The case for solar power: Where the next frontier lies

The case for solar power: Where the next frontier lies

We as humans living in the 21^st Century have the notion that we are the most advanced stage of the human civilization and that we represent the epoch of technological innovation. A retrospect of human history in reality puts todays humans in probably the most primitive of all states. Sure, we have industrialized to such an extent that we do not need to work as much as our ancient forefathers, but this is indeed what puts todays humans in the uncivilized stages of human social development. Todays humans are foraging for energy through oil, gas and coal exploration much like our cave dwelling ancestor foraging for food. We need to make the next step towards stationary agriculture – this in todays world would mean harvesting energy.  A closer look reveals that currently there is just that technology out there – namely solar energy “created” through the use of photovoltaic cells (solar panels).

Just as the pioneers of the Americas found the vast arable land suitable for food agriculture, mankind's next frontiers lies in the “arable” land of the sunshine rich deserts where currently very few people live. One such vast solar arable land is found in the Sahara desert with a combined land area larger than Canada. Economically one might be tempted to ask after such vast financial investment to generate the electricity, where are the customers? A look at the map shows us the endless financial potential in just that venture, energy hungry customers likes in Europe, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. The manpower can be found in the huge labor pools of the “developing world” where unemployment and underemployment is rife. The governments of such solar arable lands should attract such pioneers to set up solar power installations to  generate such clean energy.

Morally, the environmentally conscious people should promote such policies to not just generate clean power, but is also the key to reducing poverty around the world. Just as the discoveries of Australia and the Americas drastically reduced poverty levels of Western Europe; opening up the next frontier should alleviate the unbearable low standards of living found in many places around the world. Furthermore, not only will tapping this near endless energy potential improve the livelihood of people directly involved in such a industry, but the end results will inevitable lead to rapid industrialization and ultimately social stability.

This generation of electricity will also reduce the stress seen in many parts of the world such as India and the Middle East through the increased afford ability of such devices as desalination plants and the production of more rain catching “nets” and in the short term pumps to draw water from underground aquifers. All of this can finally results in the ultimate human dream of making our barren deserts green  and habitable for the next generation and lower the stresses on the over populated regions.

One can confidently state that the quest for solar power can be the medicine for the currently depressed economies. Just as the Tennessee Valley Authority made possible the industrialization the Mid-Western United States, solar power in the deserts of Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California and further improve the economic situation these. The production of solar panels will create many factory jobs, installing and operating them will create jobs and the many industries that these solar energy will power is also create new jobs. It might be tempting to state that manufacturing these solar panels is a energy intensive process by itself and that such scarce power should be divested to more profitable enterprises. This sort of thinking is a short time solution and within a few years, these panels will inevitably generate profits in the form of electricity.

As can be clearly seen in the tone of this piece, that many of the things described is nothing more than a dream, but these dreams are reachable. Small steps can be taken such as further studying how to  efficiently harness solar energy, installing small solar panels on rooftops to save not just electric bills, but also finite resources. Instead of investments in such destructive wars for resources that will clearly run out within this century, the panacea is opening up the next frontier and to next generation of pioneers which ultimately everyone  in the world will enjoy the fruits of their endeavors. 

Only One Theory per Scientific Field

Only One Theory per Scientific Field

Title: Only One Theory per Scientific Field

Summary: This article proves that there is only one dominant theory per scientific fie.d.

Page Summary: This article proves that there is only one dominant theory per scientific fie.d.

Page 1

Only One Theory per Scientific Field

Throughout the history and philosophy of science, many philosophers have created methodologies for the propagation of scientific theories. Thomas Kuhn had a large impact on this field. His theory of incommensurability is fatal for both the methodologies of Karl Popper and Imre Latakos. Popper and Latakos both assumed that at a point in time, there could be many different co-dominant theories in a given scientific field; but because of incommensurability it is seen that that there are only one dominant theory in a field. The major reasons for there being one dominant idea per scientific field are that a newer idea gives the most accurate results and has the ability to explain new phenomenon that the old idea is unable to explain. The new theory also has the ability to predict newer phenomenon which the old theory is unable to predict. In history where “two dominant theories” are seen -- the most likely cause for it is politics and nationalism. Even if, old scientific ideas are used, it is mostly because of simplicity. From this, one can state that in a field of science, there is only one dominant scientific theory.

Incommensurability is an idea created by Kuhn, which roughly means that two scientific theories from different paradigms are incompatible with each other. The reasons for this is twofold, firstly two theories employ language which just cannot be understood in another theory (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, 91). An example of this is spacetime in Modern (Einsteinian) Physics does not exist and cannot be understood in Classical (Newtonian) Physics (Knight, 2007, 1192). The second reason for the existence of incommensurability is that scientists who practice different theories from different paradigms have different values. This means that they have different standards for what is considered scientific and might also have different standards of acceptance of new theories.

Popper’s methodology of scientific ideas has two different aspects. One was scientific demarcation and the other was the values that scientists should have. Popper stated that scientific ideas can be proven wrong. If a certain theory can fit into all circumstances, then it is unscientific. He also stated that a scientist should have a tentative attitude towards a theory and should be prepared to dispose it as deemed necessary, thus at a given time there could be many different theories (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, 62). Theories are compared through corroboration. The difference between corroboration and scientific confirmation is that corroboration is akin to a academic transcript, while confirmation is similar to a letter of recommendation. Just because a theory had stood up in the past does not guarantee in Popper’s view that it will have the same success in the future.

