Anti Federalist Arguments The Needed Balance

Anti Federalist Arguments The Needed Balance The year was 1787; delegates were convening at the State House in Philadelphia, the same location where the Declaration of Independence had been signed eleven years earlier.   There, 55 representatives came together for four months to frame a Constitution for a federal republic.   The reason for their convergence on Philadelphia was to revise the Articles of Confederation.   Since 1781 the Articles hindered the needed progress of the thirteen United States.   Rather than a united confederation, states were autonomous causing compromise and cooperation to be in short supply.   The Articles left most of the power with the state governments as a response to fears of re-creating a centralized power similar to Britain.   The burgeoning responsibilities of states were being impeded by several Articles, one being the lack of a revenue stream.   Under the Articles, Congress lacked authority to levy taxes.   It could request the states to contribute a share to the common treas ury, but the amounts gained through this mode of collection were not sufficient. To remedy this particular defect, Congress proposed an amendment that applied to the states for power to lay duties and secure the public debts. The amendment was agreed to by twelve out of thirteen states, with only Rhode Island refusing its consent, thereby defeating the proposal.   Articles 3 and 13 both required all thirteen states to agree in order to pass any legislation.   To overcome the necessity of thirteen states, early in the deliberations delegates voted that only nine states would be required to ratify the constitution.   This change made a difference to the process of ratification.   No longer could Rhode Island or any other state keep the whole from collective progress by one abstaining vote.   The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia proceeded with men from every state but Rhode Island, as they deliberated over the necessary amendments to the Articles of Confederation the y all agreed that unfortunately, the Articles were not worth amending or saving.   Amid great secrecy they begin to write or â€Å"frame† a new constitution. As the delegates analyzed the Articles of Confederation, they noted many points that were to be part of the new document.   One was an executive branch; in affect the Articles disallowed an executive branch to enforce the laws, nor a national court system to interpret them. The question arose in 1689, a hundred years earlier, by social philosophers such as John Locke, who were arguing the need for an executive to have the power to enforce laws that are enacted by the people.   Under the Articles of Confederation in 1787, Congress was the sole organ of the national government without the ability to force the states to do anything against their will. Congress could in theory declare war and call for an army to be raised, but it could not force any state to provide its assigned quota for troops or arms or the equipment needed to support them. Due to their autonomy, the states were impervious to the threat of force or punishment, leaving Congress at a loss for the income needed to fi nance its activities.   Should a state or states not chose to participate Congress could not punish them for not contributing their share of the federal budget.    In relation to finance and monetary controls, the states controlled taxation and tariffs within their state, and each state could issue its own legal tender.   To this point, the states were more likened to European countries with disputes over borders, different currency and differing governments. Such significant differences caused disputes to arise between the states. Undoubtedly there were many unsettled quarrels over state boundaries and currency issues in regard to trade.   In the end, the only role that Congress could play was of mediator and judge without the force needed to require states to accept its decisions.    With so many contradictory Articles governing the country, a secure future seemed lost due to the many factors that would from past experience, never come together.  Ã‚   For the most part , the nations government, under the Articles of Confederation, seemed like a body without arms and legs.   From May to September 1787 a completely new and improved articles of confederation were written and called the Constitution.   The proposed Constitution was the tool that would presumably lay the foundation for future generations in governance of America.   The purpose and job of the Constitution was to correct the faulty Articles of Confederation and ensure greater central government strength and allow states to proceed as before with greater security and ability.   This was the hope but, the message was not received with the same understanding by the people.   Each state sized up its own unique situation and by calling their own ratification conventions, discussed the issues to determine if the proposed constitution would guarantee existing rights and benefit the state as a whole and not just portions of it.   After the work was completed the â€Å"framers came to an agreement on a final draft of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, after which they signed and prepare d to send it to the people for ratification. American people were now faced with a daunting task.   The whole of the nation had arrived at an important moment of their existence as a union.   Each state had matured at its own rate and grown into its geographical area by putting to use the natural resources each had to work with.   In doing so, they created and built an infrastructure and their own economic stability.   The American states were asked to enter into a federal covenant that would guide and by law regulate the countrys population in trade, commerce, security, and foreign relations. This question became Americas first political argument and one of the most important.   When the final draft was ready for public discourse and ratification not all thirteen states agreed with the entire document.   Smaller states found, what they believed were flaws that withdrew power from the individual states and gave it to the central government, which too many was against the American ideology of independence.   