The Impact Of Westward Expansion On The United States

The purchase of the Louisiana Territory in 1803 opened the door to westward expansion. Thomas Jefferson purchased this extensive plot of land with the hopes of strengthening and expanding the Republic, unaware that it would have the opposite effect. Jefferson’s fateful decision to expand the United States nearly destroyed the Republic that Americans worked so hard to build. It triggered the rise of divisions amongst Americans. These small cracks continued to grow and tear at the seams of the nation. Although westward expansion between 1800 and 1848 granted many new opportunities to the American people, it also brought about tension that plagued the nation for years to come. Some historians may construe westward expansion as beneficial to the United States, arguing that it reduced tensions within the nascent nation. Westward migration was glorified in the early 19th century as the way in which to achieve true freedom. The West was associated with economic opportunity and basic Republican ideals. Streams of individuals seeking prosperity and liberty flooded into the west after the Louisiana Purchase. With the rapid peopling of the west, new transportation systems arose in an effort to connect the new western territories to the southern and northern regions. Roads, steamboats, and canals such as the Cumberland Road and Erie canal were created to transport people and goods from one end of the United States to the other. The railroad was another invention that promoted unity.Show MoreRelatedEssay On Manifest Destiny1551 Words   |  7 PagesManifest Destiny was a widely spread belief that settlers in the United States should expand across North America. It was the belief that fueled the westward expansion. The westward expansion led to many other events in and around the United States. Before Manifest Destiny and the westward expansion the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War took place which allowed America to declare independence. Manifest Destiny w as a big influence on the evolution of transport and technology. Before weRead MoreManifest Destiny1555 Words   |  7 PagesThe Evolution Of Transportation Manifest Destiny was a widely spread belief that settlers in the United States should expand across North America. It was the belief that fueled the westward expansion. The westward expansion led to many other events in and around the United States. Before Manifest Destiny and the westward expansion the French and Indian War and Revolutionary War took place which allowed America to declare independence. Manifest Destiny was a big influence on the evolution of transportRead MoreThe Secession Crisis Of 1860-18611637 Words   |  7 Pagesand 1861, many events had impacts on the United States that lead up to the secession crisis of 1860-1861. Slavery had great impacts on the country, such as the economic effect of the South overestimating its importance due to the prevalence of slave grown cotton. Westward expansion had the social effect of the citizens of territories wanting statehood to get into arguments and civil wars due to popular sovereignty. States rights had the political effec t of the southern states believing that since theyRead MoreThe Impact Of The Westward Expansion On Women And African Americans991 Words   |  4 Pages The Impact of the Westward Expansion on Women and African Americans The Westward Expansion started prior to The Revolutionary War, settlers were migrating westward to what states are now modern day Kentucky and Tennessee in hopes for a fruitful life and larger job opportunity. This Westward Expansion was aided through the Louisiana purchase in 1803, in which the United States purchased territory from France, resulting in doubling in size of the country. This Louisiana purchase was stretchedRead MoreManifest Destiny And Westward Expansion Essay1447 Words   |  6 Pages1) OUTLINE: I. Topic sentence. Manifest destiny and westward expansion was a tremendous key component to the growth of the nation economically because of the impact it had on native americans, women empowerment, and expanding the population of the country. II. Significance of topic. Americans looked towards the western lands as an opportunity for large amounts of free land, for growth of industry, and pursue the manifest destiny. III. List of evidence related to topic. The railwaysRead MoreEffects Of Westward Expansion715 Words   |  3 PagesWestward expansion was a time of successes and failures, a time celebrations and grief, a time full of life and death but in the end it shaped how America is the way is today. Westward expansion was put in action because of the belief of Manifest Destiny, the belief that it is America fate to expand from the Atlantic to Pacific ocean. The economical, political and humanitarians impacts were necessary to achieve the goal of manifest Destiny and Westward Expansion. Westward Expansion had the biggestRead MoreManifest Destiny Essay735 Words   |  3 PagesManifest Destiny affect on Modern United States During the mid 1800’s America was at a peak of nationalism, which involved their religious beliefs. Manifest destiny describes the attitude of a white man in America during the 19th century, involving their desire for evangelization, white supremacy, and westward expansion. To a majority of the Americans, manifest destiny was a proud accomplishment they would be faced with. Manifest destiny had a negative impact on the Native Americans, however, itRead MoreManifest Destiny Essay1433 Words   |  6 PagesManifest Destiny Westward expansion was a key component that shaped the United States not only geographically, but economically as well. The first sign of any expansion West from the original states was when Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803. The country was in need of new land in order to accommodate for the expanding population. Once the country started to expand, its power soon followed. The nation had a struggle with expanding because of the Native AmericansRead MoreManifest Destiny1327 Words   |  6 Pagesthe reason behind the US expansion into the West. What are the social, political and economical effects of this idea on the people living in the United States colonies and the West? Manifest Destiny is a term coined by John L. Sullivan in 1845 when talking about the annexation of Texas. He believed, along with other expansionists, that it’s inevitable that the US population would spread across North America because the land is given by Providence to the United States and that it’s natural thatRead MoreThe Decline Of The Colonial Era929 Words   |  4 PagesThe Colonial era was the beginnings of what was to become the United States of America. The transition from the Colonial period to what is now known as the United State came by way of the American Revolution. The American Revolution led to the birth of a nation which in turn led to its westward expansion. The westward expansion exposed internal conflicts, between the North and the South, eventually leading to the Civil War. The development of America was birth through the merger of the Colonial era

