three motives are most likely to be used by a midwife. First, midwives can be women who are unable or unwilling have children. If the latter, it’s possible that she murdered the women as they were able have children. If she had been able to have children, then it’s possible that she would have killed them. An unmarried woman would not have the ability to choose whether she will have children or when. Prostitutes could have an abortion, and then forgo getting pregnant. The steady, but not sudden rise in the number of male midwives over the past 17 years could also be a possible reason. Fear of losing one of the few jobs that a woman can do could have motivated one to commit murder. Instead of murdering midwives from males, she would kill women and put the blame on a man. Women would fear that a man could be their midwife. This could result in them being forced out of this career. This is problematic because women still make up the majority of the workforce and are not being fired. There wouldn’t have been any need to alarm unless the midwife was paranoid or maniac.

Phoebe Hogg’s baby and herself were murdered in 1890. A woman’s body was found later on, with her head and neck almost cut off, on a Hampstead pile of trach. A baby of 18 months was found murdered in Finchley. Mary Eleanor Wheeler, a 23- to 24-year-old woman, was the murderer. The only thing we know about her childhood is that her father was sentenced to death for her murder. John Charles Pearcey is her only known relationship. Mary kept her surname, John Charles Pearcey, even though they didn’t get married. She moved in to Frank Hogg’s place and began a new relationship. Although both had numerous affairs, their union was harmonious at best. Things started to go downhill quickly. Hogg was planning to marry Phoebe Styles after he had got Phoebe Styles pregnant. Mary was initially hesitant to accept this. However, Hogg convinced Mary after talking that they would continue their relationship sexually. This made Mary happy for quite a while. Mary took action after the birth of her baby. Phoebe came to Mary’s home for tea. There were screams that could be heard until the evening, then they stopped. That is when the body of the baby was discovered. Although her connection to Jack the Ripper was not strong, Phoebe had become a prominent Ripper female suspect due to her vague past. Mary was strong during her trial, and it should also be noted that she could walk around with blood all over her clothes as a woman.

Mary the Ripper would have killed five Whitechapel prostitutes. Frank Hogg is the man who can solve her mystery. Hogg had several affairs just like Mary before he married Phoebe. It is possible that he visited several girls in London while working. Pearcey could have felt the same jealousy as Phoebe did and decided to rid herself of her rival. As stated before, it would have been simple to pass off as an obstetrician. However, most were not licensed and had no papers or badges to show their profession. Mary could have lured the prostitutes in as a friendly gesture and murdered them before returning home. However, this theory is flawed because of the fact that Ripper and Pearcey have no connection. It was just too far for her to drive there and then return to kill prostitutes every weekend.

There are many Rippers on the list, and they have been growing over time. There are many conspiracy theories floating around, but no one suspects the victims. Mary Jane Kelly was Ripper’s last victim and most brutal kill. Kelly was a mystery, her history’muddied’ by what she told people. Kelly’s past is largely traceable to Ireland, where she lived with her relatives. She was a young bride, but was later widowed. After her divorce, she moved around with various men. All this information comes directly from Joseph Barnett. She had been together for a year and was divorced a month prior to the murder. Her appearance, especially her hair, was not clear. Her nicknames, “Fair Emma”, “Ginger” and “Black Mary”, denoted that she was either blonde or ginger. Reports all agreed that she was attractive young lady. Kelly would be able to find a woman who was her same height as her and have blue eyes to murder her. The only thing one needs to do is to make Kelly’s face look completely different. Dr. Bond reports that Kelly’s facial features were ‘gashed in all directions’ with her eyebrows, nose, and eyes being partly removed. Kelly’s head is also completely unrecognizable in Dr. Bond’s autopsy report. Her hair is covered in blood, which is soaking into every inch of her body. Kelly is the only possible explanation for why they thought it was Kelly. Kelly may have lured her victim to her room as protection from the cold, or streets.

Even more confusing is the night of their murder. Kelly was able to meet a man carrying a bag. He seemed closer than a regular client to Kelly, and seemed to be laughing with her, offering to use her handkerchief. They went upstairs to Kelly’s bedroom. That was it. Kelly would not be seen again. It seemed so. Two people saw Kelly in her favorite shawl walking around town that morning around 8 and 10 a.m. later than the body was discovered. Two Kelly neighbors later reported that Kelly’s apartment was being used as a barracks. This would be absurd. Kelly’s body would have been carved out by the murderer, so he wouldn’t leave the scene. This would only be possible if she faked her death and lured in an innocent girl to her body. Faking her death would allow the woman to escape London without alarming anyone and hide any traceable leads.

The question is, however, why? Many reasons can be given, but Kelly may have had mania and believed that killing wok competitors was the only way. Or she could have had a jealousy fit because one or more of the victims served Barnett, one of her ex-lovers. There is another possibility that Kelly was motivated by backwards vigilantism. She may have disliked the work she was doing and believed that killing other prostitutes was the best way to prevent them from becoming sex workers. This theory is not without flaws. It’s not as extensive as I would expect, given my limited resources and the fact that the case has been closed for over 100 years. This theory isn’t true. Jack the Ripper could have stopped killing after they exhausted Kelly.

Unfortunately, we don’t know the identity of Jack the Ripper. But DNA testing allowed us to make a step closer. These theories could all be true, at the very least. Even though the case will never be solved completely, it is still interesting to see the minds of others and to see other people’s theories about Ripper.

Bibliography

BEGG and PAUL BENNETT. ‘Bits Of Body Turning Up Here And There’ in Jack the Ripper, 93-114. Yale University Press released their publication in 2013.

BEGG and PAUL BENNETT. Jack the Ripper: Forgotten Victims, 65-73. Yale University Press published a book in 2013.

Cameron, Deborah. ‘St.i.i.i.ll Coming… The Quest For Jack the Ripper.’ Social text, no. 40 (1994): 147-54.

Curtis, L. Perry. “Responses To Ripper News: Letters to the Editor.” Jack the Ripper, London Press, 238–52. New Haven and London: Yale University Press 2001.

Curtis L. Perry. ‘The Kelly Reportage.’ Jack the Ripper, London Press, 186-212. New Haven and London: Yale University Press 2001.

Findlay, Ian. 2012. Interview with Mike Covell In 2012, the BBC aired a program titled Jack the Ripper: Prime Suspect, which focused on the potential identity of the infamous serial killer. Video.

J.O. 1888 “To THE EDITOR OF “THE EVENING NEWS.” Written October 15 1888. https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18881016.html

Leavitt and Judith Walzer. “The Growth of Medical Authority. Technology and Morals In Turn-of-the-Century obstetrics.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly. 3 (1987): 230-55.

Schachner, Thomas. 2013. Thomas Bond, M.D. https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/thomas-bond.html

Rose Weitz, Deborah A., Sullivan. ‘THE BIRTH & DESTROY OF INDEPENDENT MIDWIFERY — BRITAIN. AUSTRALIA. & NEW ZEALAND.’ Labor Pains. Modern midwives and home birth, 166-200. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 1988.