As a reaction to the many questions and concerns the American people were expressing a trio of men came together.   They were physically only 30 years old yet; they were indeed older through the acquisition of political experience, knowledge, and power.   For example, Alexander Hamilton served as a captain and as Washingtons aide-de-camp during the Revolution, he distinguished himself at the bar after victory, and by 1787 was already a prominent figure in the creation of the infant nation. The next man James Madison, by contrast, was more the pensive philosopher than the bold statesman. A lifelong student of philosophy, history, and law, particularly the law of nations, Madison would, despite his shyness, be a commanding presence and driving force at the constitutional convention.    However, it was John Jay who was the most experienced of all three by the time the Constitutional Convention was called. Aside from having served the fledgling republic as a masterful negotiator, a diplomat, and even, for a time, as its president, Jay was the only one to have had direct experience in Europe.   And so by 1787, all three gentlemen were indeed old with experience, well prepared to meet the challenges of the task at hand.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Taking the lead in pushing for ratification, in 1787 these three politicos decided that in order for the new Constitution to be ratified there would have to be a saturation of the issues at hand in the newspapers.   They, along with other men, wrote their arguments for the Constitution and came to be known as the Federalists.   In the same spirit as the Federalists emerged their counterparts, the anti-Federalists.   Both sides published statements, essays, and their opinions on why the proposed constitution should or should not be accepted and ratified. Each group of men was driven by their beliefs and together they fought for what they thought was important for their country.   The anti-Federalist later went by the name of Republican and the Democratic Republican, they spoke for many of the smaller states and their constituents, who had fought and sacrificed along with American forces for the victory over Britain.   They had foresight in their convictions which continue to serve the country today.   The Federalists were influential intellectuals who believed in the Constitution, and believed that it was the perfect model of government to achieve a just society.   Under the proposed Constitution, the American people could enjoy their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Generally, Federalists were wealthy citizens, highly educated professionals, who in most cases were lawyers and their supporters followed suit by being Propertied and educated people.   In their arguments for the provisions of the Constitution, Federalists stated that if the Constitution had sections or certain language that did not work, amendments could be made. Their arguments were decidedly their strongest weapon in their pursuit to educate the public.   Alexander Hamilton was first to publish the Federalists first argument for ratification of the Constitution.   His opening words grabbed his audience: AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. Hamilton had offered the perfect statement on the weight of the matter before them as a country, during this most august period of American history.   Of this there was no argument.   Yet, as the essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Madison, and John Jay began filtering throughout the states there came responses from their counterparts, the anti-Federalists.   They were somewhat less organized than the Federalists, not owing to any financial benefice and served to represent the strong opposition to the idea of states loss of power to a federal government.   The response given to the Federalists essays began with an author known as â€Å"A FEDERALIST†: I am pleased to see a spirit of inquiry burst the band of constraint upon the subject of the NEW PLAN for consolidating the governments of the United States, as recommended by the late Convention. If it is suitable to the GENIUS and HABITS of the citizens of these states, it will bear the strictest scrutiny. The PEOPLE are the grand inquest who have a RIGHT to judge of its merits. The hideous daemon of Aristocracy has hitherto had so much influence as to bar the channels of investigation, preclude the people from inquiry and extinguish every spark of liberal information of its qualities. Thus the war of words had commenced, a thought at that moment might have been, shall we as a public agree to the Constitution as written or shall we, for all future generations, dissect and analyze the document before placing our hand in agreement?   The American people read the essays, listened at town hall meetings, and fueled public dialogue to full head by complete dissemination of the issues at hand offered by both groups of authors.   Their writings were strong, psychological, emotional, and called to the heart of the population to come together for the benefit of the whole and not the one.   The anti-Federalists included some very impressive notables such as Patrick Henry, James Winthrop, Robert Yates, George Clinton, James Monroe, and Thomas Jefferson. Not all contributed to the essays.   Those who did, rather than using their own names, took their cue from the Federalists and used pseudonyms.   The anti-Federalist writers shared a considerably wider range of views. Common concerns were expressed by authors known as Brutus and A Federal Farmer.Robert Yates was known to be â€Å"Brutus† but, the identity of A Federal Farmer was never confirmed. One of the key points these two men made regarded the necessary and proper clause.   The Necessary and Proper Clause, also referred to as the Elastic, Basket, and the Sweeping Clause is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18: The Congress shall have Power To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. This clause gave Congress the power to make laws which were necessary to execute all powers vested in the Constitution. The anti-Federalists argued that the Constitution only had the power to do what it states it can, and that nothing should be presupposed by the government. In other words, the government should never use the necessary and proper clause as a blanket grant of power†.   