A Critical Evaluation of the Deductive Argument from Evil Free Essays

Logically, can Evil and the â€Å"three-O† God co-exist in this universe? The deductive argument from evil says they cannot. In this essay I will explain the argument and analyze why it is valid but unsound. I will do this by discussing fallacious nature of the premise that if God were omnipotent and knew he could prevent the existence of evil without sacrificing some greater good he would then necessarily prevent it. We will write a custom essay sample on A Critical Evaluation of the Deductive Argument from Evil or any similar topic only for you Order Now The essay will propose the following evaluation of the deductive argument from Evil: that each premise logically follows from its antecedent, but that the concepts in the premises themselves are not entirely understood and can be refuted. God’s Omni benevolence, specifically, need not incontrovertibly mean the prevention of every evil on earth – not even necessarily natural evil. Furthermore, I will address the purpose of evil and the compatibility of God’s all-good nature with the existence of evil. Concluding finally that the deductive argument from evil does not justify a belief in the nonexistence of God, despite the strength of the overall argument. The deductive argument from evil is an explanation for the incompatibility of evil and a â€Å"three-O† God. It answers to the problem of evil, which is the problem of whether or not such a God could logically coexist with evil. This argument both positively states that evil exists in the world, and normatively states that if God existed there would be no evil, therefore God does not exist. As mentioned previously, it deals with the concept of a â€Å"three-O† God; which is to say a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Omnipotence means here that God has the ability to do anything that is logically possible and omniscience denotes that God knows everything that is true. Omni benevolence is the idea that God is perfectly good by nature and that He does no morally bad actions, including the omission to perform action. I accept the first two concepts as sound, but reject the third since it is implying ideas that may not directly stem from the nature of goodness or the all-good personality of God. However, I will come to this later on in the discussion of why this argument – as it stands – should be rejected on the basis of referential fallacy. In the deductive argument from evil it follows that if God can do anything logically possible and He knows all truth, then knowing He has the power to prevent evil without sacrificing some greater good, by his omnibenevolent nature he will. Evil in this case is not merely the absence of good, but actions and events that cause suffering – particularly natural evil or that which is not originated by man. This is the strongest variant of the argument and thus will be the one analyzed. If the premises in this argument were all true then the conclusion would irrefutable true; making the argument valid and the conclusion false if and only if one or more of the premises are false. This means that the argument can only be objected on the basis of unsoundness, leading to an examination of the possibility of falsity in the assumed truths of the argument or logical fallacy; namely a consideration of the meaning of Omni benevolence and the implications of a being’s nature. As stated above, the deductive argument from evil holds true that if God is omnibenevolent he will necessarily prevent the existence of evil. Nonetheless, it is not true that because a being has a certain characteristic he therefore must always act in accordance with this characteristic independent of his other attributes or other aspects of the situation. The premise is either asserting that God is not Omnipotent in His choice of whether or not to act in a situation where evil exists; Or it is assuming that God’s goodness directly implies a need for action against anything that is not good, rather than simply stating He will act in accordance to His good nature when He decides to intervene in human suffering. This brings back the idea of the true meaning of Omni benevolence. If it does denote that God will not omit to perform good actions, then does this not immediately explain how God’s lack of action against evil will lead to an understanding of the nonexistence of God? No. Simply because God does not intervene in evil, doesn’t imperatively mean that God is not choosing to do â€Å"good† through the choice of nonintervention. If God is Omnipotent and can choose to do anything logically possible, then he can also choose to allow evil if it serves a good purpose, not necessarily related to a greater good which explains the existence of all evil, but for other good reasons. Suppose that the greater good that not only enables us to forgive but also to justify all evil on earth was Heaven – a possibility of eternal life in paradise. God knowing he can prevent evil without sacrificing this greater good would do so due to his â€Å"three-O† nature (explained in the deductive argument from evil). Then what kind of evil might He logically allow to exist? Evil that may lead one to choose this eternal kingdom would be a form of evil that would be justified since it brings about a good, not that greater good which allows all evil to exist, but another good that is reasoned in the eyes of God. Eleonore Stump offers this idea as a response to the deductive explanation of the problem of evil, stating that natural evil can humble men and bring us closer to a reflection of the transience of the world. In her retort she explains that these things may bring man to even contemplate God’s existence, and thus possibly placing faith in God and guaranteeing an eternal life in the kingdom of Heaven (Stump, 210). An even further analysis of the issue of misinterpretation of Omni benevolence, or false assumptions about God’s nature, is the claim that the deductive argument from evil contains a referential fallacy; presuming that all words refer to existing things and that their meaning lies in what the refer to. This claim of the unsound nature of the argument asserts that the deductive argument from evil fallaciously assumes the idea of Omni benevolence is defined by existing ideas and worldly concepts of â€Å"all good nature†. It is logically possibly, however, that God’s perfect goodness is beyond man’s understanding and cannot be defined by actions or non-actions relating to the evil of this world. Thus leading to the false conviction that God need necessarily eliminate all evil from the world in order to be inherently good. These forms of counter arguments to the deductive explanation of evil’s non-compatibility with God can be refuted. The following are defenses for the deductive argument that support the primary understanding of God’s Omni benevolence as mandating the elimination of all existing evil. Firstly, Omni benevolence is a description of God’s absolutely good nature and entails that God desires everything that is good. This desire to bring about good things also means a desire to prevent evil things from happening. Hence God’s good nature doesn’t need to necessarily lead to no omission of good actions, but it does lead to the necessary idea that God would mostly want to prevent evil and would do so to fulfill His will and please Himself. Secondly, an argument based on the idea of Heaven is flawed because the existence of eternal life cannot be proven on Earth. Furthermore this is not a greater good that justifies the reality of evil because it is not tangible and does not coexist with the evil that is on here on Earth, right now. Despite these refutes, the three main arguments against the soundness of Omni benevolence ineluctably meaning the elimination of evil still stand. Firstly, God’s good nature can lead Him to desire good things, yet He may allow evil things on Earth in order to make us understand what is moral and what is immoral. Without evil then there would be no consequences to immoral actions, therefore no one would be able to distinguish between good or bad (Zacharias, 2013). Moreover, simply because good is correlated with the lack of evil does not necessarily mean good will cause nonexistence of evil. Secondly, heaven need not be a real place, proven by science, in order to posit a valid argument for the existence of God. The argument is that if Heaven exists, then it follows that all evils are justified by this eternal life. Also, a greater good that justifies evil is not required to be a good that is enjoyed in the present time; it may be a good that is to come. In conclusion, the deductive argument from evil is valid, with a logical conclusion following from the premises posed, but it is unsound in its assumptions of the nature of God – the implication of His traits. It makes a flawed link between the Omni benevolent essence of God’s being and a â€Å"necessary† elimination of evil by God. Furthermore, it fallaciously entails both a human conception of â€Å"perfect good† and a human understanding of this notion. How to cite A Critical Evaluation of the Deductive Argument from Evil, Essays

