Marriage in the Modern World

Table of Contents Introduction Values cherished in the modern world Legal position of marriage Conclusion References Introduction Marriage is a phenomenon that has existed throughout human history and appears in a variety of literatures including sociology, anthropology, cultural studies and legal studies among others. It is a phenomenon that has evolved through different definitions that attempt to fit the concept in particular circumstances. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Marriage in the Modern World specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The two prominent views that have emerged are the conjugal view and revisionist view (Girgis, George Anderson, 2010, p.246). According to conjugal viewpoint, marriage is the joining together of a man and woman in order to make a lasting and exclusive commitment of the type that is intrinsically fulfilled by bearing and bringing up children together. On the other hand, the re visionist view considers marriage as the union of two people who commit to love and care for each other romantically and to sharing the challenges and gains of domestic life. Such differing views emerge from extreme debates that question the changing nature of marriage. Therefore, this paper argues that marriage in the modern world does not depend on a legal definition only, but also depends on alternative justifications. In as much as the worldviews on family life have changed, marriage still refers to a social, psychological, sexual, emotional, religious, economical and legal fulfillment and the fundamental values of marriage still holds. Values cherished in the modern world Arguably, the aspects that were valued in the traditional marriages have not lost any significance in the modern world as many people tend to think. In most societies across the world, it is generally accepted that it is good for children to be reared in stable close partnerships and that these partnerships w ould provide adults with personal accomplishment. The regularization of such stable partnership in some areas has been channeled through marriage, though marriage universally is a massively varied phenomenon (Probert, 2009). For instance, there is no common agreement over the number of parties required in a marriage; who should select partners for marriage; whether or not the rearing of children is the core idea of marriage; or the appropriate age for marriage. Indeed, in culturally diverse societies, it is hard to describe the nature of marriage that might be true for couples. Although the religious notion of marriage dominated in the tradition world, it has not lost meaning due to the legal conception of marriage. Advertising Looking for essay on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Religious marriages can take place in situations which would not necessarily be commended by the legal framework and vice versa (Ba rlow et al., 2005). Interestingly, some religious sects have even perceived the need for official marriages to be reinforced by special religious vows, involving obligations beyond the legal commitments of marriage. In some societies, we have seen the development of civil partnerships, another alternative to marriage for couples of the same sex (Bamforth, 2007). The fact that these societies felt the necessity of creating a status different from marriage yet similar to marriage, demonstrates how strong the conventional understandings still are. Legal position of marriage Initially, marriage used to be the central focus of family laws. Scholars would concentrate on debates of the requirements of marriage, the effects of marriage and marriage termination. Presently however, many scholars of family law connote that paternity is the central concept and that marriage has limited legal importance. This is confirmed by the suggestion made by Diduck and Kaganas (2006) that â€Å"marriage is both core and tangential to family law, thought it can be argued that marriage remains at the center of family ideology† (p.30). These scholars attempt to argue that, while the legal effects of marriage are restricted, the figurative nature of marriage is still the element which plays the most important role in providing an explanation of what the perfect family should be in the modern world. With that understanding, marriage in the modern world still creates some significant legal effect. For instance, it would be impossible for an advocate to counsel a client over family issues unless the advocate is aware that the partners were married. No wonder Hecker and Wetchler (2003) observe in many societies that, married couples incline more to religious or social authorities for counseling over marriage issues. Moreover, there are other particular challenges that pressure to restrict the legal importance of marriage even further. One, as noted earlier, there are demands for th e conventional definition of marriage to be more inclusive. For instance, divorce should be made available and that sexual orientation should not matter (Bamforth, 2007). Two, there are debates that those couple living together in one way or another like a traditionally married couples should be regarded in the same ways as married couples (Lemanna Riedmann, 2011). These threats make it difficult to declare a unique standing for marriage in order to accommodate an encompassing legal definition.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Marriage in the Modern World specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Conclusion The phenomenon of marriage depends on many justification including legal definitions. This is because the elements valued in the tradition conception of marriage still hold in the current world. In addition, the symbolic nature of marriage rather than legal conception underlies the ideology of a perfect marriage. Ref erences Bamforth, N. (2007). The beneï ¬ ts of marriage in all but name?† Same-sex couples and the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 19, 133. Barlow, A., Duncan, S., James, G. and Park, A. (2005). Cohabitation, Marriage and the Law. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Diduck, A. Kaganas, F. (2006). Family law, gender and the state: text, cases and materials. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing. Girgis, S., George, R. P. Anderson, R. T. (2010). What is marriage? Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy, 34(1), 245-287. Hecker, L. L. Wetchler, J. L. (2003). An introduction to marriage and family therapy. Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Lemanna, M. A. Riedmann, A. (2011). Marriages, families and relationships: making choices in a diverse society. Florence, KY: Cengage Learning.Advertising Looking for essay on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Probert, R. (2009). Marriage law and practice in the long eighteenth century: a reassessment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. This essay on Marriage in the Modern World was written and submitted by user Joe W. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Average National SAT Scores for 2014