Anti-Federalist were men who understood from their recent involvement with the Revolution that giving too much power to a national government could foster tyrannical desires for more power.   The aristocratic elite and moneyed men would govern for their own states and personal benefit without any concern for the smaller states needs.   Further, the anti-Federalist felt Americans had been given empty promises and after fighting for independence their own independence and ability to provide for their families would become extinct if the Constitution was ratified as it was written.   The prim ary fear was that while a republican government was desirable in order to defend liberty, it was not possible over a large geographic area, such as the United States, because it had never been accomplished before. The fall of the Roman Empire was an implosion, a reaction to inadequate governing of an area to vast to control. The other major pitfall of republics had been class war, something that the Founding Fathers had seen in the recent Shays Rebellion. From 1781 to 1787 there was much consternation within the borders of the United States.   From an extract of a letter from James Madison to George Washington, Feb. 3, 1788, we can read sentiments received from Boston from a member of the convention there: Never was there an assembly in this state in possession of greater ability and information than the present convention, yet I am in doubt whether they will approve the constitution. There are, unhappily, three parties opposed to it. First: All men who are in favor of paper money and tender laws. Those are more or less in every part of the state. Second: All the late insurgents and their abettors. In the three great western counties they are very numerous. We have in the convention eighteen or twenty who were actually in Shays army. Shays Rebellion was an example of the small farmers and independents who had their land and homes threatened to be taken from them.   An armed uprising in central and western Massachusetts, centering in Springfield from 1786 to 1787, Shays rebellion represented the poor compatriots farmers angered by what they felt to be crushing debt and taxes. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtors prisons or the claiming of property by the County.   The leader of the Rebellion, Daniel Shays, was himself a veteran of the American Revolution who found himself engulfed in the issue and fought for a way out.    The rebellion was still fresh on the minds of many, causing the mood among the last states to ratify to be thick with opposition and strong sentiments against the contents of the constitution.   The last states to accept the proposed constitution were New York, North Carolina, Virginia, and Rhode Island.   New York presented the problem in its simplest form, the entire mass of interior counties, from Ulster to Columbia, were solidly anti-Federal, encompassing the agricultural portion of the state, the last arrived and settled, and the most thinly populated.   Governor George Clinton of New York wrote on one of the important issues among the anti-Federalists.   From the following extract of a letter from New York, July 20, 1788, George Clinton was quoted as saying, if they ratify the constitution, they must by heavy taxes support their government, which is now wholly done by the impost, etc.   This with the Mynheers is a weighty argument.   George Clinton went on to write, In Opposition to Destruction of States Rights, the following: The premises on which the new form of government is erected, declares a consolidation or union of all thirteen parts into one great whole, under the firm of the United States But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United Statesthe dissimilitude of interests, morals, and politics in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posteritythis unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself Clinton continued that from his prospective there were no promises that could be made secure â€Å"on the score of consolidation of the United States into one government.†Ã‚   Impracticability, risk, ambitious, and aggrandizement, oppression, intricate and perplexed became words to describe the proposed constitution.   Clinton ended by saying that the proposed constitution was â€Å"too mysterious for you to understand and observe; and by which you are to be conducted into a monarchy, either limited or despotic† Interpretation and understanding by the common man was an important factor for the anti-Federalist arguments against the Constitution.   Writing on states rights, Federalist No. 6 author stated, â€Å"A great danger exists in the competition between states themselves if they are left entirely to their own sovereignty, with no unifying government. Men are by their nature ambitious, and independent states will naturally compete with one another for love of power, control of commerce and domination of territory.† The response from anti-Federalist explained that a strong state government was better than a strong central government. To them if the central government was too strong then it would threaten the peoples liberties and right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   What rights did the people have under the proposed Constitution?   This issue was the next mountain to cross towards ratification. Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, who wrote Need for a Bill of Rights felt: this proposal of altering our federal government is of a most alarming nature!. You ought to be watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forevera wrong step made now will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise The argument over the Bill of Rights was arguably the most important issue for the ratification of the constitution.   Their necessity appeared to be of greater importance in order to calm the states.   Patrick Henry added these words in his observation of the matter, â€Å"We are told that all powers not given are reserved. I am sorry to bring forth hackneyed observations. But, Sir, important truths lose nothing of their validity or weight, by frequency of repetition.