Lakatos’ ideas were similar to Popper, but one of his unique ideas was the notion of Research Programmes. A Research Programme has two components, a hardcore with the foundational theorems that cannot be changed and the periphery that contains theories which are derivatives of the central hard core (Godfrey-Smith, 2003, 104). There can be many different research programmes at a given time and they are compared through seeing their progress -- whether or not it is being developed or whether it is slowly lacking empirical content as time progresses. Examples of a different Research Programmes are Aristotelian Physics, and another is Newtonian Physics.
Both Popper and Lakatos held that there could be several co-dominant scientific theories in a certain field. They disregarded the fact that within the field, one theory might have the ability to give more accurate results. This example is seen in difference between Aristotelian physics and Newtonian physics. Both theories predicted that an object when dropped from a certain height will drop towards the ground, but Newtonian physics predicts the time and acceleration which Aristotelian physics was unable to describe. Another example that can be seen is in chemistry. Both VSEPR and Crystal-Field theory predict the shape of a certain molecule, but the Crystal-Field gives more empirical content by theorizing about the colour of the molecule. From these example on can see that there is not need to have multiple theories at the same time because of the older theories are unable to give results with more empirical content. Furthermore, the incommensurability between Newtonian and Aristotelian physics is such there is not chance of developing Aristotelian physics to rival Newton’s because there is no mathematics and also Aristotelian physics makes basic assumptions which are nonsensical in Classical Physics such as Earth being at the centre of the universe. Both theories are not interchangeable (such as the lack of a concept of gravity in Aristotelian physics) and the difference in their accuracy means that a rational scientist would utilize Newtonian physics instead of Aristotelian physics. This is a blow the both Popper and Lakatos who believed that many different scientific theories can and should be used.

A new theory usually arises because of the old theory was unable to explain a new phenomenon that arose such as Newtonian physics inability to explain blackbody radiation (Kragh, 1999. 51). To explain this Quantum Mechanics was theorized. Quantum mechanics was clearly incommensurable with Classical Physics because in Classical Physics a wave and a particle were discreet entities, but Quantum mechanics employed a new term called wave-particle duality where a particle and a wave were the same time. From this one can clearly see Kuhn’s first instance of incommensurability where the basic terms used are completely incompatible with each other. Since Classical Physics was unable to explain blackbody radiation one can see that is not wholesome. Popper and Lakatos’ methodologies of choosing between multiple theories are illogical because of the incompleteness of Classical Physics with regards to blackbody radiation. Lakatos’ idea of research programmes is also not valid because if a theory is unable to explain a certain phenomenon, then that theory clearly wrong and there is absolutely no chance of reviving it in the future because all later theories will take into account blackbody radiation. From this one can again see that there can be only one theory at a given time.

Confirmation of predictions made using a theory is very important because it shows how accurately it describes the natural world. The perihelion of mercury was an example where Newtonian Physics predicted a new planet called Vulcan (Knight, 2007, 1020). Einsteinian Physics predicted that there was no such thing as Vulcan, but there was a curvature of space, and this was the reason for the phenomenon. It was confirmed that indeed Einsteins’ theory was correct. This once again shows that Popper and Lakatos’ methodologies which included several competing theories at the same time were wrong because the prediction made by the older theory was incorrect. Furthermore, there was no chance of including bending of space in Newtonian physics because it is foundationally based on a Cartesian space. Logically one would use a theory which gives better correct answers. Popper’s methodology about having multiple theories is wrong because at any given time, there are only a few theories to choose from and always one gives more satisfactory answer than the other. Lakatos’ methodology is wrong because it states that a theory can nominally survive even if a newer theory has surpassed it in all aspects such as accuracy, more empirical content and predictive capabilities. But this thinking has clear limitations because by the time, one of the old theory’s statements are explicitly or implicitly wrong, then there is absolutely no reason to develop an incorrect theory and there becomes a large change that in the future that predictions made by the older theory will not be correct.

Not only does a new theory have to have to have its predictions confirmed, but a theory can also predict newer phenomenon. This is seen in quantum mechanics where there is a hypothesis about multiple worlds (Albert, 1994, 60). It predicts that a person can be at two different places at the same time. This sort of reasoning is not seen in classical physics because it states a velocity and location at be known exactly. In Newtonian physics, there is only a discreet particle at a given time. Furthermore Newtonian physics failed in explaining many phenomena such as blackbody radiation and the speed of light always being constant in all conditions, the chance that Newtonian physics predictions about unconfirmed new phenomenon becomes low. Incommensurability is the reason for the inability of Newtonian Physics to include the aforementioned concepts. There is an extremely high chance that the predictions of a new theory will also be wrong when using Newtonian Physics, Using these historical evidences, one can clearly see that it will be better to use a theory which is better than an old theory.

Popper and Lakatos’ methodologies are susceptible to redundancies. It is mostly seen that a new theory accounts for all phenomena described in an earlier theory. This is seen where General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics can also be utilized to learn about concepts such as momentum and inertia. For example Newton’s law of every action having an opposite and equal reaction can be described using quantum mechanics/relativity (albeit it is quite mathematically intensive) and also adds new concepts such as quantum tunnelling because in Quantum Mechanics everything in seen as an probabilistic electron cloud and as such a “solid” object can “tunnel” into another “solid” when thrown against a solid surface (Knight, 2007, 1095). Lakatos’ and Popper’s ideas where several theories can exist at the same time is also not a practical proposition because of the redundancy. If a better theory with more empirical content can predict the same phenomenon that was explained by an old theory then there is no need for the old theory at all. There is absolutely no need for the Newtonian Physics to survive as a Research Programme.