Average National SAT Scores for 2014 SAT Scores by StateSAT Score Frequently Asked Questions    In 2014,  1,672,395 of you high-schoolers out there registered  and took the SAT, which is the largest number of test-takers in recent history. And now that youve taken it, Id wager that youre interested in knowing what sorts of scores your fellow college applicants have earned. Am I  right? If youre anything like students before you (and probably those who will come after you, too), you want to know how you stack up!  Below, youll read several fun facts (and some shocking ones, too!) about the average national SAT scores for 2014. For some of you, youll be interested in knowing the average SAT scores for students entering the top public schools in the country, and others of you will be curious about scores for the top private schools. If youre just interested in SAT scores in general, then keep on reading, okay? Okay. Overall SAT Scores for 2014 Remember the math term, mean? Of course you do! Its just the average of a set of numbers. In this case, the mean is the average score of every student who took the SAT from the fall of 2013  through June of 2014. The overall score is down by just 1 point this year.   Here are the mean scores for all testers by section: Overall: 1497 Critical Reading: 497 Mathematics: 513 Writing: 487  (subscores: multiple-choice: 48.9  / essay: 7.0) SAT Scores for 2012 SAT Scores for 2013 SAT Scores By Gender Well, it looks like the boys have taken it again  this year in everything but the Writing section, ladies! Girls, you need to get it together! The boys are taking you to town on the Mathematics section! Critical Reading:Males: 499Females: 495 Mathematics:Males: 530Females: 499 Writing:Males: 481Females: 492 SAT Scores By Reported Annual Income It seems, kids, that if your parents are raking in the dough, then your odds of scoring higher on the SAT go up. Just check out the statistics. Now, be sure to use your best reasoning skills. This doesnt mean that kids with a little more cash are the smartest on the block. What else could those numbers imply? Perhaps parents with more wealth are more willing to purchase SAT prep? Perhaps they are more willing to shell out the moolah for retakes? I dont know. We could conjecture all day on this subject, but the stats do not lie; parents making more money produce kids with higher SAT scores. Look: $0 - $20,000Critical Reading: 436Math: 459 $20,000 - $40,000Critical Reading: 467Math: 481 $40,000 - $60,000Critical Reading: 489Math: 500 $60,000 - $80,000Critical Reading: 504Math: 512 $80,000 - $100,000Critical Reading: 516Math: 526 $100,000 - $120,000Critical Reading: 527Math: 539 $120,000 - $140,000Critical Reading: 531Math: 542 $140,000 - $160,000Critical Reading: 539Math: 552 $160,000 - $200,000Critical Reading: 544Math: 558 $200,000 and moreCritical Reading: 569Math: 588 SAT Scores By Ethnicity Although there is no causal relationship between ethnicity and scores, its interesting to take a peek at the differences among us when it comes to test-taking. Here are the mean overall scores by heritage. American Indian or Alaska Native: 1428 Asian, Asian-American or Pacific Islander: 1651 Black of African-American: 1278 Mexican or Mexican-American: 1354 Puerto Rican: 1349 Other Hispanic, Latino, or Latin-American: 1353 White: 1576 Other: 1504 No response: 1371    2014  SAT Scores Summary So, it would appear that if youd really like to knock the SAT out of the ballpark, youd better join a family who makes more than $200,000 per year, make sure to secure the male gender, and adopt the Asian ethnicity. If that doesnt work, you could always prepare regardless of your ethnic heritage or familial status. These statistics represent the mean, but do not, of course represent the individual - YOU. If you have nothing in common with the groups scoring the highest on the SAT, it does NOT mean that you cant secure a top-notch score. Start with some free SAT practice quizzes, grab some free SAT apps, and prepare yourself the best way you can. Good luck!

Take 20 Hours and Become an Expert in Anything [VIDEO]

Take 20 Hours and Become an Expert in Anything [VIDEO] It doesn’t take 10,000 hours to learn a new skill. It takes 20. And here’s how†¦ Josh Kaufman, author of The Personal MBA, has demystified Malcolm Gladwell’s famous â€Å"10,000† (supposedly the amount of time you need to invest in acquiring a new skill). He says you can achieve the same mastery in 45 minutes a day, for a month.Here’s the path to learning.1. Deconstruct the skillDecide what you actually want to be able to do, and break it down into manageable parts. Do some research and figure out what the people who succeed at this skill had to learn along the way and where you can learn it too! Do you need to sign up for a class, or lessons, or tackle a reading list? Invest in some equipment or supplies?2. Learn enough to self-correct. Learn just enough that you can actually tell when you’re making a mistake.This is where a teacher comes in handy, whether it’s one-on-one or in a class setting. If your desired skill is a musical or dance-based one, this probably means a lot of listening and watching to pros performing so you learn to tell the difference between a good performance and a great one. Perhaps even record yourself so you can rewatch and examine your technique for improvement.3. Remove practice barriers: i.e. remove distractions, yes, like you, Internet.Other common barriers include pets, children, day jobs (ok, maybe you just need breaks or a little alone time, not a full removal). There are a ton of productivity apps that might come in handy here- Pomodoro helps you time, apps like Self-Control (mac) and Freedom (PC) block all web access from your computer, and leaving your technology outside to go practice hula hooping is its own reward.4. Practice at least 20 hours. Finally, yep, practice for 20 hours.It’s inescapable- whether it’s 20 hours or 10,000, at a certain point there’s nothing to do but spend time practicing the thing you want to learn to love to do. Pace yourself , take breaks, but otherwise, stick to it!

Marketing Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 2

Marketing Management - Essay Example Now we shift to the methodology and rationale behind building competitive advantage. This is something that is built over time and requires synchronization between the tactics, activities and the overall strategy of the company which is producing the product(s). Competitive advantage is developed when there is a differential undertaking on the part of the customer. This could be in the form of lower prices than the competitors, better quality, efficient sales services and support and a number of other features. Thus customer satisfaction is something which cannot be measured by a standard set of parameters. It has to be experienced always with a different set of offerings that are made available. These offerings could be in the form of better quality products, higher and more efficient services or a bundle of both high-class product and state of the art service, in which case it would not be categorized under either of them rather as a mixture of both. It is pretty true that the market dynamics suggest that the competitive advantage can only be achieved when the customer is given what he or she wants but then again is there any limit to his or her wants? The answer would be NO and quite rightly so. The customer expects value for money and thus the best possible product at the most effective rate, thus it would be correct to understand his point of view and then go about changing the product offerings, prices and the value thus provided. Marketing concept has taken its basis from the selling concept.