†Ã‚   Rather than infer the rights of the people, â€Å"all rights not expressly and unequivocally reserved to the people are impliedly and incidentally relinquished to rulers, as necessarily inseparable from the delegated powers if implication be allowed, you are ousted of those rights,† they would be declared.   This argument was one of the turning points for the final states ratification of the Constitution.   Henry continued his essay on the essential need for the bill of rights by explaining: Without a Bill of Rights, you will exhibit the most absurd thing to mankind that ever the world saw  ­ a government that has abandoned all its powers  ­ the powers of taxation, the sword, and the purse. You have disposed of them to Congress, without a Bill of Rights  ­ without check, limitation, or control You have Bill of Rights to defend against a state government, which is bereaved of all its power, and yet you have none against Congress, thought in full and exclusive possession of all power! The Bill of Rights was important to the American people and by promising to make amendments and provide a draft of a Bill of Rights the delegates began to revisit their stance toward acceptance of the proposed constitution.   The â€Å"Bill† was demanded by the anti-Federalists in New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island where the battle for ratification was not clear. In these states the voting was a lot closer than in the states that first decided to ratify. The Federalists however had strong opposition to a Bill of Rights. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill argued that a list of rights would not, should not, and could not be interpreted as exhaustive; these rights were examples of important rights people had, along with other rights as well. Many concerned with the final interpretation of the Bill of Rights were confident that the judiciary would construe these rights in a liberal fashion. Fortunately, the Ninth Amendment would clarify the matter by addressing the rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.   The arguments were just getting started, representation was of extreme importance to the smaller states who felt their position and voices would be extinguished if their representation was not equal to the larger states, who by virtue of their size may attempt to dominate on issues against those states with less representation.   The fear was understandable.   The Deep South would go to war over such issues as representation.   Melancton Smith, a New York representative at the Convention, wrote his views on the issue of representation for the anti-Federalists stating: When we speak of representatives they resemble those they represent. They should be a true picture of the people, possess a knowledge of their circumstances and their wants, sympathize in all their distresses, and be disposed to seek their true interests. Smith believed that the â€Å"knowledge necessary† for the true representative of a free people should include a comprehension of: extensive political and commercial information, such as is acquired by men of refined education, who have leisure to attain to high degrees of improvement, but it should also comprehend that kind of acquaintance with the common concerns and occupations of the people, which men of the middling class of life are, in general, more competent to than those of a superior class. In order to represent a state, its inner structure must be understood.   The true commercial interests of a country are not the only requirement for representation but also, and most importantly, â€Å"a knowledge of the productions of your own country, and their value, what your soil is capable of producing, the nature of your manufactures, the capacity of the country to increase both.† In the area of laying taxes, duties, and exercises with discretion requires knowledge of the system of finance.   A representative should also know about the people of his country, their circumstances and a general understanding of their economic commerce and ability.   They should also understand, â€Å"how the burdens imposed will bear upon the different classes.†Ã‚   Representatives should be from all walks and levels, not just elite citizens but, those of the â€Å"middling class of life.†Ã‚   Smith, as well as others, had a real concern that most bodies of the government were composed of the first class in the community and by distinguishing them by class, it would appear that the government would fall into the hands of the â€Å"few and the great.†Ã‚   In order to relieve the delegates of unrelenting concern Smith offered the following insight on representation: This will be a government of oppressionA system of corruption is known to be the system of government in Europe it will be attempted among us. The most effectual as well as natural security against this is a strong democratic branch in the legislature, frequently chosen, including in it a number of the substantial, sensible, yeomanry of the country. Does the House of Representatives answer this description? I confess, to me they hardly wear the complexion of a democratic branch; they appear the mere shadow of representation. The anti-Federalists were important to the final outcome of the ratification process because they poised questions that made the American people stop and think about what they were agreeing to and what they may lose or gain as a consequence of the proposed Constitutions acceptance.   Thomas Jefferson, third president of the U.S., from his own beliefs regarding the ratification of the Constitution, feared it would grant too much power to the U.S. government.   Jefferson thought it should be up to the states to govern themselves with a â€Å"hands-off† approach and strictly limited interference of the national government.   The funny thing about Jefferson, figurehead of the anti-Federalists was for a long time he would not choose sides between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists, because of his anti-political party sentiment. He found both sides arguments compelling, he was for a strong central government, which was more of a Federalists view. But, the argument that brought Thomas Jefferson to the anti-Federalist side was Alexander Hamiltons implied powers.   