South Carolina and Georgia Essay Example for Free

South Carolina and Georgia Essay When the American colonies rebelled against Great Britain, the rebels gave their reasons in the Declaration of Independence. According to the Declaration, people have unalienable rights to liberty. â€Å"The ideology of the revolutionary generation shaped the later American Bill of Rights. This revolutionary ideology combined and wove together both the natural rights of man and the historic rights of Englishmen†. The colonists emphasized natural rights and historic liberties as a result of their view of government. Government was potentially hostile to human liberty and happiness. Power was essentially aggressive. The rebellious colonists dealt with the problem of aggressive political power by several devices: separation of powers, an independent judiciary, the right of people to have a share in their own government by representatives chosen by themselves, and an insistence on the natural and historical rights and liberties of citizens reflected in revolutionary bills of rights of the several states. These concessions to slavery produced some protests. George Mason, delegate from Virginia and a leading advocate of a federal bill of rights, complained that delegates from South Carolina and Georgia were more interested in protecting the right to import slaves than in promoting the Liberty and Happiness of the people. Some framers rationalized the compromise with slavery on the assumption that the institution would soon die out. In truth, however, a compromise was made in the interest of the Union. While the framers compromised with slavery, they took steps to prevent its spread to new states. Particularly after the adoption of the Bill of Rights the Constitution reflected the Jekyll-and-Hyde character of the nation. The nation sought simultaneously to protect liberty and slavery. All in all, the Bill of Rights was adopted because of the fear of abuses of power by the federal government. It simply had no application to the states. The idea that the federal Bill of Rights protects liberty of speech and press, freedom of religion, and other basic rights from violations by the states has become commonplace, even for lawyers. Indeed, many Americans probably accepted this commonplace when careful lawyers knew it was not so. From 1833 to 1868 the Supreme Court held that none of the rights in the Bill of Rights limited the states. From 1868 to 1925 it found very few of these liberties protected from state action. Those the states were free to flout (so far as federal limitations were concerned) seemed to include free speech, press, religion, the right to jury trial, freedom from self-incrimination, from infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, and more. State constitutions, with their own bills of rights, were available to protect the individual, but too often they proved to be paper barriers. Most, but not all, scholars believe that the Supreme Court was right, at least as a matter of history, up to 1868. They believe, that is, that the founding fathers did not intend for the Bill of Rights to limit the states. In contrast to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which the powers of Parliament are protected against the encroachments of the monarch, the American Bill of Rights was created to protect the individual against the intrusions of the legislative and executive branches of the government. As James Madison expressed it, If we advert to the nature of Republican Government we shall find that censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is this more sharply affirmed than in the words of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Although nine of the thirteen colonies had established churches, four did not (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware). By the time the First Amendment was adopted, however, only three states had an established church -Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Of even greater significance is that no two states shared the same religious configuration with respect to its population. Not to be overlooked is that in the decade between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Convention, numerous states had made declarations in support of religious freedom prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Beginning in the 1920s, the U. S. Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to states through a process now called the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. As originally passed, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendments equal protection and due process clauses clearly applied to the states. Through a series of lengthy cases, the Court engaged in a piecemeal process of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment clauses to include the various freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) the Supreme Court applied freedom of the press to the states. In this case, the city of Minneapolis tried to suppress the publication of scandalous, malicious and defamatory material in newspapers. A newspaper publishers association, fearing censorship, challenged the Minnesota law on the grounds of violation of freedom of press. The Supreme Court struck down the law by contending that it represented prior restraint of future issues. The most important freedom given to the press is freedom from prior restraint, the freedom not to be censored. The process of nationalizing the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment continued in the area of free exercise of religion. In Hamilton v. Board of Regents (1934), the Court held that freedom of religion was protected by the First Amendment against invasion by the national government and by the states. This decision was confirmed in Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). This case questioned the constitutionality of a Connecticut law which banned solicitation of money for religious or charitable reasons unless approved by the secretary of the public welfare council. This particular official had the authority to decide whether a fund-raising cause was truly a religious one. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated religious freedom and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. From the critical standpoint, the Bill of Rights not only constitutionally protects individual rights of citizens, such as freedom of religion, peaceable assembly, right to keep and bear arms, trial by jury, but it also secures the entire system of American democratic values and implementation of democracy in reality. For instance, freedom of press, declared of in the First Amendment, does not mean only that â€Å"Congress shall make no law†¦ abridging the freedom of†¦press. † Considering the fact independent media is one of the pillars of modern democracy, this constitutional guarantee aims to secure democratic principles of the country. Moreover, the freedom of press implies automatically the absence of any censorship limiting the execution of freedom of speech, which is too declared in the First Amendment and similarly is to protect democratic principles. The Bill of Rights has been created not only to protect freedoms and liberties of American citizens on individual levels, but also to secure the position of a person before the government. For example, the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be forced in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself. At the same time, from my personal viewpoint, the fundamental importance of the Bill of Rights is its long lasting effect and its tremendous influence on American legislative and judicial system. Firstly, the Bill triggered the adoption by the Congress of several important acts protecting civil liberties like Civil Rights Act. Secondly, because the Bill is an integral and vital part of US Constitution, and thus the ultimate legal power, legislative and judicial system have been continuously improving constitutional doctrine on individual rights. For example, one can notice during 1960-70s the constitutional rights of public employees to freedom of speech and association, procedural due process, and equal protection have also been vastly expanded. Historically the Constitution has retained its flexibility because interpretations of its meaning have changed. Choosing between two or more sets of competing values, the Supreme Court has played a major role in maintaining this flexibility. A significant trend has been the extension of civil rights to the previously powerless. For instance, the involvement of the U. S. Supreme Court in civil rights for blacks is long-standing, dating back to issues from the days of slavery. In the Dred Scott case (1857), Chief Justice Taney ruled that no blacks, slave or free, were citizens, and that blacks had no citizenship rights (Hall, 38). In 1883, two decades after the Civil War and the official end of slavery, the Court ruled on five separate suits affecting the rights of blacks, and collectively called the Civil Rights Cases (1883). These cases arose in response to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which prohibited racial discrimination in jury selection and public accommodations. In these cases, the public accommodations portions of the 1875 act were challenged. The Court recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment forbade discrimination by states but it made no mention of discriminatory acts committed by individuals. Since the Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination by individuals and private businesses, the Court ruled that the act had overstepped congressional authority and was therefore unconstitutional. By the end of World War II, the Supreme Court had become more supportive of civil rights for blacks. It struck down the all-white primary in Smith v. Allright (1944), arguing that the Democratic party was in essence an agent of the state and was therefore subject to the Fifteenth Amendment. During the late 1940s and the 1950s, the Court followed the trends begun earlier of moving away from the doctrine of separate but equal (Hall, 51). This may be seen in the cases of Sipuel v. Oklahoma (1948), Sweatt v. Painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). In the Sipuel case, which was similar to the Gaines case, the Court ordered Oklahoma to provide a separate but equal law school for a black woman and stressed the need for equality in facilities. In Sweatt v. Painter, the state of Texas had established a separate black law school but it was inferior to the white law school at the University of Texas in the size of its faculty and the quality of its library and student body. The court ruled that the black law school had to be improved. The Court nearly overturned the separate but equal doctrine in the McLaurin case in which Oklahoma had allowed a black student to attend a white graduate school but had segregated him from the rest of the students by designating separate sections of the library, cafeteria and classrooms for him. The Court struck down these segregation provisions, claiming that they interfered with the ability of the black student to exchange ideas with other students, a requisite for a good education. Although these cases fell short of invalidating the separate but equal principle, they made segregation at the graduate school level more difficult to implement. Perhaps the most significant civil rights cases to aid blacks in the fight for equality were the two Brown cases in the 1950s. Brown v. Board of Education I (1954) arose as the result of a suit against Topeka, Kansas where Linda Brown, a black child, was not permitted to attend a segregated white school four blocks from her home. In Brown I, under the leadership of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court overturned the