Outside of the scientific realm, both Popper and Lakatos disregarded that politics and nationalism can play a role in the development of scientific theories. This is clearly seen with the French supported of the ideas of Descartes with regards to his physical theory and the British supporting Newtonian Physics. It is clearly seen that both countries different views on describing the natural world originated from the nationality of their respective theorizers (Gascoigne, 1989, 4). Furthermore, another example of this type of scientific nationalism is seen the theory of the origin of rock petroleum. Russian scientists proposed that petroleum originated from deep in the centre of the Earth, and hence petroleum could be found almost anywhere ("Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?"). Rival Western scientists stated that petroleum originated from the fossils of marine creatures millions of years ago, and thus petroleum is predominantly found in or near coastal regions. From these examples it can be seen that arguments against there being several dominant theories in a major field is caused not because of objective reasoning of which theory is better, but there is biased attitude towards the nationality of the originator. Kuhn’s notion of there being one dominant theory is held up because the nationality of the scientist who proposed a theory is not a rational standard at all.
While it is clear that Relativistic and Quantum Mechanical physics gives some of the most accurate results, opponents of one dominant theory per field might argue that Newtonian Physics is regularly used in science, such as utilizing Maxwell’s electrodynamics in proposing a new type of integrated semiconductor, or a new light emitting diode. The main reason for using archaic scientific theories is their simplicity. It would be too difficult use Quantum Mechanics to describe the movement of an electron through a circuit. As mentioned, this is one of the reasons that Crystal Field Theory is retained to describe the vivid colours observed when a ligand attaches to a metal. This in no way means that scientist in question believes that Classical Physics gives superior answers to scientific questions than Modern Physics. There is also a large chance that the scientist in question is not very well acquainted with Modern Physics because of its sheer difficulty. Ultimately all scientists reason older theories using the most modern methods. This is seen when chemists still describe chemical bonds using VSEPR Theory, but ultimately reason that their descriptions using Quantum Mechanics. For example in VSEPR theory, there is a type of atomic orbital called a “sp orbital,” but it is similarly more accurately described quantitatively as  (Knight, 2007, 1093). These examples show that the everyday usage of several scientific theories does not determine that a person sees them in equal light. This proves that Popper’s and Lakatos’ methodologies of assuming several different scientific theories at once are incorrect. Ultimately there is only one dominant scientific theory which even using an old theory is reasoned towards.
One can argue that in the field of psychology there are two dominant theories. One theory is called Skinnerian and the other is modern psychology. Upon closer inspection, it can be seen that Skinnerian psychology is now only developed at a few specialized institutes while modern psychology is taught and elaborated at all research universities. The institutes that practice Skinnerian psychology can be easily described as fan clubs of the theory (Rutherford, 2009, 69). Even though no one has proved Skinnerian to be incorrect, the theory countered the values of democracy and personal freedom held by scientist, and thus when Noam Chomsky published his magnum opus, on literary theory, Skinnerian theory was shoved aside. In this instance, it is even seen that even when another competing theory is not implicitly deemed wrong, the values held by scientists led them to favour one theory greatly over another one, and thus even in psychology there is one dominant theory.

In the history of physics, it is seen that research programmes might be kept alive because sheer curiosity even through that theory has been decisively supplanted as seen in the horoscopes in the newspaper everyday keeping the Aristotelian physics alive. Popper and Lakatos’ methodologies basic assumption of several different theories at once is incorrect because in the example in psychology it is seen that one dominant theory is prevalent – even if one theory is practised (such as the horoscopes) it is not done in a scientific light, but because of a personal interests or for entertainment purposes. Through this one can see that Kuhn’s notion of values leading to incommensurability of ideas and thus one dominant scientific theory.

From all above examples it can be seen that Popper and Lakatos’ methodologies had merits and weaknesses. They are correct in their assumption that all theories are a model of the reality. Popper’s idea of scientific values also plays an important role in the development of certain ideas over others as seen in psychology. Where Popper and Lakatos are incorrect is their idea that many different ideas can be prevalent at the same time. This is wrong because event through there can be many different choices; there is always one theory which is much better than the others either because of better results or values. Ultimately, time and human intuition is finite and thus it is easier and more efficient for one to utilize the best possible theory. If there were no limit on the amount of time one had, then Popper’s idea would be a good option. Finally, to answer Lakatos’ “Research Programmes”, it is clearly evident that the superior Research Programme already accounts for the all the previous phenomenon. Incommensurability plays the biggest role in determining that there is only one dominant theory.

Works Cited:

Albert, David. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics." Scientific American (1994):
           58-67. Print.

Gascoigne, John. Cambridge in the Age of the Enlightenment: Science, Religion, and
            Politics from the Restoration to the French Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
            UP, 1989. Print.

Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2003. Print.

"Hydrocarbons in the Deep Earth?" EurekAlert! Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-07/ci-hit072409.php>.

Kragh, Helge. Quantum Generations: a History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. Print.

Knight, Randall Dewey. Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2007. Print.

Rutherford, Alexandra. Beyond the Box: B. F. Skinner's Technology of Behavior from
           Laboratory to Life, 1950s-1970s. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2009. Print.

Quantum Mechanics: A Revolutionary Period in Science

Quantum Mechanics: A Revolutionary Period in Science

Title: Quantum Mechanics: A Revolutionary Period in Science

Summary: This article will prove why the development of quantum mechanics in science was revolutionary.

Page Summary: This article will prove why the development of quantum mechanics in science was revolutionary.

Page 1

The development of quantum mechanics (or the quantum theory) is a revolution. It not only overcame the existing paradigm of classical physics, but along its developmental path questioned the pervading philosophy of the universe and also reformed the use of mathematics in science. The fundamental question that arises is the actual nature of a revolution in science. A powerful definition arises from combining the theories of Kuhn, Bolwer and Morris. It states that in order to judge whether or not a particular event is revolutionary, the idea has to be radically different such that it successfully supplants existing ideas and excludes alternative approaches. Furthermore for an idea to be useful, it has to be readily accepted by the relevant community and used in new applications. Kuhn further exclaimed the chronological steps in the development of a revolution: first anomalies arise which old paradigms are unable to explain, then comes the development of a new paradigm that is incommensurable with the former, and finally the new paradigm supplants the older. All these events are seen in the development of quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics arose because of the need to explain and understand several anomalies, which are: the blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect and the splitting of spectral lines. Blackbody radiation in its idealized form is a substance that absorbs all radiation incident upon it and releases it in another wavelength independent of the substance, but dependent only on its temperature. This phenomenon was first described by Robert Kirchhoff between 1859-60, and Josef Stefan further added that the heat radiation varied with the forth power of the absolute temperature (Kragh 1999, 58). Wilheim Wein later saw a problem with Stepan’s law and further added that blackbody radiation does not depend on the absolute temperature, but is a product of the temperature and the wavelength (Kragh 1999, 58). This law was experimentally satisfying, but its theoretical basis on classical physics was deemed inadequate. This event clearly shows the early inadequacy of the existing paradigm of classical physics. Max Planck sought a sound theoretical explanation for this phenomenon based on first principles, and as a believer in the absolute truth of the second law of thermodynamics he used an expression of entropy to derive Wein’s law. Much to his dismay Wein’s law was proved to be only a rough representation, thus rendering it incorrect. From this example, one can observe that in order to provide an explanation of a new phenomenon the existing paradigm is first utilized rigorously, but is unable to describe it thus demonstrating the beginning of the fall of the old paradigm. Classical mechanics predicts that the radiation energy density of a blackbody would approach zero, while experiments conducted by Heinrich Rubens and Ferdinand Kurlbaum is the fall of 1900 showed that energy approached a nonzero value. Many new theories based on classical mechanics were put forward to solve this anomaly, but were of no importance (Kragh 1999, 59). This demonstrates that how ever hard scientists attempt to fix classical physics to conform to novel observations, it always failed.