Implied powers were powers which were not stated directly in the Constitution, in other words powers that were assumed by the government. Jefferson was totally against this, he believed that the Constitution could do the things which the Constitution states it can and nothing should be assumed, strict construction. This disagreement would become a great feud between Hamilton and Jefferson, evolving into the first real battle of political parties for election in office. It should be noted that there were conflicting personalities among the â€Å"framers† and their anti-Federalist opposition. When comparing and contrasting anti-Federalist views on the ratification of the United States Constitution with those of the Federalists, one must also consider the inherent relationship that represents their respective views upon principles, problems and solutions, ultimately surmising which side best reflects or departs from the original principles set forth for the Declaration. It can be argued that the two sides are quite contrary in their individual perceptions, with each faction believing its own views are of primary integrity.   One of the major beliefs of the Federalists as pointed out at the Philadelphia convention was that a state should vote according to its population. This later became another big issue with the anti-Federalists and people from the smaller states. By comparison of the elite Federalist camp, the anti-Federalists were made up of anyone who was poor and not a big landowner, anyone tired of being controlled, anyone who wanted the peoples votes to directly count and anyone who wanted to protect their rights. The anti-Federalists were made up of all different types of people, who represented the United States population as a whole, far better than did the Federalists. The anti-Federalists wanted their power in the legislature, mainly the lower house where every state has one vote; and the terms of office to be shorter, with limits on how many terms you could serve. These officials were not to be elected by representatives but directly by the vote of the people of the United States. Finally, the only way the anti-Federalists would ever consider helping to ratify the Constitution was if it contained a Bill of Rights, which was believed essential for preserving the individual liberties of the people. It was the consensus of anti-Feder alist everywhere that without this document the government could control every aspect of a persons life. To them the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was just a weapon of the elite upper class over the poor. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt, and the anti-Federalists were able to play on these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts in 1788. By this stage, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease; the Massachusetts convention however, was hostile and argumentative. In the fight for ratification of the proposed United States Constitution between Federalists and anti-Federalists propaganda played a large role on both sides.   Patrick Henry even saw the constitution as a revolutionary document much like Americas separation from Britain, he said I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.Despite the fact the Federalists and the anti-Federalists had opposing views regarding the constitution; both were headed for a common goal of forming a government that could run the country. Many anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution, as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government.   States rights, the Bill of Rights, and represenation were all heated subjects during the ratification phase.   The Bill added a comfort zone for the states; they needed security from the fear that the federal government could control them under a tyranny. States felt they would retain their rights through the freedoms afforded through the Bill of Rights.   These freedoms include freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to deny refuge to soldiers, the right to privacy from search, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to representation and to a speedy trial, no cruel and unusual punishment, the right to always have rights, and the right for states to rule on things not mentioned in the Constitution. None of this was possible under British rule; power was transferred from the center to the people. If the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights, the central government could parlay its strength denying people these basic rights. As states made their decision through their own ratification conventions the nine states needed for ratification began voting.   The first state that ratified the Constitution, although its convention was not the first to assemble, was Delaware, followed by Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut.   Ratification of the Constitution was four states away

Dreams in Death of a Salesman Essay

Dreams are part of any man’s nature. To dream is to live a life that you hope for yourself in the future. These dreams may or may not be achievable but will always drive people toward them. People may take these dreams seriously like Willy Loman; but to most people to achieve their dreams would be to achieve the impossible. Dreams can be very dangerous if they are the only driving forces behind a person’s life and lead them, not to hope but to want for things beyond their reach. This is the case in ‘Death of a Salesman’. The driving force behind Willy Loman throughout the Death of a Salesman, is the idea that he can achieve the â€Å"American Dream†. He wants to have the material things in life and to have the best of everything; he wants lots of money, a big house, and a loving family and, â€Å"To come out the number-one man†. He sees Ben as the epitome of success, he longs to be as successful as Ben or even as successful as Bernard, always asking â€Å"What’s the secret?