Beyond the Scenery free essay sample

The summer sun beamed down, making the bright daisies sparkle and shimmer like tiny stars. My hand grazed the familiar sunset pink journal, gliding over the faded rough edges. My big muddy brown eyes gazed at the sky filled with white puffy clouds. Gusts of wind blew throughout the park, dandelion puffs flying throughout the sky. Crystal waters stained the ground as a family of geese softly swam atop. The water was a clear blue, matching the shade of my mother’s eyes. With every splash, the baby geese would come closer together. The mother goose led them to still water, making sure her children would be alright, reminding me of my own mother. My mom would pick me up, and smile at my face full of innocence. I would be wearing a beautiful gown, and end up getting it covered in birthday cake. I would dance around the room, my older sister and brother running about. We will write a custom essay sample on Beyond the Scenery or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Then my mother would say, â€Å"You can do whatever you want to do, my baby girl.† She handed me a notebook that day, and ever since, I’ve never stopped writing. Soon, The flashback blurred, my mind slowly returning to the park. My eyes drifted away from the pond, looking up at the oddly shaped clouds. A giraffe-shaped and an elephant-shaped cloud flew across the sky, bringing me back to when I was only 12 years old. â€Å"Let’s build a fort!† I shouted, sitting up off the grassy floor. My friends looked up at me, their eyes sparkling as if I had ignited some sort of firework. Right away, we all started getting to work. I rolled up my sleeves, my sturdy overalls warm for the cold journey ahead. My fingers became sappy as I collected fallen branches and leaves. Autumn had taken a toll on the trees leaving the sky an odd mix of purple and blue with streaks of silver. I pulled out my notebook, scribbling down our blueprints. One hour later, my plan had worked! Our fort stood tall, shining bright during the cold fall. All my friends giggled as we laid down in our fort gazing at the clouds through the cracks of our tiny roof. Suddenly, my mind drifted back to reality once more. My body lurched forward, standing up and stretching. I looked around for another cloud, but ended up staring off at the many trees around me. The sun began to set, the trees at a silent standstill. Small children climbed up the trunks, the leaves a bright shade of green, matching the grass below. I sat back down, noticing the sapling beside me. It had a short brown stem adorned with a green top, it still had a lot of growing to do, just like me. I want to learn more. I want to travel more, to places like Italy and France. I could write about all of the places I see and work it into my fiction and fantasy. I want to have my novels inspire others to life lives of adventure. I want to write poems about oddly shaped clouds. I want to host a party where everyone just plays silly board games. I want to write literature where people feel my own characters’ emotions. I want to grow. A smile found it’s way to my face, my hand reaching out for my pink notebook. This notebook has been with me for a long time, it’s filled to the brim with stories and ideas. The smell of ink wafted through my nose, a sense of reli ef washing over me as one last gust of wind blew throughout the humble scenery.