Planck was more successful in developing a new theory based on entropy that was scarcely more than an inspired guess (Kragh 1999, 61), thus showing the radical new directions away from classical physics one had to take in order to explain such an anomaly. He introduced Boltzmann’s equation of statistical mechanics, which undermined the absolute validity of one the fundamental tenets of classical physics – the second law of thermodynamics, but in order to find a constant, he had to calculate the energy of the oscillation of a black body divided into finite portions of energy. This value of energy defrauded classical physics because it theorized that energy could be found at any quantity, and not discrete multiples of a fundamental constant. Even through Planck did not notice it in December 1900; his theory was on the path to a revolution (Kragh 1999, 62). The problem of the blackbody radiation arose again in a new form as the ultraviolet catastrophe which was observed by Henrik Lorentz. Classical physics predicted that the energy density of a blackbody radiation would increase as a function of the second power, thus increasing infinitely as the radiation increased. This was not observed experimentally and the deviations were especially obvious in the ultraviolet frequencies. A few years later Planck realized that classical mechanics and his observations could not be reconciled. (Kragh 1999, 64). In 1909 Planck wrote to Lorentz that “the energy exchange between electrons and free ether occurs only in whole numbers of quanta hv” (Kragh 1999, 65). This was a radical departure from the established laws of physics, but also the beginning of the growing acceptance of quantum mechanics.

The idea of discrete quantities of energy was becoming more solidified with the problem of photoelectric effect. It was observed that when light with a minimum wavelength was shined onto a piece of metal, it began to emit electrons. What was truly puzzling about this new phenomenon was that there was a minimum wavelength where this happened and furthermore the electron would be emitted at an instant. The classical explanation for this would be that energy would heat up the metal and then the electron would jump, but it just could not account for the fact that this “jump” occurred without any delay. Albert Einstein decided to tackle this problem and deduced that the only thing that would solve this anomaly was the notion of quantized energy (Kragh 1999, 67). Unlike Planck, Einstein instantly discovered the revolutionary nature of this idea and in a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht he stated that the “radiation and the energetic properties of light” as “very revolutionary (Kragh 1999, 66).” Einstein’s theory was considered extremely radical from the outset as Walther Nerst, a chemist quoted “he may sometimes have missed the target in his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light-quanta (Kragh 1999, 68).” Nerst’s quote implies that he found it crazy. After this, Nerst himself introduced quantum mechanics into chemistry since no other theories existed that accounted for these anomalies. Furthermore, it again illustrates the growing acceptance of the new theory, not just among physicist, but among chemists as well (Kragh 1999, 68).

Thomas Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” stated that in order for there to be a scientific revolution, two competing paradigms had to be incommensurable. This is aptly demonstrated by Neils Bohr, who earnestly attempted to convert the theories of classical physics into the new quantum theory by using his correspondence principle. This proved to be an extremely difficult proposition because of the differences in values of the two paradigms; while classical physics made the clear distinction between waves and particles, quantum mechanics stated that particles have wave-like properties and vice versa. The anomaly that Bohr was faced with that led to his theory of the quantization of energy was the splitting of spectral lines (Beller 1999, 215). Using this Bohr theorized of the stability atoms, which was unknown in the classical paradigm. Bohr’s assistant Heisenberg was a big figure in the development of quantum mechanics. He was developmental in the in the advance of matrix calculus to describe and calculate models based on quantum mechanics. Matrix calculus was not used in classical physics and this further shows the incommensurability of classical physics and quantum mechanics because they use different tools (Beller 1999, 104). Heisenberg was instrumental in the new interpretation of quantum mechanics – the uncertainty principle. This stated that one cannot know the momentum and the position at the same time. This is a clear deviation of classical physics where both these quantities can be known simultaneously. Heisenberg along with Max Born proposed a model of the world based on a statistical chance alone. This means that there is only a certain chance that something observable exists (Beller 1999, 216). Once again this violates classical physics where objects exist and move in a definite path.

Matrix calculus developed by Heisenberg was difficult for many scientists to use. In order for an idea to be revolutionary, it has to be accessible and Erwin Schrödinger developed the mathematics of wave mechanics to make the theory less strenuous (Jones 2008, 225). This thus led to the new paradigm becoming more regular among scientists and led to its increasing use. Soon after 1909 quantum mechanics became to be an extremely powerful tool and it spread very rapidly as seen by the graph on page 65 on Kragh’s book where from the 1900s to 1909 there were less than twenty publications on the matter a year, but in the succeeding years the numbers of new publications began to grow at a rapid rate. This clearly implies that development of quantum mechanics was being readily accepted by the community. Furthermore, quantum mechanics left its place of origin in Western Europe and in its second part of development to places such as the United States and Japan, and scientists from these countries were rapidly building on the foundations of quantum mechanics (Jones 2008, 226). As the century progressed, it is seen that quantum mechanics began to leave these peripheral counties to further countries such as Brazil, was seen with the emigration of David Bohm from the United States after an anti-communist purge there (Albert, 1994, 60). This closely follows the last stage of the development of a paradigm where research is done within it.

The development of quantum mechanics was a radical revolution. It overcame the fundamental notions of classical physics by the development of new mathematical tools, by questioning the nature of matter and completely destroyed the old paradigm. There was no competition in its development because no theory could match it accuracy, and classical physics was supplanted for its vast inadequacies.

Works Cited

Albert, David. "Bohm's Alternative to Quantum Mechanics." Scientific American (1994): 58-67. Print.