† Instead of being discouraged from this by Linda she is tolerant of him, constantly backing down, right to the end. Even in his plans of suicide, she is scared to â€Å"contradict† him, instead replacing the rubber hose every evening when he comes home. Happy idolises his father and buys into the â€Å"American Dream†. Right until the end, he believes he actually is somebody. When Biff points out, â€Å"You’re one of the two assistants to the assistant† he still tries to convince himself of his importance. He is very like his father in his need for success, when he looks where there is no success he has to make it up. Both of them believe they have to lie to people to make themselves likeable. When Willy dies, instead of understanding how futile his dream is, Happy vows to fight on for Willy continuing his battle. Biff, however is less stubborn and prefers simple pleasures. He doesn’t want to be told how to live his life and doesn’t want to follow certain rules. He wants to be able to â€Å"whistle in the elevator†. He loves â€Å"The work and the food and the time to sit and smoke†. He doesn’t want to beg and crawl and make money he would only spend to beg and crawl less. However Willy doesn’t understand this and believes that Biff is simply, â€Å"A lazy bum†. He is sure that Biff could succeed in the city if he only tried. Both Willy and Happy feel they have to cover up Biff’s lack of success; Willy boasts to Bernard that Biff has being doing, â€Å"very big things in the West† and Happy in much the same way tells Stanley how Biff is a â€Å"big cattle man†. They wholly subscribe to the American Dream A major part of the play is the time that Willy spends living in the past – daydreaming and reminiscing. He is constantly revisiting the parts of his life that have shaped him to the person that he is. In this way the audience unravels the story of Biff’s childhood, Ben’s success and Willy’s affair with ‘The Woman’. This seems to be the part of his life he most regrets, as it is the time he revisits the most. At several moments throughout the play, ‘The Woman’s laughter is heard from offstage, usually at times that Willy sees what has become of his life, for example when he sees Linda mending her stockings. These flashbacks are played out to the audience like scenes in real life and often simultaneously – they are only indicated by the actions of the actors. During dream sequences, the actors pass through the boundaries of the walls as though acting on a completely different stage, but during sequences in the present the actors obey the imaginary lines of the walls, entering and leaving through the doors. This helps the audience to distinguish between times. Often during flashbacks a certain melody is heard on the flute – this is his father’s flute. Ben tells Willy about their father and how they used to sit around a fire and listen to their father play. Ben is idolised by Willy for his success and wealth but at the same time distrusted by Linda. She seems to be reserved in her affection for him as opposed to Willy who treats him as a hero the moment he walks through the door and she is disinterested when Willy reminisces about Ben years later. We don’t meet Ben in person at any time throughout the play, only through Willy’s dreams, so we are only aware of him through Willy’s estimation of him. Willy remembers him as a go-getter and a leader of men. He is shown to be motivated only by money as seen in his final conversation with Willy. He is not concerned with Willy’s wellbeing, only by the large sum of money he would gain from the insurance payoff, â€Å"twenty thousand – that is something one can feel with the hand† Linda is the only member of the Loman family that has no dreams, all she wants is for Willy to be safe and well and the boys to respect him. Happy’s farfetched idea of setting up business on their own carries even Biff away. Linda merely encourages. She is contented to live with Willy even if they have no garden or the car breaks down or the fridge fails. Arthur Miller seems to see her, not Ben, as the real hero of the play. This is reflected in the gentle respect he gives to her in his writing. This play is a strong message against the principle of the â€Å"American Dream†. Willy Loman is constantly striving to achieve the dream, but drives himself crazy. Biff seems to be the only character in the Loman family that is able to set himself aside from this dream, wanting only to be happy – his own man. Although I believe dreams to be an important, if not essential part of life, I also believe that contentment is far more important. If you cannot be happy with what you have, you cannot possibly hope to be happy with what you wish for. Willy Loman dreams of becoming a great man, dreams of the great man he was and dreams of the great man Biff can be, he just fails to realise that they are great men.

The Foolproof Goals for Success in College Samples Essay Strategy

The Foolproof Goals for Success in College Samples Essay Strategy Understanding of crucial components of succeeding from the very inception will result in the life objectives and plans formation. Think about it as a motivational element for one to execute accordingly. The trick is to set goals that will provide you with a competitive advantage in the business. These goals are generally set depending on the industry standards and market competitors. My existing goals are, needless to say, to remain actively involved locally. As you might think about where you wish to be in the future, think about working toward some of these goals that will allow you to get there. This is the reason why it's important for a team to get goals that fit the general vision of the business. You might also see team objectives. You could also see department objectives. Just as with any other goal, department goals are critical in enabling a given workforce to work effectively. There are invariably plenty of interesting things and bright suggestions to find there! You'll find a lot of practical strategies for developing a bright and productive work! One's career ought to be suiting the purpose of someone's life and passion besides relying on one's very best skills. When you proceed through this bit of writing, it is possible to almost see or hear the author speak with her or his distinctive tone and in a manner that is particular to his personality. How to Get Started with Goals for Success in College Samples Essay? Assuming which you want to get hired by a great company, ordinarily you'll be requested to compose a skilled goals essay to demonstrate that you're the most acceptable candidate to occupy the available position. It could also take a couple of weeks an d cost up to $300 to obtain an HOA Certification, so be sure that your Due-Diligence period is set accordingly in the buy contract. Job changes, periods of unemployment or property location in connection with the subject property are