Soc Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Soc - Essay Example I once attended a celebration of a Chinese new year which they call Kung Hei Fat Choi which is really a different celebration of New Year from my culture. For one, the celebration was replete with firecrackers and loud noises in their belief to scare away bad omens. They also had a dragon dance which they believe to bring good luck and rounded foods. This type of celebration is considered alien to me because we do not do dragon dance in celebrating New Year nor prepare round foods. To explain my seeming alienation about Chinese New Year, I would like to bring about George Herbert Mead’s social psychological theory of relation among the mind that not all factors in my environment can influence how I think. I belong to _____(your primary group) as my primary group and ____(your formal organization) as my formal organization. I am basically comfortable with my primary group albeit it has no formal structure where other people of the group, including myself are just enjoying each other’s company. The formal group on the other hand is more structured and has an objective why it exists. It reflects the normative organization because there are rules that are expected to follow where its members are expected to conform. In the primary group, my status varies since the structure is informal. Sometimes I am the leader and opinion maker sometimes I am the follower depending on the situation. In the formal organization however, my status is labeled as a member because I am not an officer of that club. At the end of the game, I belonged to the middle class because I had enough property to sustain me in the game. The game basically made me realized that if you make enough investment early in the game, you will end up rich because when other players step into your property, they have to pay rent and this accumulates as the game goes. Having enough resources in the game made me realized that it will enable the player to

The Process Model in Policy Changes

The Process Model in Policy Changes This paper advances the theoretical framework of the stagist heuristic framework or sometimes known as the process model in attempting to explain and analyze the policy activities which led to the enactment of Quebecs Tobacco Act  [1]  of 1998. The main premise of this paper is to evaluate the usefulness of the process model in understanding the policy making process through a comparative study between this model and the Advocacy Coalition framework (ACF). I employ, and borrow, the case study of Bretton et al., (2008) that offers an alternative outlook to the developments of the Tobacco Act using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. This paper concludes with a discussion of the models which satisfactorily reflect the reality of how policies are formulated and enforced. 1. Introduction This paper is organized into 4 parts. Part one sketches the theoretical perspectives of the stagist heuristic model and examines the factors and processes leading to the adoption of the Tobacco Act. Crucially, this part will highlight the critical role of policy actors in affecting policy processes and outcomes. Part Two provides a critical analysis to the effectiveness of the model by elaborating the advantages of the model. Part Three will go on to provide criticisms of the model by comparing it with the advocacy coalition framework used in analyzing the Tobacco Act of 1998. This part will present the many criticisms of the stagist model, using mainly contributions offered by Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) and Sabatier (1999). Finally, Part Four concludes with a brief overall assessment of the framework, considering in particular, its status as an analytical tool for understanding policy making in the real world. In the context of this paper, policy analysis is defined as a set of interrelated decisions taken by a group of political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve (Jenkins, 1978: 35). From Jenkinss (1978) definition above, which acknowledges public policy as a set of interrelated decisions taken by numerous individuals and organizations in government, I will form the basis of this paper. I will focus solely in understanding the processes or what Jenkins (1978) referred to as interrelated decisions leading to the adoption of the Tobacco Act. His definition also correlates to Lasswells conceptualization of knowledge of rather than knowledge in policy making, in which the latter (i.e. knowledge in), is more substantive and prescriptive (Dunn, 1981; Hogwood Gunn, 1984, Hill, 1993). The policy domain is inherently complex, and so analysts have made use of various models of simplification to comprehend the overwhelming situation and to understand it more thoroughly. Through the lens of the stagist heuristic model, policy analysts have been able to synthesize the complexity of such process into a series of functional phases, which frame this overtly political process as a continuous process of policy making. 1.1. The Stagist Heuristic Framework As pioneered by Lasswell (1956), and modified by Jones (1970), Mack (1971), Rose (1973), Anderson (1975), Jenkins (1978), Brewer De Leon (1983) and Hogwood Gunn (1984), this ideal-type framework adopts a technocratic approach to public policymaking, embracing linear and logical progression from agenda setting and concluding with policy evaluation and termination. The chronological orders of the policy life cycle are commonly categorized as problem definition, agenda-setting, policy formulation, implementation and finally evaluation (Dunn, 1981; Hogwood Gunn, 1984; Sabatier, 1999; Dye, 2002; Colebatch, 2002). 1.1.2. Problem recognition and definition. Hitherto, the greatest impetus to the developments of policy science crystallizes on a response to a myriad of social problems within, what Lasswell terms as policy orientation (cited in Dunn, 1981; Hogwood Gunn, 1984; Howlett Ramesh, 2003). Similarly, the process model presupposes the recognition of problem triggered by a felt existence of problems or opportunities (Dunn, 1981). A problem is defined as an unrealized value, need, or opportunity which, however identified, may be attained through public attention (Dunn, 1981: 44) which needs to do something about as pointed out by Wildavsky (1979) a difficulty is a problem only if something can be done about it (Wildavsky, 1979:26). However, problem recognition and definition are not straight forward activities. According to Birkland (2007) because a problem is a process of social construction, as mirrored by Dunn (1981) who states how the problem is in the eye of the beholder (Dunn, 1981: 27), it depends on subjectivity of interpretations held by various stakeholders. And so, the majority ruling may be ill-defined and, at times, may even be misframed  [2]  (Baker, 1977). In addition, as Steiss Deneke (1980) suggests, problems are seldom mutually exclusive because they often exist in a hierarchical relationship to one another, and the solution of one may depend on the solution of another, either higher or lower in the hierarchy (Hogwood Gunn, 1984: 124); therefore may often lead to a further redefinition and modification of the problematical situations (Wohlestetter, 1976; Wildavsky, 1979; McRae Wilde, 1985), which, in turn, lead to the creation and realization of more problems (Wildavsky, 1979), which I go on to address in the following paragraph. Quebecs Tobacco Act was primarily enacted as a response to the growing concerns of the public towards the issue of passive smokers or secondary smokers. As reported by Breton et al. (2008), the Tobacco Act was enacted to protect the fundamental right of non smokers to enjoy a smoke free environment than by the harms to health (Breton, et al., 2008: 1682). However, the definition of the issue leads to the discovery of more social problems. On one hand, problems such as addictiveness of smoking, prevalence of youth smokers (which have significantly lead to raising educational awareness of the hazards of smoking), how the majority of the population are non smokers and, finally, the financial burden to the public health care system are brought to attention. On the other hand, protesters of the bill have contested the lethality to passive smokers, arguing that such intervention might impede the competitiveness of the tobacco industry (through the implementation of tax) and, thus, affect t he