Plessy decision of separate but equal in the public schools by declaring that the separate but equal doctrine made black children feel inferior. In Brown v. Board of Education II (1955), the Court ruled on how to accomplish desegregation, concluding that local school boards should establish plans for desegregation under the supervision of federal district judges and with all deliberate speed. Despite these court rulings, southern school boards were slow to respond and avoided court orders by closing public schools and placing white children in private schools. Consequently, desegregation was only implemented very slowly. Women are not a minority but they have historically experienced legal discrimination based on their gender. The Supreme Court has played an important role in the expansion of rights for women. Overall the Court has been less important in the expansion of womens rights than it has been in the extension of rights to blacks and other racial minorities. A major reason for the less important role of the Court is that womens rights have mostly been broadened through legislation. Many womens rights cases addressed by the Supreme Court have been concerned with employment. Early court decisions followed a trend of protectionism and upheld restrictions on the nature and conditions of employment for women. In Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), the Supreme Court upheld a state law preventing women from practicing law. Not until the 1970s did U. S. Supreme Court rulings begin to move away from the restrictive, protectionist trend of the past. Reed v. Reed (1971) was the first instance of the Court striking down a state law which discriminated against women. Taylor v. Louisiana (1975) overturned the precedent set in Hoyt v. Florida. Phillips v. Martin-Marietta (1971) ruled that employers could not discriminate against mothers of preschool children, despite fears that they might often miss work to care for their children. In Stanton v. Stanton (1975) the Court struck down a Utah law which required divorced fathers to support sons until they were twenty-one under the assumption that they would need support while being educated, while daughters had to be supported only until they were eighteen under the assumption that they would get married and be supported by their husbands. Beginning in the 1920s, the U. S. Supreme Court began to apply the Bill of Rights to states through a process now called the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment. As originally passed, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendments equal protection and due process clauses clearly applied to the states. Through a series of lengthy cases, the Court engaged in a piecemeal process of interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment clauses to include the various freedoms protected in the Bill of Rights. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) the Supreme Court applied freedom of the press to the states. In this case, the city of Minneapolis tried to suppress the publication of scandalous, malicious and defamatory material in newspapers. A newspaper publishers association, fearing censorship, challenged the Minnesota law on the grounds of violation of freedom of press. The Supreme Court struck down the law by contending that it represented prior restraint of future issues. The most important freedom given to the press is freedom from prior restraint, the freedom not to be censored. In many cases the statements embedded in the Bill of Rights are impacted directly or indirectly through the process of governance in the United States. One of the most peculiar examples of this impact is adoption of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, commonly known as the Patriot Act. This act significantly expands the power of the federal government to investigate, detain, and deport those people who the government suspects are linked to terrorist activity and other crimes. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires the government to prove to a judicial officer that it has probable cause of a crime before it conducts an invasive search to find evidence of that crime or in exact words, this Amendment declares that â€Å"the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Before the enactment of the Patriot Act, if the primary purpose was a criminal investigation, the law enforcement officials had to first prove the higher standard of probable cause. Investigating criminal activity cannot be the primary purpose of surveillance. Now American society witnesses how one of the most fundamental statements of the Bill of Rights, particularly that one protecting individual freedoms from the state, is challenged. The change made by Section 218 of the Patriot Act authorizes uncon stitutional activity by impinging on the Fourth Amendment protection that requires probable cause. Section 218 now provides law enforcement officials with a tool to avoid probable cause when conducting criminal investigation surveillance. The adoption of the Patriot Act has been triggered with the war the United States declared against terrorism. Interestingly, the same event, the war on terrorism, challenged another important element of the Bill of Rights, namely the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that â€Å"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. † Practically, this statement aims to secure individuals from unconstitutional exercise on the behalf of the government. Importantly, this article provides Americans with the right to be tried by unprejudiced courts with application of lawful procedures and laws. However, during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government intentionally deterred in prisons many prisoners of war (identifying them as terrorists) without court orders, indictments and further court hearings. Here one can notice the constitutional collision, in which the rights of the US government during wartime (including deterring of individuals without due process clause) challenges the statements embedded in the Bill of Rights. Works Cited Barnett, Randy E. ed. , 1989. Ninth Amendment. supra note 29, at 18 Bailyn, Bernard. 