different facts to think about that can cause a speed bump in the approval procedure. Borrowers who are employed in a volatile industry during hard financial times may need to jump through a few added hoops to show that their employment and income is secure. You're going to be higher off with a different service who's prepared to provide you a cheaper and better higher excellent paper. The students have to submit the essays in quite a good deal of subjects. Keep in mind, all sort of activities you're speaking about in the essay must be associated with the scholarship program. These seven sample essays respond to a selection of thought-provoking questions. Goals for Success in College Samples Essay Options Though it's my very first semester of col lege and I do not understand what to expect, asking for help is easy and can aid in improving my college experience. The additional money that you save will be useful once you graduate college also. My whole future is based on the choices I make in college. Keep this advice in mind, and you're going to be a step closer to that scholarship at your favorite university or college. Since there are various requirements followed in each level, there are general rules that will assist you to develop into successful leader. Graduates who master at least two languages will probably stand out more in the business. Replace a number of the cliched language. The Tried and True Method for Goals for Success in College Samples Essay in Step by Step Detail As a team, good communication is indispensable. Before you commence producing your work, you have to plan in thoroughly. There's no precedence for us to fall back on, and we desperately have to prove that we are able to handle it responsi bly and create the world a better, more peaceful location, 1 step at a moment. Besides the financial part of such, a change in operations is very likely to occur. Goals for Success in College Samples Essay - Is it a Scam? Possessing good essay examples provides the reader an in-depth and on-the-court idea about what a well structured and coherent essay appears like. These sentences are going to be a thesis statement of your upcoming career goals essay. In my private point of view I think that essays are used for several scenarios and all is dependent upon the scenario. This essay is another great case of a robust and rather persuasive bit of writing. Once members of your team fully understand their function in the business, it wouldn't be tricky to think of logical and achievable targets. Your career goals can consist of getting hired by a particular company, making a specific amount of money or working with a specific group of people such as immigrants, young children or the disabled. To allow it to be worthwhile, giving out awards for each goal fulfilled is a good way to keep your employees inspired. In that case, set an aim to develop into a thought leader. Writing an essay that explains what goals you would like to pursue in your upcoming career is a skill you are going to have to demonstrate a lot for a student. This paper seeks to describe educational and career objectives and their significance in your life. As a result, in the event you got an assignment to craft an intriguing career goals essay for your school at this time, take it like a possiblity to practise your abilities and master this sort of writing. Link education to your upcoming career Elaborate how your educational background will let you attain your professional objectives. College students paperpaperial wouldn't have a number of time for a result of tight deadlines and subsequently will need to be able to discover a dependable service who will ship premium quality work , on time. Learning how to manage your time more effectively and focusing on priorities will not just help you to find the time you should work toward other targets, but will also enable you to devote time on things that bring personal fulfillment, which is equally as essential as career success. It would be required to supply technical training and focus on personal skills to improve efficiency in the very best way possible. When it has to do with running a business, there are several varieties of goals that have to be set for each department and its employees. You've got to bring up all goals you're going to achieve later on. You can also see mentoring goals. You can also personal objectives. Throughout life there'll be several goals to accomplish but a number of the most essential goals to accomplish will be during the time you're in college.

Essay about Richard as an Anti-hero - 1000 Words

Richard as an Anti-hero: To what extent does Richard embody this archetype? In William Shakespeare’s play, Richard III, Richard is portrayed as physically deformed and psychologically affected. It is believed that his inner soul is a reflection of his physical deformities. Richard is considered as the protagonist of this play, however this is highly contradictive. A protagonist is the hero of the story who exhibits characteristics of courage and perseverance, and is admired for their brave deeds as well as their noble qualities. Richard however, contradicts the character portrayal of a hero and demonstrates himself as the exact opposite: an anti-hero. The play opens up with Richard’s, (Duke of Gloucester) soliloquy: â€Å"I am determined to†¦show more content†¦Richard says to Lady Anne: â€Å"Your beauty was the cause of the effect: Your beauty, that did haunt me in my sleep To undertake the death of all the world, So I might live one hour in your sweet bosom† (1.2.126-129) Richard takes a huge risk, handing Anne a knife and demanding she take away his life for he had murdered both her father and husband. He insists to her it is only fair that she take his life in response. Lady Anne rejects, falling for Richard’s trap for she accepts his proposal of love. Richard succeeds in manipulation. In the scene, Richard plays the role of a lover who will provide Anne with the emotional support she would need; especially after suffering two loses. By persuading and manipulating Lady Anne, Richard was able to get what he was really after; the power and a truce with the house of Lancaster. This method of persuasion and manipulation are the basic fundamentals that Richard uses on those he sees as useful in accomplishing