economy of the province. In liberal democracies, such as Quebec, problem identification and definition are conceptualized as highly pluralistic, involving diverse policy stakeholders such as the public (population, retailers), individuals (Minister of Health), organizations (e.g. Quebec Division of Cancer society, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health, Hospital industry), interest groups (e.g. Tobacco manufacturers, Non Smokers Right Association, Tobacco workers union, Events Rallying for the Freedom of Sponsorship group), the media, policy communities (Regional Public Health Directorates [RPHD], columnists and journalists, Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control [CQCT] and also mentioned U.S administration) (Dunn, 1981; Sabatier, 1991; Kingdon, 1995; Dye, 2002; Howlett Ramesh, 2003); the actual agenda setting is characterized by different patterns in terms of actor composition and the role of public. There are outside initiation as well as inside initiation  [3]  (May, 1991 cited in Fisher, Miller Sidney, 2007); mobilization and consolidation  [4]  (Howlett Ramesh, 2003). In this case, the tobacco control adheres to Howlett Ramesh (2003) concept of consolidation; whereby due to the impending agitation of the issue amongst the public and subsequent contraband crisis of cigarettes smuggling in the US, policy elites (prominently the new Minister of Health and the National Assembly [NMA]) have seized the opportunity for government legitimacy in tobacco control by, effectively, propagandizing the issue to the public via regularly intervening in the media on different aspects of tobacco control and visiting MNAs cabinets (Breton et al., 2008: 1685). 1.1.3. Agenda setting Next, I explore the agenda setting phase which Birkland (2007) defined as the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public and elite attention (cited in Fisher, Miller Sidney, 2007: 63). The elevation from systemic agenda into institutional agenda  [5]  is usually dominated by power struggles between groups competing to elevate or block issues from reaching the institutional agenda (Cobb Ross, 1997); acting singly or, more often, by building strategic coalition with others (Sabatier, 1991; Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993). From the case study, this process is signaled by the agenda of the new Minister of Health and the tabling of the bill by the Council of Ministers at the legislative meeting. As part of his strategy in building a winning coalition, the Minister successfully gathers allies and supporters for the bill by establishing the CQCT; embracing Sabatiers ACF model. In addition, Breton et al. (2008) mentioned that the Minister of Health has also announced plans to include in the bill provisions that prohibit active involvement of tobacco companies in sponsoring arts and sports events. Spearheaded by the centralized coordination of the CQCT, the winning coalitions which compose of Non Smokers Association and various municipalities through representatives from the RPHD, effectively debated the bill and gathered political support from the Council of Ministers at the parliamentary commission meetings, which resulted in the official adoption of the bill on February, 1998. 1.1.4. Policy formulation and decision-making. In the traditional stage model of the public policy process, policy formulation is part of the pre-decision phase of policy making in which the political interchange described by Lindblom (1993) as competition of ideas emanates. It involves identifying and/or crafting a set of policy alternatives to address a problem, and narrowing that set of solutions in preparation for the final policy decision. This approach to policy formulation, embedded in a stages model of the policy process, assumes that participants in the policy process recognize and define a policy problem, consequently moving it onto the policy agenda. During this stage of the policy cycle, expressed problems, proposals and demands are transformed into government programs. At the same time, studies of policy formulation have been strongly dominated by the effort to improve practices within governments by introducing the techniques and tools of rational decision making. In all political systems people gather facts, interpret them and debate issues. This stage is when the Minister establishes centralized command through CQCT to formulate the policy to tackle the issue of public smoking. In addition, the continuous dialogue and consultation involved in an agreement of the bill with NGOs, municipalities, health institution, local and regional organizations as well as oppositions falls into this stage. Crucially, the bill was also amended to streamline the phasing out of tobacco industry sponsorship but offered no alternative solution to youth smoking and did not contest the actual harms on health of tobacco use (Breton, et al., 2008: 1 686). Brewer DeLeon (1983) usefully define decision making as the choice among policy alternatives that have been generated and their likely effects on the problem estimatedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is the most overtly political stage in so far as the many potential solutions are winnowed down and but one or a select few picked and readied for use. (Howlett Ramesh, 2003:162). The models on decision making are classified as rationalism which asserts utility maximization to complex policy problems in which policy relevant information was gathered and then focused in a scientific fashion on the assessment of policy options (Howlett Ramesh, 2003:166); and incrementalism which describes policy making as a political activity of maintaining the status quo through gradual and continuation of past policies. 1.1.5. Implementation. Dye (2002) defined implementation as the implementation of policies through organized bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies (Dye, 2002: 15). Intra- and inter- organizational coordinating problem and interaction of field of agencies with the target group ranked as the most prominent variables accounting for implementation failures (MacRae Wilde, 1985; Howlett Ramesh, 2003). Another explanation focuses on the policy itself, acknowledging that unsuccessful policy implementation can be, though by no means the only, result of bad implementation, but also bad policy design, based on wrong assumptions about the cause-effect relationship (Hogwood Gunn, 1984; Fisher et al., 2007: 52). The study of implementation is dominated by the concept of top-down centralized implementation and bottom-up implementation. The top-down school or the vertical dimension represented, for instance, by scholars like Van Meter Van Horn (1975), Hood (1976), Gunn (1978), Nakamura Smallwood (1980) and Mazmanian Sabatier (1983), conceive of implementation as the hierarchical execution of centrally defined policy intentions (Fisher et al., 2007:89). Proponents of the bottom-up or horizontal approach include Lipsky (1971, 1980), Ingram (1977), Elmore (1980), and Hjern Hull (1983) who have emphasized the fact that implementation consists of everyday problem strategies of street-level bureaucrats (Pressman Wildavsky, 1973; Colebatch, 2002; Fisher et al., 2007). In this case, the policy implementation correlates closely with the top-down approach because the implementation is based on the commitments and directives from the top echelon of the government i.e. Minister of Health and Ministry of Health. 