1967. Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press. Ely, J. 1980. Democracy and Distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hall, Kermit L. 1989. The Magic Mirror. Law in American History, New York: Oxford University Press. Levine, James P. 1992. Juries and Politics, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Madison, James. November 27, 1794. Republicanism. Speech in Congress. Annals of Congress 934. Nelson, William E. 1988. The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schwartz, B. 1971. The Bill of Rights. A Documentary History. pp. 222-226. Wiecek, W. 1976. The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. P. 74

J.B.Priestley’s play, An Inspector Calls :: English Literature:

An Inspector Calls’ is a play about ideas, it contains thought provoking material the aim of which is social reform. But the Whole Thing’s Different Now ----------------------------------- ‘An Inspector Calls’ is a play about ideas, it contains thought provoking material the aim of which is social reform. At the start of the play this rich, middle class family think themselves â€Å"a nice, well behaved family†, â€Å"respectable citizens† but some of their views are changed by a mysterious inspector who uncovers some disturbing truths about their lives. The inspector shows how each member of the household has contributed to the suicide of a young working class girl. This play highlights the problems and flaws in attitudes just after the turn of the century and that people can be wrong about many things including the future, themselves and their beliefs and prejudices. By doing so this play promotes the utopian ideals of liberty and equality and follows in the footsteps of the French and Russian revolutions. Set in between these two events it reminds us that people will always strive for a better quality of life and that history will repeat itself until we live in a perfect society. This play has a timeless quality about it and the problems of society that it raises are still present in today’s society. It seems we as nation, or as a species for that matter, have still not learnt from our mistakes. We continue to ignore mistakes, fail to concede we are wrong and pretend it is not our fault or responsibility. We are a too alike to Mrs Birling and can not accept change easily. It is still the younger generation who lead the drive for social reform and changes in attitude, eco-warriors for example. This is a very socialist play but is not directly insulting of the richer classes, just critical of their ignorance. The play was first performed in Stalin’s Communist Russia by the Kamery and Leningrad theatre companies in Moscow, August 1945. World War Two had just been ended by the atom bomb and throughout allied Europe soldiers began to come back home to a hero’s welcome for the second time in half a century. They had saved the world and did not want to return to a life of virtual slave labour. Workers and unions were demanding more rights and the years of war had weakened the class system. A change was required. Though not as violent as the Bolshevik revolution people were fighting old ideas and embracing new ones. They did not want another war. National patriotism had brought communities closer together. The Blitz and rationing had put everybody in the same boat and people looked out J.B.Priestley’s play, An Inspector Calls :: English Literature: An Inspector Calls’ is a play about ideas, it contains thought provoking material the aim of which is social reform. But the Whole Thing’s Different Now ----------------------------------- ‘An Inspector Calls’ is a play about ideas, it contains thought provoking material the aim of which is social reform. At the start of the play this rich, middle class family think themselves â€Å"a nice, well behaved family†, â€Å"respectable citizens† but some of their views are changed by a mysterious inspector who uncovers some disturbing truths about their lives. The inspector shows how each member of the household has contributed to the suicide of a young working class girl. This play highlights the problems and flaws in attitudes just after the turn of the century and that people can be wrong about many things including the future, themselves and their beliefs and prejudices. By doing so this play promotes the utopian ideals of liberty and equality and follows in the footsteps of the French and Russian revolutions. Set in between these two events it reminds us that people will always strive for a better quality of life and that history will repeat itself until we live in a perfect society. This play has a timeless quality about it and the problems of society that it raises are still present in today’s society. It seems we as nation, or as a species for that matter, have still not learnt from our mistakes. We continue to ignore mistakes, fail to concede we are wrong and pretend it is not our fault or responsibility. We are a too alike to Mrs Birling and can not accept change easily. It is still the younger generation who lead the drive for social reform and changes in attitude, eco-warriors for example. This is a very socialist play but is not directly insulting of the richer classes, just critical of their ignorance. The play was first performed in Stalin’s Communist Russia by the Kamery and Leningrad theatre companies in Moscow, August 1945. World War Two had just been ended by the atom bomb and throughout allied Europe soldiers began to come back home to a hero’s welcome for the second time in half a century. They had saved the world and did not want to return to a life of virtual slave labour. Workers and unions were demanding more rights and the years of war had weakened the class system. A change was required. Though not as violent as the Bolshevik revolution people were fighting old ideas and embracing new ones. They did not want another war. National patriotism had brought communities closer together. The Blitz and rationing had put everybody in the same boat and people looked out