Beller, Mara. Quantum Dialogue the Making of a Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1999. Print

Kragh, Helge. Quantum Generations: a History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1999. Print.

Jones, Sheilla. The Quantum Ten: a Story of Passion, Tragedy, Ambition and Science. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.

Wrath of the Squirrels

Wrath of the Squirrels

Title: Wrath of the Squirrels

Summary: This poem encompasses man's experiences with our urban tree-dwelling neighbor, the squirrel.

Page Summary: This poem encompasses man's experiences with our urban tree-dwelling neighbor, the squirrel.

Page 1

Just yesterday

It was a sunny day

I had to pay

For some very gay

What more can I say

From some place far away

If you would may

Listen to the wrath of the squirrels.

So the plant was a tomato plant

Built right on top on the house of an ant

More green than the colour of the military pant

The site so pretty, one would not rant

Qip pe dee doo exclaimed my friend Kent

Ka baam came the jump of the

A squirrel whose colour of was a Sant-a

Just gnawed of the head of the tomato plant.

Oh my God, I cried in despair

My lung for some time was without air

The squirrel nearly killed the gayer

Of the two plant pair

The squirrel as fast as a hare

Jumped from here to there

More than a pogo stick would dare

Went away from my sight in a second.

The plant tilt on one side

I instantly came to its aide

With a glass for drinking Kool-Aid

On the way I nearly died

For I had skid

Oops I have just lied

Because I watched and hid

The rainy weather made it hard to get out.

The sun rose again

And I looked in vain

The suffering and pain

A second later it began to rain

There the plant lay

Some more degrees it gain-ed

Still looking like a swain

Somehow without any help the plant stood up!

Then came winter

I felt a bit kinder

As I became fatter

All the squirrels suffered from hunger

There was some bread left over

I threw it out for the squirrels to gather

Waiting for any notices further

Seems like the squirrel just did not show up.

For the piece of bread to be taken

By the squirrel who attitude was like satan

One day the bread was stolen

Escaping my attention

Could the piece of bread gone to heaven?

I again looking through the den

There they were at lest some squirrels ten

Myself feeling like an angel.

Kaboom kaboom kaboom

There was an odd knock on the door

To the door I took a soar

Faster than the cars on the 404

Upon my arrival the knocker went back to its lore

High above the second floor

I could not help myself, but to shout –

What a whore!!

Lo and behold on my window sills

While I was watching ‘The Hills’

A second before the loss of the Buffalo Bills

After five consequent days of time kills

Another squirrel was eating the dills

Which I purchased from No Frills

Crunch, crunch, crunch…

The sounds of my beloved plants.

Once again the season arrived for the squirrels to breed

It’s dark eyes told my its creed

Which is to pay no heed

To plants arranged like beads

Or anything that can be used to feed

Oh, what bad deed

What do I see?

Holy cow, that animal is chewing on my house deed.

Forget about food

It’s prime time dude

I am no Robin Hood

Nor do I intend to be that good

Alors, zut!

The squirrel just stole another piece of wood

From my mom’s favourite statue of Budd-ha

Ha, ha ha, she deserved it.

One morn was a job interview

The alarm clock was put to snooze

Consumed a lot of booze

Comparing myself to Cooze

Good news

A squirrel let loose

Squeaking ‘whooooz’

I woke up just in time.

My apologies for  this rambling

All animals have a purpose

Just was we live our life

They live theirs.

The American Revolution: A Reactionary Period in History

The American Revolution: A Reactionary Period in History

Title: The American Revolution: A Reactionary Period in History

Summary: Throughout history there have been many events that have been labelled as revolutions. One of them is the American Revolution. It has freed the United States from the British and replaced their government with a republic. United States became one of the world’s first functional democracies in the world. This is the picture that people around the world see when they think about American Revolution. Upon more analysis of the effects of the American Revolution one can clearly see that it was really not a revolution at all and in reality retained a lot of the old customs and systems of the colonial period. The acronym PERSIA is used to determine the criterions examined to see if the American Revolution was revolutionary or not. PERSIA stands from political, economic, religious, social, intellectual and artistic. From the political point of view it can be seen that the American taxation system was soon enacted that closely mimicked the British.

Page Summary: Throughout history there have been many events that have been labelled as revolutions. One of them is the American Revolution. It has freed the United States from the British and replaced their government with a republic. United States became one of the world’s first functional democracies in the world. This is the picture that people around the world see when they think about American Revolution. Upon more analysis of the effects of the American Revolution one can clearly see that it was really not a revolution at all and in reality retained a lot of the old customs and systems of the colonial period. The acronym PERSIA is used to determine the criterions examined to see if the American Revolution was revolutionary or not. PERSIA stands from political, economic, religious, social, intellectual and artistic. From the political point of view it can be seen that the American taxation system was soon enacted that closely mimicked the British.

Page 1

Introduction

Throughout the ages the world has seen many events that have changed the face of this earth. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary these events are called “revolutions” and the definition is: a sudden, radical, or complete change (Revolution). Some have increased industrial output manifolds by initiating mechanized manufacturing such as the Industrial Revolution in England and anthers such as the Green Revolution in India provided food and much needed nutrients to over a billion people. These “revolutions” are less common and happen at most once every century. The second definition provided by the dictionary is: a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed (Revolution). These are revolutions like the French and Haitian Revolutions. One of the first of all these revolutions is the American Revolution that lasted from 1775 to 1783. It was a conflict between the thirteen British colonies in North America and their parent country Great Britain. Its effects were two-fold; firstly the American colonies gained independence from Great Britain and secondly led to the creation of the American union to form the United States of America. Although dubbed as a revolution, one might think that “change” inevitably happened in the newly created country, but on the contrary after careful and unbiased evaluation of the events that look place at that time one will understand that instead of being revolutionary, the American Revolution was actually reactionary and conservative in nature. Being “reactionary” is the exact opposite of bringing change and is one of the other side of being revolutionary on the political spectrum. It is defined by Princeton University as being: “an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism (Reactionary).” Hence one can deduce that the American Revolution did not bring any chance, but retained many colonialism era customs and rules.

