Trial Reflections
Miles Standish Trial
September, 2014 Counts: Murder of the Native Americans Pesquat and Witueamette Responsible for the loss and destruction of the Wessagussett colony Harry Truman Trial
February, 2015 Count: Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan for political reasons, rather than military reasons |
Eugene Debs Trial
October, 2014 Counts: Violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act Illegal stoppage of the U.S. Mail Ignoring the regulations of a court injunction Ronald Reagan Trial
March, 2015 Counts: A failure in leadership which led to the Iran-Contra Affair The breaking of the Boland Amendment |
Woodrow Wilson Trial
November, 2014 Counts: Entering the United States into WWI under false pretenses Violating a campaign promise Modern Day Trial
April, 2015 Counts: The intentional production of greenhouse gases Putting profit over human lives |
Miles Standish Trial
Contents -
Page 1: Standish Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Standish Biography
The Mayflower was chartered to bring colonists to the new world. However unlike other other ships, the Mayflower carried passengers with unconventional motives, focused on more than starting a new life. “The ship was headed for Virginia, where the colonists - half religious dissenters and half entrepreneurs - had been authorized to settle by the british crown” (“Mayflower departs England”). This created a settlement heavily based on the religious values of the Puritans; a Protestant Separatist group who anticipated the establishment of their new church in the new world, and the economic values of the Virginia Company.
Upon reaching their destination in 1620, the colonists of the Mayflower found home in the land they called Plymouth colony, and eventually sparked the growth of a sub-colony known as Wessagusset. The primary purpose of the Wessagusset colony was for economical profit, compared to the religious reasons of the Plymouth settlers. However, the Wessagusset colony never lived up to the virtues of its predecessor, due to it’s short life span of less than one year. The neglect for future planning led to the quick demise of this sub-colony, erasing much of its tale from history.
History tells us that the Wessagussett colony never found prosperity because of political strife between the natives of the land, and the colonists. Tension grew through the immoral actions of both parties, and the colonists felt as though there was an imminent attack underway. Thusly, Plymouth leaders hired a military expert, Miles Standish, to defend the colonists from the Native Americans. The Wessagusset colony’s claim to fame, is site of the the massacre that took place between colonial troops led by Miles Standish, and Native American forces. Controversy is commonly found in this war, namely in Standish’s slaughter of innocent natives, and whether or not he was the true reason for the fall of the Wessagusset colony.
“Mayflower departs England.” The History Channel. 16 September 2014.
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mayflower-departs-england>
Trial Recount
The trial of Miles Standish took place on account of two charges: the murder of the Native Americans Pesquat and Witueamette, and the responsibility for the loss and destruction of the Wessagussett colony. At the start of the trial six randomized jury members were instituted. To find the optimal jury to benefit the cases of both the defense and prosecution, each attorney questioned the six members twice to ascertain their opinions, and eventually decided which juror they would each like to dismiss. Starting with the prosecuting attorney, he proposed a multitude of questions. First identifying what political party they identified themselves with, then proceeded with questions regarding their opinions on the Native Americans. These questions probed the jurors’ opinions on the treatment of the natives, and their personal views of Indians and equal rights. The defense attorney similarly asked questions regarding whether or not the jury members liked Indians, however he also posed the controversial question, “would you save an Indian over a white man?” Each answer made it very clear where the opinions of the jurors stood, making it easy for each attorney to excuse one member whom they believed posed the greatest threat to their case. As a witness of their selection, I noticed a case of bias between one jury member and the defense attorney. Unlike the questions posed to the other five jury members, the defense attorney posed an irrelevant question, and eventually chose to dismiss that specific member. Though both attorneys took part in another round of questions, it proved to be unneeded; for they both decided they were satisfied with the current jury, and proceeded to give their opening statements.
The opening statements of both the defense and prosecution stated their opinions on the two counts against Miles Standish, and introduced each of their witnesses. Starting off, the prosecution attorney highlighted the facts that Standish effectively tricked the Indians, and purposely took it upon himself to create a sense of fear towards the natives. In addition, he stated that Standish intentionally ignored any possible peaceful conclusions, and quickly resorted to violence. The three prosecution witnesses were revealed as John Robinson, Thomas Weston, and the directly effected Indian, Witueamette. On the other hand, the defense attorney claimed that Miles Standish was not guilty of either of these charges. His opening statement proclaimed that Standish did indeed try to make peace with the Indians, and the killing of Pesquat and Witueamette was only out of self-defense. Lastly, he introduced his three defense witnesses: William Bradford, Miles Standish, and the native, Squanto. Each of these witnesses went on to further exemplify the points made by each opening statement.