1.1.5. Evaluation. Finally, evaluation is the post hoc analysis of policies and programmes carried out by government agencies themselves, outside consultants, the press, and the public (Dye, 2002:15) through collecting, testing, and interpreting information about the implementation and effectiveness of existing policies and public programmes (Majone, 1989: 167). The plausible normative rationale is that policy making should be appraised against intended objectives and impacts form the starting point of policy evaluation, which forms the basis for justifying government actions for continuation or termination of public programmes and enables accountability of government offices especially in democratic setting (Majone, 1989). However, from the case study, it is unclear whether any form of evaluation was carried out or not. 2. Advantages. Despite depicting the developments of the Tobacco Act in a series of stages, as mentioned by Hogwood Gunn (1984) in the dividing lines between the various activities are artificial and policy makers are unlikely to perform them consciously or in the implied logical order (Hogwood Gunn, 58), Lasswell, as Hudson Lowe (2004) note, did not conceptualized these stages as real, in the sense that they encompass clear beginnings and ends. Rather, their function being merely analytic-to help us explore different dimensions of the policy process. He [Lasswell] is more concerned with the value systems, institutions and wider social processes that shaped policy in the real world (Hudson Lowe, 2004: 5). Therefore the process model does provide valuable descriptive analysis of the policy process. As explained above, the process model helps to disaggregate an otherwise seamless web of public policy transactions, as each segment and transition are distinguished by differentiated actions and purposes. Furthermore, the cumulative analyses of the various stages, arguably, contribute to the disentangling of the intricate political and social interdependencies, manifested in the policy arena, to bring about an ordered and manageable system  [6]  (DeLeon, 1983). Furthermore, this process framework has significant strategic implications. Firstly, by analyzing the policy actors and processes in discrete stages, it assists in identifying how stakeholders may support or resist health policies (ODI, 2007); and therefore develop strategies in building winning coalitions as mentioned by Easton (1979) which states how the process model lend themselves to the identification and study of interactions, not only among the various stages in the process but also among various participating organizations and between organizations and the lager social and economic environment (cited in Hogwood Gunn, 1989: 25). Although this might be more applicable to the ACF, such advantage also applies to the process model especially during the agenda setting phase. As described above, in the agenda setting phase, the process model highlighted and identified various policy stakeholders and analyzed the relationship of policy advocacies which resisted (Tobacco Manufacture rs and Tobacco Workers Union) against those whom supported the bill (Minister of Health and Non Smokers Association); thereby enabling the assessment of the cumulative effects of various actors  [7]  , forces, and institutions that interacts in the policy process and therefore shape its outcome(s) (Jann Wegrich [2007] cited in Fisher, Miller, Sidney, 2007: 44). Secondly, it also helps in identifying and addressing various obstacles that undermine successful implementation of policies (ODI, 2007). The process model follows the assumption of how public policy making is a goal oriented process aimed to reach a goal or realize an objective or a purpose (Anderson, 1984 cited in Colebatch, 2002:85), henceforth policy makers are able to identify constraints, which in this case, a negotiation with oppositions and gathering public support for the bill ensured the successful adoption of the bill. Finally as pointed out by Hogwood Gunn (1984), the process framework is rather flexible in the sense that it enables us to systematize existing knowledge without precluding the integrating of future insights (about stages, influences, interactions, etc) to the framework (Hogwood Gunn, 1984: 25). In other words, it improves the prospects of technical evidence considered during policy formulation leading to evidence based policy making. The most common method in the British government in gathering technical information for systematic analysis of policies is through trial and error achieved by carrying out a pilot test before actual implementation of policies. 3. Criticisms: A better understanding in policy making. On the contrary, Parkinson (2008) in his lecture, quite rightly so, argue that the process model resembles a mechanistic tool that describes checklists of parts present in the policy making arena; parallel to Nakamuras (1987) notion of a textbook approach (Sabatier, 1999). Henceforth, the top down legalistic framework is an artificial portrayal of the policy process (Dunn, 1981; Sabatier, 1999) as stated by Lindblom (1993) that deliberate, orderly steps are therefore not an accurate portrayal of how the policy process actually works. Policy making is, instead, a complexly inter-active process without beginning or end (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993: 11). In other words, these processes do not evolve in a pattern of clear cut sequences; instead the stages are constantly meshed and entangled in an ongoing process which is more accurately resembles a primeval soup (Kingdon, 1995; Howlett Ramesh; 1995). Therefore, the process model leads to the imposition of hypothetical explanation of future events which may be inappropriate or misleading with actions occurring fitfully as problems become matched with policy ideas considered to be in the political interests of a working majority of the partisans with influence over the policy domain (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993 : 10). 3.1. Rationalization of processes. Hogwood Gunn (1984) question the coherence and rationality of the process model as a blueprint for action by giving rational explanation or justification of past acts, even when the acts in question do not lend themselves to such treatment (Hogwood Gunn, 1984: 26). Furthermore, Lindblom (1993) also argue that the stages are not hierarchical which proceeds from agenda setting and concluding with evaluation; rather they often overlap loop with each other as analysis proceeds. This is further elaborated below. Firstly, Lindblom (1993) argue that there may not even be a stage when problem definition occurs, since participants often vary widely in their ideas about the problem (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993:10). He explains that this is because policy sometimes is formed from a compromise among political participants, moreover, none of whom had in mind quite the problem to which the agreed policy responds (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993:10). Secondly, Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) also point out the inaccuracy to suggest that the decision-making phase exist. As suggested by Heclo (1972) a policy can consist of what is not being done (Hogwood Gunn, 1984: 21) and, thus, equally important, are the decisions to keep issues, that would be inconvenient, firmly off the agenda for political success in winning the disputes that arise. In other words, policy may emerge without any explicit decision, by failure to act as or the power of nondecision making (Bachrach Baratz, 1962; Heclo, 1972). Bachrach Baratz (1962) which exhibits the existence of institutional bias so that key groups are excluded in what is termed as the three dimensional view of power, in which power is used to exercise to control over the agenda of politics and of the ways in which potential issues are kept out of the political process (Lukes, 2005: 25). Furthermore, stating decisions are taken exclusively in the decision-making phase is rather inaccurate, becaus e in reality, decisions are constantly being made regardless of the stages you are in. For example, during the policy formulation, policy makers makes decisions on which alternatives to adopt for consideration and hence to implement; and during the implementation stages, policy makers make decisions on the choices of policy instruments to be utilized (Hill, 1993; Howlett Ramesh, 2003). Thirdly, Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) also argued that implementation and evaluation cannot be separated from the other steps. As mentioned by Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) an attempt to implement one policy almost always brings new problems onto the agenda, meaning the implementation and the step called agenda building collapse into each other (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993: 10). An example from the case study is that during the implementation of the Quebec Tobacco Act, to include taxation on tobacco and a ban on tobacco sponsored arts and sports event, subsequently led to the discovery that such measure might impinge the competitiveness of tobacco industries and affect the economy of the province. Finally, policy evaluation often regarded as the end of the line, does not actually constitute a step in policy making unless it throws light on possible next moves in policy, in which case evaluation becomes intertwined