Approach Used

Before starting to scrutinize the American Revolution the acronym PERSIA (politics, economics, religion, social, intellectual and artistic) will be used. It provides a meaningful and holistic approach to look at any changes breaking events into their respective effects in the aforementioned areas. The political aspect is the change in power and to see who makes and enforces the rules. Other than this one also observes how power is used to accomplish goals and the process by which public decisions are reached. Economics would be how people use scarce resources to produce goods and services and to see how they are sold and to used in the most effective manner possible. Religion is about how people view God and looks at the unique ways that they worship him. Another aspect of religion is the morality that guides people to take certain actions. Social is about how people live with others and to see the classes that they belong and the daily rituals of life such as milking the cow first thing in the morning and taking care of children. Intellectual is about the minds of the people and the various methods they express their knowledge and seek meaning about life through the pursuit of knowledge. Finally artistic is about the creativity of the population and them seeking to express it through a plethora of means such as through paintings, sculpture, architecture, music and literature.

Taxation

One of the earliest cries of the American Revolution was “no taxation without representation” a principle dating back to the Magna Carta which means that if citizens are not represented in the government, then the government does not have the authority to tax them (no taxation). The American colonists cited this principle when they opposed the authority of the British Parliament to tax them. This argument was made largely in part of a response to the British government’s policy of Salutary Neglect. It was the phrase used to describe British Prime Minister Robert Walpole's economic policy for the American colonies. It meant that mercantilist trade restrictions were not enforced in hopes of increasing the flow of trade between England and its colonies (salutary neglect), but after the French and Indian War, the British government was in heavy debt and desperately needed money to repay it. The government looked to it’s American colonies to pay some of it because they believed that the settlers in the Americas also had a responsibility to pay for the security that the British soldiers provided. In order to raise money the government passed the Sugar Act in 1764, which was a reconfiguration of the tax on sugar and molasses and indicated that the British government was taking a heightened interest in colonial affairs after decades of seeming indifference (Sugar Act (1764)). Shortly afterwards the Stamp Act was passed in 1765 it taxed all printed items such as newspapers and playing cards and finally culminated with the Townshend Revenue Act which imposed a levy on a number of goods imported to the American colonies. Enacted by the British Parliament in 1767, the Townshend Acts quickly sparked widespread colonial protests, particularly because the new laws established an American Board of Customs charged with cracking down on smuggling. The colonies responded with letters of protest to the British government, non-importation agreements, and the notorious Massachusetts Circular Letter, which called for the various colonies to unite against the acts. Parliament gradually rescinded the tax on all of the items enumerated in the laws except tea (Townshend Acts (1767)). After America’s independence from Great Britain the government of the United States enacted laws that once again started to indirectly tax the nation through tariffs through the Hamilton Tariff. The tariff would protect industries in the North by making foreign imports expensive to import, but harmed the Southern farmers whose exports were counterd with tariffs in foreign countries. The government even attempted to curtailing smuggling of goods as seen by the general order from the Secretary of the Navy William Jones issued in July 29^th, 1813 only a few years from the recognition of the United States by Great Britain which states “this intercourse is not only carried on, by foreigners, under the specious garb of friendly flags…. but the same traffic, intercourse and intelligence, is carried on, with great subtlety and treachery, by profligate citizens (curtailing smuggling (1813))." These actions taken by the American government were no different from the actions taken by the British patrol to enforce their smuggling laws where British general Thomas Gage was instructed to "such force as you shall think necessary to Boston" in order to stop smuggling. Through this example one can clearly see the similarities between the actions taken by the colonial rulers and the newly founded American government and that the policies did not change even as the revolution changed the control of the government from British to American thus partially proving that the revolution was reactionary in nature.

States Rights

After the revolution that gave United States independence from Great Britain, the U.S. government vowed to give the states more power over their affairs and make the federal government as small as possible. Initially this is what happened with the Articles of the Confederation where it stated in Article II that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled (Articles of Confederation).” This means that each state is can act more like a sovereign country and the federal government cannot tax, regulate interstate or foreign trade and raise an army. The articles were in response to a weak executive part that the states learned could act like tyrants in the colonial era.  The new constitution that was written at Independence Hall, Philadelphia reverted all the new freedoms of the states and once again gave power to a central government much like the during the colonial era and shows the reactionary events that took place immediately after the American Revolution.

New Era of Mercantilism

The revolution might have freed the United States from the economic tyranny of the British, but paved the way for a new form of economic domination of one region at the expense of another. Just like the British had gone earlier, the newly created United States government how also levied taxes at eight and a half percent tax on imports like molasses, steel, and nails. This later increased to twenty-five percent by beginning of the War of 1812 (Tariffs). Manufacturing states pleaded with the government and with the approval of the new constitution the federal government could now control trade with foreign countries. These tariffs hurt people of the south that had to import most of their products from others sources and made everything more expensive for them. These actions were modelled on the mercantilism that was practiced by the British who also wanted to protect their industries by taxing American manufactured goods. Now the northern states replaced the British industrial power that became a nightmare for the people of the south. This proves that the revolution was once again reactionary in nature because of the actions of the government favoured one portion of the population over than and also had the same protectionism principles that the British followed.
Economic reactions was one the most important reactions that the United States declared itself independent from Great Britain. The British protected their industries at the expense of American manufacturers by outlawing that America manufactures any goods. Americans envisioned that the independence would bring economic prosperity. This was greatly hampered when the Revolution had a great impact on the mercantile marine of the United States and was further effected by the Barbary States preying on American ships. Subsequently the American during the Revolutionary War also did the same thing. Privateers who were pirates were given permission by a government to raid British ships and steal their cargo. During the war the heavily outgunned American navy found themselves at a disadvantage and the Continental Congress, the de facto government of the Americans issued a statement that privately owned ships were permitted to sail forth and, "by Force of Arms, attack, subdue, and take all Ships and other Vessels belonging to the Inhabitants of Great-Britain (Kuhl). Without British protection the Americans were also attacked by the Barbary States, autonomous provinces of the Ottoman Empire located in North Africa and the Americans responded harshly by attacking them just like the British had. President Thomas Jefferson decided to teach the pirates a lesson. In 1804, after the USS Philadelphia raid, the Navy bombarded Tripoli, the capital of one the Barbary States. The task was given to U.S. Navy Lieutenant Steven Decatur whose mission was to burn the ships that the Barbary States took over. His mission was greatly described by one of his crewmen who states: "Board!" Decatur shouted. Swords flashed in the moonlight as he and his men charged onto the ship. The terrified pirates fell before the Americans' slashing steel (George). When their vessels were being raided by the Barbary States, the American responded harshly clearly demonstrating the reactionary nature of the revolution where the foreign policy of the U.S. government began to imitate those of the British.