his devilish deeds. Family, loyalty, trust and marriage are some of the values and traditions that Richard ignores. â€Å"Richard acts like a caring brother (to Clarence), devoted lover, the innocent who is unjustly accused, a pious man of God and the simple fellow who is too modest to become King† (Cambridge 235). â€Å"I will deliver for you or else lie for you† (1, 1,115.) are the exact words that Richard expresses to Clarence when Clarence was being sent to the tower. As soon as Clarence is out of sight, Richard’sShow MoreRelatedThe Maxx By Sam Keith954 Words   |  4 PagesThe Maxx by Sam Keith is story that follows the adventures of a supposedly purple hero through a real world and an alternative reality. Written in the era known as the â€Å"nineties anti-hero† the Maxx is considered a peculiar comic with a weird purple character. The Maxx contrasts from the ideal superhero aspect, which dominated in early 1930s to after World War II, with the anti-heroism aspect. The contrasting superhero aspect, story arc, themes, symbols and imagery in the Maxx can be used to argueRead MoreAnti-Heros1411 Words   |  6 Pages COMM 246 04/11/2012 Modern Anti-Heroes In modern media violence is worshiped and the hero is not always a law abiding citizen. The anti-hero is becoming increasingly popular. Many anti-heroes are criminals. Writers have the ability to have their audience fall in love and care about an anti-hero. Looking up to these anti-heroes might have some devastating affects on society. Violent media, particularly movies, could very well have an affect on the number of violent crimes being committedRead MoreThe Impact Of Maurice Richard As A French Canadian1279 Words   |  6 PagesMaurice â€Å"Rocket† Richard, a legendary hockey player of the mid-twentieth century for the Montreal Canadiens, is recognized for his profound dedication and impact for the game of hockey. His influence, nevertheless, extends beyond hockey, especially for French Canadians in Quebec. As French-English relations in the province and in the National Hockey League were strained during the 1950s and 1960s, French Canadians looked to Richard as a culturally significant figure. While Maurice Richard himself wouldRead MoreMovie Analysis : The Lepidcotor And Richard From I Am Legend2183 Words   |  9 Pagesothers† (Vogler, 2007, pp. 29), for example Christopher from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time (Haddon, 2003). However there are examples of those who subvert this notion, Baxter from ‘The Lepidcotor’ (Jackson, 2005) for example and Richard from I Am Legend (Matheson, 2010) who does it for his own gain. A characters traits, attributions, motivations and desires take part in their ability to become a strong heroic figure, these character aspects will affect the journey of the narrativeRead MoreEssay on Richard Adams’s Watership Down1069 Words   |  5 PagesRichard Adams’s Watership Down There are many intriguing and fascinating lessons and thoughts that can be extracted from Richard Adams’s Watership Down when inspected under a â€Å"magnifying glass.† From those many issues, the one that is the most influential to ourselves is the issue regarding anti-segregation, portrayed ingeniously by Richard Adams through Hazel within many different cases in the novel. Out of those many instances, this essay will discuss two of them, explain how they display theRead MoreFranz Richard Wagner s Influence On Society1430 Words   |  6 PagesWilhelm Richard Wagner was a renowned German opera composer who lived in the 1800s. Besides his extravagant operatic works, he dabbled in written essays with the most notable being his Judaism in Music published in 1850. Wagner’s essay made very clear his views on Jewish composers and performers in the German musical realm—he loathed them. His anti-Semitism is made blatantly clear in the very first paragraph, â⠂¬Å"It will not be a question, however, of saying something new, but of explaining that unconsciousRead More Smoking and Tobacco - Cigarettes and Addiction Essay example715 Words   |  3 Pagesheavy smokers -addicts- of tobacco. Current smokers rose from 22 percent to 35 percent between 1993 and 1998. says Dr. Richard Clayton, (The Re-hooked Generation OnHealth: 04.) Surprisingly, the big percentage of smokers, 72 percent, is between the ages of 14-25, and this generation had the most dose of information alarming the danger of smoking tobacco. Not forgetting anti smoke organizations, such as FAST -Fight Against Smoking Team-, that warns smokers about tobacco as well as helps them quitRead MoreThe Right Of Freedom Speech1186 Words   |  5 Pagessupreme court case Island Trees School District v Pico dealt with a scenario where this right was essentially dissected. The Island Trees School District board made the claim that specific books amidst the school library were promoting ant i american, anti-christian, anti-semitic, and just plain filthy ideological constructs. Dealing with a case such as this can be a rather tough decision. Each opposing side proposed a logical and well thought out point which was essentially the reason the decision wasRead MoreDulce et Decorum Est, by Wilfred Owen and the poem To Lucasta, on Going to the Wars, by Richard Lovelace,1121 Words   |  5 PagesThe two poems, â€Å"To Lucasta, going to the Wars† by Richard Lovelace and â€Å"Dulce et Decorum Est† by Wilfred Owen are both devoted to the subject of war. Lovelace’s poem was written in the 17th century and as well as almost all the poetry of the period has romantic diction. The war is shown as something truly worthwhile, glossed and honorable for a man. The protagonist is leaving his beloved for the battlefield and his tone is pathetic and solemn. He calls the war his new mistress and asks his belovedRead MoreThe Crusades : Campaigns That Changed The World 1738 Words   |  7 PagesThe Crusades, occurring from 1095 A.D. to 1272 A.D., were a direct response to the problems coinciding with the growing population of Muslims, Jews, and Islamic peoples in the Middle East and were greatly influenced by powerful individuals such as Richard I of England, consequently leading to effects that would forever change the world’s advancement and progression. One thousand years after Christ’s death the peaceful setting in which Muslims and Christians cohabitated in the Middle East began to be