with all other attempts to appraise and formulate options for reshaping government activity (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993: 10). Moreover, I think that the evaluation phase overlaps with the agenda setting phase and the policy formulation phase. During the agenda setting and policy formulation phase, policies are also evaluated needed to persuade and influence people in adopting and supporting the bill. 3.2. Multiplicity of interactions. On the other hand, Sabatier (1999) note the framework oriented scholars towards looking at just one stage at a time, thus neglecting the entirety of the process by stating that they portrayed a disjointed, episodic process rather than a more ongoing, continuous one (Sabatier, 1999: 23). In addition, Sabatier Jenkins Smith (1999) set out 5 major deficiency of the heuristic approach; it provides little description of how policy moves from one stage to another; it cannot be tested empirically; it is essentially a top down which fails to take account of street-level and other actors; and it disregards multiple levels of governmental interactions. Finally, it does not provide an integrated view on the gathering of policy related information, apart from the evaluation phase (Parsons, 1995; Sabatier, 1999) as pointed out by (Majone, 1989) the effectiveness in solving social problems centres in bringing more information and systematic analysis into the policy making process. From the case study, it is clear that the process model is limited in its capacity to provide institutional analysis of government interactions because it is primarily conceived to provide systematic analysis of the overall policy making process, unlike institutionalism perspective which focuses on the role and relationship of government institutions which regards public policy as an institutional output of the mechanisms of the government where it is authoritatively determined, implemented and enforced by these institutions (Dye, 2002:12). Furthermore, the process model adheres to the view that policy making is a hierarchical top down process which initiates from agenda setting and finally ends with evaluation stage and therefore only takes account of authorized decision makers. Finally it is also rather limited in empirical research on each stage and only makes an attempt to describe systematic gathering of information in the evaluation phase only. However, on the other hand, I wou ld have to disagree with Sabatier (1999) in that the process model does not provide clear distinction between the stages and the progression from one phase to another. I think the primary distinction of the stagist model lies in the context of policy environment and policy stakeholders involved  [8]  . Henceforth taking the definitions which I presented above of each stage and the ones offered by Dye (2002: 14-15), the demarcations between the stages are summarized in the table below: Phase Policy Stakeholder (i.e. who are involved) Policy Environment (i.e. where does it take place) 1. Problem identification Individuals, public and private organizations, interest groups, think tanks, mass media and policy communities. Public debates, consultation with public, and sometimes top level government officials identify it themselves. 2. Agenda setting Public officials acting as gatekeepers as well as involvement of policy entrepreneurs. Mostly done by the Executive branch of the government and in government offices. 3. Policy formulation Primarily done by government officials in Executive agencies, but may also involve interest groups, congressional committees, and think tanks. Again done in Executive government offices but may also involve the Legislative branch of the government i.e. Parliament or Senate. 4. Implementation Primarily street-level bureaucrats and occasionally involving public participation. Carried out in formal government institutions. 5. Evaluation Done by government agencies but may also involve the public through medias, consultants and think tank organizations. Also very important is the use of citizen juries to evaluate public programmes. Evaluation is carried out in government offices, but also may be carried out in NGO organizations (such as EU, UN etc) and non-governmental institutions. In addition, Breton et al., (2008) successfully utilize the ACF to explain how the interactions of multiple policy advocacies have impacted policy change, which is another major deficiency of the stagist heuristic model. As mentioned by Majone (1989), both continuity and change are inherent in the conception of policy (Majone, 1989: 35) and therefore should be accounted for in the models in its capacity to comprehensively capture the policy making process. For example, the ACF manage to show how the changes in the external events directly impact the core beliefs of tobacco subsystems and hence resulted in the adoption of Tobacco Act (Refer to Fig.2 in Breton et al., 2002: 1683). However unlike the ACF, process model does not provide description on how policies are impacted by change. Moreover the process model assumes that every policies starts from scratch i.e. always starts by identification of problems. Conversely, policies may be enacted not from new problems or opportunities that emerge, rather continuation of past policies in which case, the problem identification phase may be invalid. 4. Conclusion In conclusion, the process model provides valuable insights in directing analysts attention to critical features in the policymaking process, and on elucidating the policy process paradigm. Furthermore, although the ACF model is conceived to account for the entire policy process, it is limited in its capacity to explain only the policy formation (i.e. agenda setting and decision making). In other words, both models differ in their level of analysis, which I hope have been successfully demonstrated above. On the other hand, the idea of breaking down the making of public policy into phases, may well impose stages on reality that is infinitely more complex, fluid and interactive; but to adopt a cyclical metaphor, it is not necessarily an unreasonable or unrealistic way of looking at what happens when public policy is made. Nonetheless, the process model does still provide some useful insights in public policy making. In my opinion, the most important thing is not to look at one best model to explain a particular policy rather a combination of models is needed as pointed out by Dye (2002: 12): These models are not competitive in the sense that any one of them could be judged best. Each one provides a separate focus on political life, and each can help us to understand different things about public policy. Although some policies appear at first glance to lend themselves to explanation by one particular model, most policies are a combination of rational planning, incrementalism, interest group activity, elite preferences, game playing, public choice, political processes, and institutional influences.

Apush Notes Chapter 8

A. P. U. S. History Notes Chapter 8: â€Å"America Secedes from the Empire† ~ 1775 – 1783 ~ I. Congress Drafts George Washington 1. After the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord in April of 1775, about 20,000 Minutemen swarmed around Boston, where they outnumbered the British. 2. The Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, with no real intention of independence, merely a desire to continue fighting in the hope that the king and Parliament would consent to a redress of grievances. a. It sent another list of grievances to Parliament. . It also adopted measures to raise money for an army and a navy. c. It also selected George Washington to command the army. 1) George had never risen above the rank of colonel, and his largest command had only been of 1200 men, but he was a tall figure who looked like a leader, and thus, was a moral boost to troops. 2) He radiated patience, courage, self-discipline, and a sense of justice, and though he insisted on wo rking without pay, he did keep a careful expense account amounting to more than $100,00. II. Bunker Hill and Hessian Hirelings 1. In the first year, the war was one of consistency, as the colonists maintained their loyalty while still shooting at the king’s men. 2. In May 1775, a tiny American force led by Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold, surprised and captured the British garrisons at Ticonderoga and Crown Point. 