People’s Rights

            One of the most famous lines quoted from the Declaration of Independence is that “all men are created equal.” Sadly this did not apply to the slaves in the United States whose status in society was chattel or property. During the revolutionary period slaves played a large role and even helped soldiers on both sides for example aiding the British army to capture Charleston, the capital of South Carolina. Slaves were twenty percent of the population – a larger proportion than any other time in history and commanded a larger part of the population in the south than in the north, not because of any moral issues, but because the highly fertile lands of the south demanded a higher price for a slave. It was businessmen from New England that dominated the slave trade. Initially there were talks about freeing the slaves because they were not profitable enough and the growing abolitionist movement in Great Britain such as the passing of the Slavery Act of 1807 made the Americans fearful that such a movement will gain momentum in the United States (The Century of Slavery). This abolitionist movement wrote articles such as “An Act for the Gradual Abolition” papers were written where they talked about the vile acts of the British in the American colonies as quoted by:
 “When we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition to which the arms and tyranny of Great-Britain were exerted to reduce us; when we look back on the variety of dangers to which we have been exposed, and how miraculously our wants in many instances have been supplied…. which not only deprived them of the common blessings that they were by nature entitled to, but has cast them into the deepest afflictions, by an unnatural separation and sale of husband and wife from each other, and from their children. (An Act for Abolition).”

From this quote one can deduce that during the revolution there were talking about making the newly independent country as a new country that will be different from the British and they recognized the inhumane actions that the slaves had to suffer. The invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney helped make cotton farming extremely profitable the southern United States became a leading cotton producer in the world. This action of increasing the practice of slavery after the Revolutionary war shows the reactionary nature of the war where Americans wanted to preserve institutions started during the colonial era.


Grave inequality was not only suffered by the slaves, but also poor whites living in the United States. The Declaration of Right of the Stamp Act Congress clearly stated in Article 2d that “His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.” The Continental Congress called for equality for all and that declared that everyone is entitled to the same right. In reality universal suffrage was a dream because one required paying poll taxes before voting. The severe problem of income inequality after the revolution led to Shay’s Rebellion. It was led by a former captain of American Revolution (Bailey 273). The reason for this was the large amount of debt and imprisonment that faced if they failed to repay it. The rebels sought protective legislation and radical reduction in taxes. The response of the government was to spends thousands of dollars to create an army to face the rebels than to actually help them before less dependent on loans. These actions were reminiscent of the British Army when the government hired Hessian mercenaries at an expense of thousands of pounds of gold instead of listening to the American colonists. From this one can again see the similarities between to British government prior to the war and the Americans after it.

Women’s Rights

Gender inequality was another problem in the United States after the revolutionary war. Just like the publication of Mary Wollstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” caused uproar in Great Britain even among of the most liberal of mind (Flexner), American women faced differences in right at every level compared with men. In the United States where women did not enjoy the rights that men enjoyed such as the right to vote, own property, work at public offices or even attend universities. Other than this woman also did not have any legal standing and could not make legal contracts such as divorcing her abusive husband or gain custody of her children. Under the guise of the concept of “Republican Motherhood” women were given special responsibilities of raising their children to create a better future for the United States where inequality was further solidified. Whereas men were free from such social constructs and could pursuit other aims at their leisure, women were bound to their homes to take care of their children. Other than this the concept of the “Republican Motherhood” model which actively promoted differences between the sexes where the sons were to pursue liberty and roles in the public sphere, the daughters were bound to the domestic sphere.

With this one should be aware that women were not abused in any way, but were seen as being different. According to the book entitled “Founding Mothers: The Women Who Raised Nation” by Cokie Roberts, she points out that the American Revolution would not have been possible without the aid of women, especially the wives of the founding fathers of the United States. Women such as Prudence Wright did take part in the revolutionary effort by dressing-up as men, but nevertheless did greatly contribute to the war effort. Wright organized an army of women dressed in men’s clothing and armed them with pitchforks and muskets. Their accomplishments include successfully defending their town of Peperell, Massachusetts and later captured a British spy delivered his intelligence to the Americans (Roberts 82).  Others like Martha Washington and Kitty Greene indirectly helped in the war effort. Mrs. Washington arrived at Valley Forge during the winter of 1778 and found that soldiers had died of starvation, and others chanted the “No bread, no soldier” slogan. She bought them food and started the sewing circle with the other officers’ wives to supply the soldiers with clothing (Roberts 94). This shows that even though women’s roles were restricted to domestic life, at times of crisis they were the first to be called upon to help. Others like Kitty Greene, the wife of Nathanael Greene a general in the Revolutionary Army hosted a party to mark the first anniversary of the alliance with France and later accepted a bet from George Washington that he could win the stamina contest in dancing. This again shows that women were also sometimes included in even such as foreign affairs. According to Nathanael Greene, they “danced upwards of three hours without sitting down” (Roberts 116). These events greatly lifted the moral of the soldiers. Other than foreign affairs women like Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adam, the second president of the United States took control of his farming business and also started collecting his legal fees that were due when he went off to war (Roberts 104). Eli Whitney’s famous cotton gin would not have been a success without help of Kitty Greene and some even believe the cotton gin was actually the work of Kitty Greene herself (Roberts 249). The cotton gin made cotton more cost efficient and cotton grew to be the new nation’s largest export bringing in valuable foreign currency. Women were not only the heroes of the Revolutionary War, but also the villains. Benedict Arnold’s wife Margaret Shippen was recruited as a spy for the British Army. While the other Philadelphia women were raising money for the American soldiers, she was sold them out (Roberts 131). From this one can deduce that a clear grey area existed where even though women did not directly play any direct roles in the revolutionary and their lives revolved around domestic affairs, the revolution brought many changes to the lives of women that British women could not have ever imagined and that American women’s roles in society were increasing even to the point where Wollstonecraft’s quote that "I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves" began to seem like a reality where they were doing thing at their own wishes such as Wright’s war efforts and Mrs. Washington independently helping the troops at her own wishes. Their roles in the era were so important that it led John Adams to quote that “behind every great man, there is a great woman (Roberts 101).”