Euthanasia †Good Or Bad? Essay

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable, deadly and incredibly painful disease or illness. Who is to decide for others? The government? Each and every person has the right to decide about issues such as euthanasia for themselves, nobody else should be able to decide for them as they are the ones in need – what’s it to others? It’s their suffering, their life and their choice. Wouldn’t you like to leave earth with the least amount of pain possible? Of course you would†¦who wouldn’t? Along with euthanasia being able to put a stop to ones agonizing pains, it’s also able to decrease the amount of grief that they and their loved ones experience due to seeing each other go through a vast amount of distress. Many (religious and nonreligious) people believe that it is wrong to keep people alive beyond their natural life span (e.g. a life support machine) because only god has the power to decide when ones life ends. Jesus once said ‘Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do To You’ therefore if you were suffering really badly then you’d want your life to end the easiest and quickest way possible. Another thing that may seem more important than passing away with the least possible amount of physical and emotional pain, is respect and dignity. Euthanasia enables terminally ill people to pass on with a small, but priceless, amount of dignity and self-respect they have left in themselves. Who in the right world of mind would want to die with no respect from others? Euthanasia will help prevent that to thousands across Britain – not just the incurable patients but also the patients friends, family and even the doctors jobs would be less stressful. In March 2002 a 43 yr old woman, named Diane Pretty whom had Motor Neuron Disease made the headlines with her plea for her beloved husband to be allowed to assist her in suicide (as she only had a few unbearable months to live) with no fear of prosecution. At her hearing she spoke with the help of a voice synthesizer and said ‘I want my rights to have a death with dignity’, but her plea was rejected and she died later that year in May, in a hospice. What are people who want euthanasia like? Selfish? They’ll make their decision while thinking about nobody but themselves. They don’t even think about how their family and friends will take the news and how much they’ll miss them. If the person wanting euthanasia loved them dearly then they’d live on for them. Religious people have a point of view for euthanasia but they also have views against euthanasia to. Christians have hospices around Britain, which are specially for looking after terminally ill people while making sure that they don’t lose their dignity, Christianity believes euthanasia is wrong as they believe in the ‘Sanctity Of Life’ and it is against the commandment ‘Do Not Kill’. Jesus suffered severely and painfully on the cross, but he did not cut short his suffering – therefore it is not down to us to end out life. Other religions, including Christianity believe that accepting suffering may have a spiritual value for your soul, in heaven, rebirth or the afterlife. Terminally ill people include people whom are in comas and unconsciousness; so the persons loved ones may commit euthanasia against their wishes and the patient might recover from an illness against all odds as the doctor’s diagnosis has a chance of being wrong. Doctors’ jobs are to save peoples lives – well to at least try, not to kill them; this will result in Britain’s doctors being murderers and no one would like to go to a murderer for help.

Berlin Wall And Soviet Unions End - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1407 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2019/05/07 Category History Essay Level High school Tags: Berlin Wall Essay Did you like this example? How did the Berlin Wall symbolize the end of the Soviet Union and communism in Germany? â€Å"Tear down that Wall† said United States President Ronald Reagan in a speech that occured in West Berlin on June 12, 1987. In November of 1991 the Berlin Wall was taken down. The division was gone, but the shock remained. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Berlin Wall And Soviet Unions End" essay for you Create order The news spread all around the world like a wildfire. Large numbers of East Germans crossed and climbed up and over the fallen Wall. Once they had crossed, they were met by West Germans. At first all was good, but as time continued people began to speak out and demand change. The Berlin Wall was a representation of communism in our world. Which lead to much conversory between many different people around the world. The Wall symbolized the end of communism in Germany. By taking down the Berlin Wall they really were taking away last remains of communism in Germany. This lead other countries to questions their morals and beliefs regarding communism. Overall, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a major symbol of the slow decline of communism in our world. This included all over Europe and much of Asia. During the early years of the Cold War the Berlin Wall was built. The Wall was completed on August 13 of 1961 and was tore down in early November of 1991. The Wall was constructed by the German Democratic Republic under the influence of the Soviet Union. The Wall spanned the border of East Germany and West Germany. The Wall blocked West Germany away from most of its surroundings by land. As if this wasn’t bad enough East Germany was on 24 hour watch from watch towers. Here they