3. In June 1775, the colonials seized Bunker Hill (before known as Breed’s Hill). a. Instead of flanking them, the Redcoats launched a frontal attack, and the heavily entrenched colonial sharpshooters mowed them down until meager gunpowder supplies ran out and they were forced to retreat. 4. After Bunker Hill, George III slammed the door for all hope of reconciliation and declared the colonies to be in open rebellion, a treasonous affair. 5. The King also hired many German mercenaries, called Hessians, who, because they were lured by booty and not duty, had large numbers desert and remained in America to become respectful citizens. III. The Abortive Conquest of Canada 1. In October 1775, the British burned Falmouth (Portland), Maine. 2. The colonists decided that invading Canada would add a 14th colony and deprive Britain of a valuable base for striking at the colonies in revolt. a. Also, the French-Canadians would support the Americans because they supposedly were bitter about Britain’s taking over of their land. b. General Richard Montgomery captured Montreal. c. At Quebec, he was joined by the bedraggled army of General Benedict Arnold. d. On the last day of 1775, in the assault of Quebec, Montgomery was killed and Arnold was wounded in one leg, and the whole campaign collapsed as the men retreated up the St. Lawrence River, reversing the way Montgomery had come. e. Besides, the French-Canadians, who had welcomed the Quebec Act, didn’t really like the anti-Catholic invaders. 3. In January 1776, the British set fire to Norfolk, Virginia, but in March, they were finally forced to evacuate Boston. 4. In the South, the rebels won a victory against some 1500 Loyalists at Moore’s Creek Bridge, in South Carolina, and against an invading British fleet at Charleston Harbor. IV. Thomas Paine Preaches Common Sense 1. In 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, which urged colonials to stop this war of inconsistency, stop pretending loyalty, and just fight. 2. Nowhere in the universe did a smaller body control a larger one, so Paine argued, saying why tiny Britain had to control gigantic America. . He called King George III â€Å"the Royal Brute of Great Britain. † V. Paine and the Idea of â€Å"Republicanism† 1. Paine argued his idea that there should be a â€Å"republic† where senators, governors, and judges should have their power from the consent of the people. 2. He laced his ideas with Biblical imagery, familiar to common folk. 3. Hi s ideas about rejecting monarchy and empire and embrace an independent republic fell on receptive ears in America, though it should be noted that these ideas already existed. a. The New Englanders already practiced this type of government in their town meetings. . Some patriots, though, favored a republic ruled by a â€Å"natural aristocracy. † VI. Jefferson’s â€Å"Explanation† of Independence 1. Members of the Philadelphia Congress, instructed by their colonies, gradually moved toward a clean break with Britain. 2. On June 7, 1776, fiery Richard Henry urged for complete independence, an idea that was finally adopted on July 2, 1776. 3. To write such a statement, Congress appointed Thomas Jefferson, already renown as a great writer, to concoct a Declaration of Independence. a. He did so eloquently, coming up with a list of grievances against King George III and persuasively explaining why the colonies had the right to revolt. b. His â€Å"explanation† of independence also upheld the â€Å"natural rights† of humankind. 4. When Congress approved it on July 2nd, John Adams proclaimed that date to be celebrated from then on with fireworks, but because of editing and final approval, it was not completely approved until July 4th, 1776. VII. Patriots and Loyalists 1. The War of Independence was a war within a war, as not all colonials were united. . There were Patriots, who supported rebellion and were called â€Å"Whigs. † b. There were Loyalists, who supported the King, often went to battle against fellow Americans, and were called â€Å"Tories. † c. There were those who didn’t care, and these people were constantly being asked to join one side or another. 2. During the war, the British proved that they could only control Tory areas, because when Redcoats packed up and left other areas, the rebels would regain control. 3. The Patriot militias constantly harassed small British detachments. 4. Loyalists were generally conservatives, but the war divided families. a. Benjamin Franklin was against his illegitimate son, William, the last royal governor of New Jersey. 5. The Patriots were generally the younger generation, like Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry. 6. Loyalists were most numerous where the Anglican Church was strongest. 7. There were also those who sold to the highest bidder, selling the British and ignoring starving, freezing soldiers (i. e. George Washington at Valley Forge). 8. Loyalists were less numerous in New England, where Presbyterianism and Congregationalism flourished. VIII. The Loyalist Exodus 1. After the Declaration of Independence, Loyalists and Patriots were more sharply divided, and Patriots often confiscated Loyalist property and resell it (good way to raise money). 2. Some 50,000 Loyalists served the British in one way or another (fighting, spying, etc†¦), and it was an oddity that the Brits didn’t make more use of them during the war. IX. General Washington at Bay . After the evacuation of Boston, the British focused on New York as a HQ for operations. a. An awe-inspiring fleet appeared off the coast in July 1776, consisting of some 500 ships and 35,000 men—the largest armed force seen in America ever until the Civil War. b. Washington could only muster 18,000 ill-trained men to fight, and they were routed at the Battle of Long Island. c. Washington escaped to Manhattan Island, cross ed the Hudson River to New Jersey, reaching the Delaware River with taunting, fox-hunt calling British on his heels. d. Crossing the Delaware River at Trenton on a cold December 26, 1776, and surprised and captured a thousand Hessians who were sleeping off their Christmas Day celebration (drinking). e. He then left his campfires burning as a ruse, slipped away, and inflicted a sharp defeat on a smaller British detachment at Princeton, showing his military genius at its best. f. It was odd that General William Howe, the British general, didn’t crush Washington when he was at the Delaware, but he well remembered Bunker Hill, and was cautious. X. Burgoyne’s Blundering Invasion 1. London officials adopted a complicated scheme for capturing the vital Hudson River Valley in 1777 which, if successful, would severe New England from the rest of the colonies: a. General Burgoyne would push down the Lake Champlain route from Canada. b. General Howe’s troops in New York, if needed, could advance up the Hudson and meet Burgoyne in Albany. c. A third and much smaller British force commanded by Colonel Barry St. Ledger would come in from the west by way of Lake Ontario and the Mohawk Valley. 2. However, Benedict Arnold, after failure at Quebec, retreated slowly along the St. Lawrence back to Lake Champlain, where the British would have to win control (of the lake) before proceeding. a. The Brits stopped to build a huge force, while Arnold assembled a tattered flotilla from whatever boats he could find. b. His â€Å"navy† was destroyed, but he had gained valuable time, because winter set in and the British settled in Canada; they would have to begin anew the next spring. 1) Had Arnold not contributed his daring and skill, the Brits most likely would have recaptured Ticonderoga and Burgoyne could have started from there and succeeded in his venture. 3. Burgoyne began his mission with 7000 troops and a heavy baggage train consisting of a great number of the officers’ wives. a. Meanwhile, sneaky rebels, sensing the kill, were gathering along his flanks. 4. General Howe, at a time when he should be starting up the Hudson, deliberately embarked for an attack on Philadelphia. a. He wanted to force an encounter with Washington and leave the path wide open for Burgoyne’s thrust; he thought he had enough time to help Burgoyne if needed. b. Washington transferred his troops to Philly, but was defeated at Brandywine Creek and Germantown. . Then, the fun-loving Howe settled down in Philadelphia, leaving Burgoyne â€Å"to the dogs. † d. Ben Franklin, in Paris, joked that Howe hadn’t captured Philadelphia, but that â€Å"Philadelphia had captured Howe. † 5. Washington finally retired for the winter at Valley Forge, where his troops froze in the cold, but a recently arrived Prussian drill master, Baron von Steu ben, whipped the cold troops into shape. 