Religion

Religion played an important part of the lives of Americans during the revolutionary era. It not only provided them with a place to congregate and worship God, but also a place where they could talk about their daily affairs. At first glance, one would think that the churches just separated from their British parents such as the Church of England turning into the Episcopalian Church and the Church of Scotland turning into the Presbyterian Church (American Revolution) and that no change took place before and after the revolution. One of the most crucial things took place that would become the separation between church and state in the United States that would make government free from any direct influences of any established church. This was revolutionary because Britain still had a state church and in many places around the world it had great influences on the government.

Intellectualism and the Arts

Though many effects of the American Revolution had a reactionary stance, the intellectual backbone of the United States took off during this era. Before the revolution the United States did not boast of any intellectuals because the general populace was too busy settling new frontiers and farming the new land. Without the exception of colleges founded such as Harvard and Yale were created to train local church ministers, but they were not intellectual because all of the works they studied was from Europe. In other words the United States did not require any intellectuals because most of the information came from Europe. The revolution provided a perfect opportunity for intellectualism to grow and create literature based on it. One of the first was Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” which stated the reason that the United States should become free from Great Britain by providing one of the first experiences of nationalism where he made the argument that a small island nation such as Great Britain should not rule an entire continent by stating (Common Sense (1776)): “small islands not capable of protecting themselves are the proper objects for kingdoms to take under their care; but there is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island.” It also paved way for the common American belief that all men were created equal when it stated that:
 “for all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have the right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever, and thought himself might deserve some decent degree of honors of his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit them” (Common Sense (1776)).

This also paved the way for the new American democracy to form which stated that “monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them.” It was through this that American Revolution can be called a revolutionary where a completely new way of thinking of the people ruling their country instead of a king. Others like the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 where a land was reserved to finance public education (federal public lands). This was the first time in American history that the government made education a priority and enacted laws to publicly finance and thus becoming one the most revolutionary actions of the era. Along with the birth of new intellectuals, the revolution kicked off the launch of new American literature such as the Federalist Papers which were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison (Federalist Papers) convincing them that to approve the newly written constitution. Not only did it mark the beginning of paper written by American authors, but also created a unique American style of democracy where one needs the approval of the masses.

Conclusion

Though the American Revolution had many portions that was clearly reactionary such as the treatment of slaves and poor people, others parts such as intellectuals and the unique form of the American democracy was one of the first of its kind. The revolution might have not been “completely” revolutionary, but it brought change on a unprecedented level. Without the American Revolution, many questions where other major revolutions such as the French Revolution would have happed at all. In the words of Marquis de Lafayette, who would play an instrumental part in the French Revolution “admiring the new resolution, in which the fair ones of Philadelphia have taken the lead,” praising the American Revolution.

Works Cited

“American Revolution.” Encarta. CD-ROM. Seattle: Microsoft, 2004.

"An Act for Abolition." The African American Experience. American Journey Online. Woodbridge, CT.: Primary Source Microfilm, 1780. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Northside C Prep. 24 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=SRC-1&docId=EJ2152000594&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=cps1740&version=1.0>.

"Articles of Confederation" American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 23 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

Bailey, Thomas A., David M. Kennedy, and Lizabeth Cohen. The American Pageant. 11th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998

"Common Sense (1776)." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 25 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

"curtailing smuggling (1813)." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 23 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

“Education in the United States.” Encarta. CD-ROM. Seattle: Microsoft, 2004.

"Federalist Papers." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 25 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

"federal public lands." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 25 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

Flexner, Eleanor, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1979; Mazel, Ella, ed., Ahead of Her Time: A Sampler of the Life and Thought of Mary Wollstonecraft, 1995; Schneir, Miriam, ed., Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings, 1972.

George, Daniel P. "Shores of Tripoli: Stephen Decatur became one of America's first heroes fighting the Barbary pirates.(Brief Article)."  Boys' Life. 92. 9 (Sept 2002): 14(1). Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Northside C Prep. 24 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=SRC-1&docId=A90624690&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=cps1740&version=1.0>.

Kuhl, Jackson. "Pirates vs. privateers: which would you rather be?."  Odyssey. 17. 6 (July-August 2008): 14(1). Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Northside C Prep. 24 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=SRC-1&docId=A183550407&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=cps1740&version=1.0>.

"Mary Wollstonecraft." World History: The Modern Era. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 25 Feb. 2009 <http://www.worldhistory.abc-clio.com>.

"no taxation." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 23 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

"Reactionary." Perl. Princeton University. 26 Feb. 2009 <http://princeton.edu>.

"Revolution." Merriam-Websters. 26 Feb. 2009.

Roberts, Cokie. Cokie Roberts: the Women Who Raised Our Nation. New York: William Morrow, 2004.

"salutary neglect." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 23 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

"Sugar Act (1764)." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 23 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.

"Tariffs." Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Ed. Thomas Carson and Mary Bonk. Detroit: Gale Group, 1999. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Northside C Prep. 24 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=SRC-1&docId=EJ1667500681&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=cps1740&version=1.0>.

"The Century of Slavery." The African American Experience. American Journey Online. Woodbridge, CT.: Primary Source Microfilm, 1999. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. Northside C Prep. 24 Feb. 2009 <http://find.galegroup.com/srcx/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=SRC-1&docId=EJ2152000663&source=gale&srcprod=SRCG&userGroupName=cps1740&version=1.0>.

"Townshend Acts (1767)." American History. 2009. ABC-CLIO. 23 Feb. 2009 <http://www.americanhistory.abc-clio.com>.