would stay and watch over the West Germans to make sure that they did not find or escape from the â€Å"prison† that was built around them. Some people, in fact did try to escape from East Germany to the west. There were underground tunnels and secret passageways. But trying to leave was always a great risk. For, the consequences could cost one’s life. Others made plans to try and climb over the Wall, which in most cases resulted in them getting shot and often killed. According to the New Yorker, the text states, â€Å"a group of four West Berliners, responding to the call of a man named Gerhard Weinstein, found an abandoned railway shed near the Wall that split their city, and began digging† (Karasz). During the time of the Cold War West Berlin was not a safe place to be. Overall, it is not a good idea to be seen carrying a shovel around. Many people wanted to get out but they didn’t want to risk their own lifes. In addition, being constantly watched by guards on watchtowers that could kill you in seconds didn’t seem too comforting. The news of the Wall spread rapidly around the globe. As a result of this, the Soviet government has repeatedly emphasised that the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany and normalisation on such a basis of the situation in West Berlin will not attack the interests of any of the parties and would contribute to result of peace and security of all people. The wall was built out of barbed wire and concrete. There were about 302 watchtowers that lined up and down the Berlin wall. In the watchtowers there were always occupied with armed East German Soldiers. These guards members (and worked for) the communist party. Meaning that they supported the Wall and worked to ensure that none of the East Germans left the vicinity. They believed that communism, a utopian idea was best for the country and their nation as a whole. Though the watchtowers may look pretty covered with the veil of the trees they were not good places. Many people were concerned to simply walk close to the borders. And most people who did kept their heads down and walked as quickly and swiftly as they could. Know, you may be wondering if the towers were really these horrible things then why are so many of them preserved around the world. There are originals and replicas all over the world. The answer is simple. The mistakes our past must be preserved so we don’t repeat them. Watchtowers bring ideas into reality. The Soviet Union was one large country that existed from December of 1933 to December 1991. The country was founded on communism. During the early years of the cold war the West Berlin was a â€Å"Geographical loophole† according to BBC. This meaning that many East Germans fled to the democratic West. The communist East German leaders, or authorities decided to build a wall to keep their people inside of the wall to stop people from crossing over to the other side to the democratic West. As a result, the wall was thrown up overnight on August 13, 1961. When East Germans woke up the next day they were shocked. Many families were divided, and many people were confused as to what had happened. From that day on guards were on 24 hour watch and the people were in fact imprisoned inside of the wall. Overtime living conditions seemed to worsen for the people of East Germany. Food was becoming scarce, and resources and things were harder to be shipped in and could only be shipped in from the communist government. In this case the car would be brought in under supervision of the much security including soldiers and government officials. Some East Germans were so desperate to get out of East Germany that they attempted to get into government shipping cars and get drove out of the country that way. In most cases that we hear about today people were killed in these instances about 90% of the time. In the novel titled A Night Divided shares the powerful story of a family that was separated by the wall. The father and son were going on a two day trip to West Germany to get materials well the mother and daughter, Gerta the main character stayed home. That was the night that the wall was put up. In the compelling story she shares the story of everyday life in East Berlin and the living conditions on the wall. She shares the realism of having family divided. In conclusion here and her brother dig a tunnel down under the Wall leading to East Berlin which there they could be free and be reunited with their family again. Throughout the novel Gerta shares that the grocery stores slowly began to run out of food. Until all they had left was caned foods, and not many them. After many years of imprisonment other countries seemed to start realizing the seriousness of the wall and what it was doing to Germany. They realized that many families, friends, and loved ones were separated on either sides of the wall. The main Allied powers known as the United States, France, Great Britain, and more wanted to take action. The US wanted to take action. In the early years of the Cold War Kennedy saw the problem and knew that the United States of America should take action to help the citizens of East Berlin. Kennedy launched cargo ships filled with food and resources to East Germany to fuel the citizens with fresh food, and resources. This gave the East German hope that one day the wall would come down and one day they would be free again. In a famous speech President Kennedy says, â€Å"There are many people in the world who really dont understand, or say they dont, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lasssie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.† (Kennedy). This meaning that Kennedy was for communism but was against the Wall in East Germany. He informs all that some people think that communism is bad and an evil system but personally Kennedy thinks that communism it helps to continue to make economic progress. This is very controversial worldwide.