6. Burgoyne’s doomed troops were bogged down, and the rebels swarmed in with a series of sharp engagements, pushing the St. Legers force back at Oriskany while Burgoyne, unable to advance or retreat, surrendered his entire force at Saratoga, on October 17, 1777. a. Perhaps one of the most decisive battles in British and American history. XI. Strange French Bedfellows 1. France was eager to get revenge on Britain, and secretly supplied the Americans throughout much of the war. 2. After the humiliation at Saratoga, the British offered the Americans a measure that gave them home rule—everything they wanted except independence. 3. After Saratoga, France finally was persuaded to enter the war against Britain. a. Louis XVI’s ministers argued that this was the perfect time to act, because if Britain regained control, she might then try to capture the French West Indies for compensation for the war. b. Now was the time the strike, rather than risk a stronger Britain with its reunited colonies. 4. France, in 1778, offered a treaty of alliance, offering America everything that Britain had offered, plus recognition of independence. a. The Americans accepted with caution, since France was pro-Catholic, but since they needed help, they’d take it. XII. The Colonial War Becomes a World War 1. In 1779, Spain and Holland entered the war against Britain. . In 1780, Catherine the Great of Russia took the lead in organizing the Armed Neutrality (she later called it the Armed Nullity) that lined up all of Europe’s neutrals in passive hostility against England. 3. America, though it kept the war going until 1778, didn’t win until France, Spain, and Holland joined in and Britain co uldn’t handle them all. 4. Britain, with the French now in the seas, decided to finally evacuate Philadelphia and concentrate their forces in New York, and even though Washington attacked them at Monmouth on a blisteringly hot day in which scores of men died of sunstroke, the British escaped to New York. XIII. Blow and Counterblow 1. French reinforcements, commanded by Comte de Rochambeau, arrived in Newport, Rhode Island in 1780, but flares sometimes erupted between the Americans and the French. 2. In 1780, feeling unappreciated and lured by British gold, General Benedict Arnold turned traitor by plotting with the British to sell out West Point. a. When the plot was discovered, he fled with the British. b. â€Å"Whom can we trust now? † cried George Washington in anguish. 3. The British devised a plan to roll up the colonies from the South. a. Georgia was ruthlessly overrun in 1778-1779. b. Charleston, South Carolina, fell in 1780. . In the Carolinas, Patriots bitterly fought their Loyalist neighbors. d. However, in 1781, American riflemen wiped out a British detachment at King’s Mountain, and then defeated a smaller force at Cowpens. e. At the Carolina campaign of 1781, Quaker-reared tactician General Nathanael Greene distinguished himself with his strategy of delay. 1) By slowly retreating and losing battles but winning campaigns, he helped clear the British out of most of Georgia and South Carolina. XIV. The Land Frontier and the Sea Frontier 1. 1777 was known as the â€Å"bloody year† on the frontier, as Indians went on a scalping spree. . Most of the Indians supported Britain and believed that if they won, it would stop American expansion into the West, and save Indian land. 3. Mohawk chief Joseph Brant, recently converted to Anglicanism, and his men ravaged the backcountry of Pennsylvania and New York until check by Americans in 1779. 4. In 1784, the pro-British Iroquois (the Oneidas and the Tuscaroras had sided with the Americans, the other four with the British) signed the Treaty of For Stanwix, the first treaty between the U. S. and an Indian nation. a. Under its terms, the Indians ceded most of their land. 5. Even in wartime, pioneers moved west, showing their gratitude to the French with such town names as Louisville while remembering the Revolution with Lexington, Kentucky. 6. George Rogers Clark, an audacious frontiersman, floated down the Ohio River with about 175 in 1778-1779 and captured forts Kaskaskia, Chohokia, and Vicennes in quick succession. 7. The tiny American navy never really hurt the British warships, but it did destroy British merchant shipping and carried the war into the waters around the British Isles. 8. Swift privateers preyed on enemy shipping, capturing many ships and forcing them to sail in convoys. XV. Yorktown and the Final Curtain. 1. Before the last decisive victory, inflation continued to soar, and the government was virtually bankrupt, and announced that it could only repay many of its debts at a rate of 2. 5 cents on the dollar. 2. However, Cornwallis was blundering into a trap. a. Retreating to Chesapeake Bay and assuming that British control of the seas would give him much needed backup, Cornwallis instead was trapped by Washington’s army, which had come 300 miles from New York, Rochambeau’s French army, and the navy of French Admiral de Grasse. . After hearing the news of Cornwallis’ defeat, Lord North cried, â€Å"Oh God! It’s all over! † 4. Stubborn King George wanted to continue the war, since he still had 54,000 troops in North America and 32,000 in the U. S. , and fighting did continue for about a year after Yorktown, especially in the South, but America had won. XVI. Peace at Paris 1. Many Brits were weary of the war, since they had suffered heavy reverse in India and the West Indies, the island of Minorca in the Mediterranean had fallen, and the Rock of Gibraltar was tottering. . Ben Franklin, John Adams, and John Jay met in Paris for a peace deal. a. Jay suspected that France would try to keep the U. S. cooped up east of the Alleghenies and keep America weak. b. Instead, Jay, thinking that France would betray American ambitious to satisfy those of Spain, secretly made separate overtures to London (against instructions from Congress) and came to terms quickly with the British, who were eager to entice one of their enemies from the alliance. 3. The Treaty of Paris of 1783, Britain formally recognized the USA and granted generous boundaries, stretching majestically to the Mississippi on the west, the Great Lakes on the north, and to Spanish Florida on the South. a. The Yankees also retained a share in the priceless fisheries of Newfoundland. b. Americans couldn’t persecute Loyalists, though, and Congress could only recommend legislatures that confiscated Loyalist land. XVII. A New Nation Legitimized 1. Britain had ceded so much land because it was trying to entice America from its French alliance. a. Remember, George Rogers Clark had only conquered a small part of the land. 2. Also, during the time, the American-friendly Whigs were in control of the Parliament, which was not to be the case in later years. 3. France approved the treaty, though with cautious eyes. 4. In truth, America came out the big winner, and seldom, if ever, have any people been so favored. XVIII. Makers of America: The Loyalists 1. Loyalists were conservative, well-educated, thought that a complete break with Britain would invite anarchy, and felt that America couldn’t win against the more powerful army in the world. . Many Britons had settled in America after the Seven Years’ War, and they had reason to support their home country. 3. Thousands of African-Americans joined the British ranks for hope of freedom from bondage. a. Many Black Loyalists won their freedom from Britain. b. Others suffered betrayal, such as when Cornwallis abandoned over 4000 former slaves in Virginia and when many Black Loyalists boarded ships expecting to embark for freedom and instead found themselves sold back into slavery. c. Some Black exiles settled in Britain, but weren’t really accepted easily. . Most Loyalists remained in America, where they faced special burdens and struggled to re-establish themselves in a society that viewed them as traitors. 5. Hugh Gaine, though, succeeded. a. He reopened his business and even won contracts fro the new government. b. He also published the new national army regulations authored by Baron von Steuben. c. When New York ratified the Constitution in 1788, Gaine rode the float at the head of the city’s celebration parade. d. He had, like many other former Loyalists, become an American.