Socrates Essays (1225 words) - Socratic Dialogues, Socrates

Socrates At the elderly age of seventy, Socrates found himself fighting against an indictment of impiety. He was unsuccessful at trial in the year 399 B.C. The charges were corrupting the youth of Athens, not believing in the traditional gods in whom the city believed, and finally, that he believed in other new divinities. In Plato's Apology, Socrates defends himself against these charges. He claims that the jurors' opinions are biased because they had probably all seen Aristophanes' comedy The Clouds. The Socrates portrayed in Aristophanes' Clouds is an altogether different character than that of the Apology. The two different impressions of Socrates lead to quite opposite opinions with regard to his guilt. In The Clouds, Socrates' actions provide evidence of his guilt on all three charges. However, in the Apology, Socrates is fairly convincing in defending his innocence on the first two charges, but falls short on the third charge. Socrates, in The Clouds, is portrayed as an idiot who thinks he's walking on air and is interested primarily in gnats' rumps. He is delineated as a natural philosopher/sophist. He is hired to teach Pheidippides to make the ?worse argument?, the argument that is really incorrect and unjust the ?betterto his father's creditors? so that Strepsiades, Pheidippides' father, will not have to pay his debts. While this in itself is corrupt, it was that he changed Pheidippides from the time he entered Socrates' ?Thinkery? into a corrupt scoundrel, completely devoid of morality that was even more deplorable. At the beginning, Pheidippides is a respectful son who loves his father, but after ?graduating? from the Thinkery he is beating his father with a stick (lines 1321-1333). Socrates was so successful in corrupting Pheidippides that he even attempts to justify his behavior using rhetorical techniques learned from Socrates. In response to his father questioning his actions he claims ?Yes by God ; what's more, I'll prove it's right to do so?with unbeatable arguments.? He has obviously been extremely corrupted if he could talk in this manner to his father. Not believing in the traditional gods, which is the second charge fits the Aristophanic Socrates perfectly. Socrates explicitly frowns upon the gods when he exclaims, ?what do you mean, ?the gods'? In the first place, gods aren't legal tender here? (lines 247-248). Later, when explaining the elements to Strepsiades, Socrates exclaims ?Zeus you say? Don't kid me! There's no Zeus at all? (lines 368-369). He is undoubtedly saying that he does not believe in the traditional gods. The claim that Socrates believed in new divinities, the third charge, is clearly seen when he ?enter (s) into communion with the clouds, who are our deities? (lines 253-254). Socrates proves methodically how it could not be Zeus who causes phenomena such as rain, thunder, and lightening, but rather is merely the work of the Clouds. For, if it were indeed the work of Zeus, then he would bring rain in absence of any clouds. The fact that the clouds are always present during precipitation attests to their power as opposed to that of Zeus. As the Clouds were not traditional gods, Socrates' guilt on this charge is rather evident. Even as Socrates is presented as a blabbering fool, full of hubris, in the Clouds, an entirely different perspective on this alleged sophist is given to us in the Apology. Throughout Plato's works including the Clouds, Socrates himself claims not to have any wisdom (he did not have any knowledge of ?arete') so he could not possibly have been a sophist. In terms of the charges he seems to absolve himself of the first two charges of corrupting the youth of Athens, and not believing in the traditional gods; though he is less convincing in his claim that he has no allegiance to other gods. Socrates claims he could not possibly be guilty of the first charge for several reasons. He feels the charge arises out of anger towards him for when he applies his ?Socratic method? while questioning others' beliefs, it often has the effect of leaving them feeling embarrassed and ridiculed. However, Socrates maintains that his objective is merely to ascertain the ultimate truths, a noble act for sure. In fact, Socrates believes that the pursuit of truth