After watching the cross examination of all six witnesses, I believe both the defense and prosecution had at least one historical figure who immensely aided their case. The prosecutions third witness, Witueamette from the Massachussetts tribe, proved to be the most helpful; for he had experienced the interactions with Standish first-handedly, and his information was regarded as the most plausible. He stated that as the head warrior, it was his duty to keep his tribe safe, meaning that any attack upon the colonies wouldn’t be sensible. In addition, he provided his insight on the incident of the arrows gifted by his people. He claimed that the gift was a sign of peace towards the colonists, and their interpretation of a planned attack was far-fetched. Lastly Witueamette explained that his attendance to the dinner party event was in efforts of looking past their differences. There was no attempt of an attack from the Indians, and Standish’s actions were completely voluntary. On the other hand, the defenses best witness was William Bradford, the leader of the Plymouth colony and employer of Miles Standish. Bradford made it clear that he hired Standish for reasons of his well-known capability to solving problems. One many wonder however, why he hired a military leader such as Standish to create peace. In any case, he explained that he trusted the interpretation of the arrows as a sign of war, and put his faith in Standish to solve this hostility. He never explicitly said to use methods of violence, but he stood by the decisions of Standish and trusted his judgment. Because of his high power, this stance aided the defense immensely, and put them at an equal advantage for the jury’s deliberation.
Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
The start of the jury’s deliberation was through a displayed discussion of the pros and cons they found from both the defense, and the prosecution. Starting with the performance of the prosecution team, the jury reflected on the pros of their case. The prosecutors supplied strong witnesses, accurate evidence, non-biased information, and showed a proper preparation through their cross-examination skills, and ability to undermine others. In addition, the jury liked how they incorporated personal factors about Standish, for example how his temper came into play, and effected his decisions as a leader. Though they did a lot well, the jury felt that the use of John Robinson as a witness might not have provided the strength of argument they were looking for. Also, their line of questioning could have been more beneficial if they fully developed hard-hitting questions, rather than borderline statements. In the case of the defense, the jury liked their attention grabbing methods, and the humor found throughout their actions. The line of questioning with defense witnesses was very effective, and their witnesses did well under the cross-examination questions. They could have however worked on their own arguments more, and could have come prepared with convincing points. Lastly, they could use work on their overall collaboration, as small disagreements were seen during their performance.
After the jury discussed the performance of the trial teams, they posed questions to each other regarding the main points of the trial. Through the discussion of these questions, they could form decisive answers to effectively formulate verdict of the trial. The questions that were posed all reflected on the accounts of the interactions between Standish and the Massachusetts Indians. They ranged from “what was up with the Massachusetts tribe?” all the way to “Would the Wessagussetts colony have fallen anyways?” and probed details about all the events in between. Their answers can be summed up into one statement. The arrows sent from the Indians to the colonists were indeed an act of peace, and was wrongfully interpreted by Squanto. This interpretation can be seen as a true accident, or a plan to hatch trouble. If so, Squanto has the possibility of eliminating his enemy tribe and those who took over his land. In any case, The Indians looked to pass their differences, thus explaining their attendance to Standish’s dinner party. It’s questionable who attacked first in the hut, however the treatment of Witueamette’s head proves that Standish wasn’t looking for peace with the Indians. In addition, the fact that Standish and the Indians previously had a shaky relationship, his temper and and easy aggravation could have easily acted as a catalyst for an attack. Furthermore, the jury believed that Standish’s rash decision were a part of the stressful situation he was put into, which was trying to save the Wessagussetts colony from failure, and preventing an attack on the colony from the Indians. From this information, the jury found Miles Standing guilty of murder, however innocent of the loss of the Wessagussetts colony.
Personally, I agree with the verdict of the jury and I would have drawn the same conclusions. Based on the personality of Standish, and past events between him and the Indians, his attack upon them is completely plausible. It explains how he prevented the Indians from taking over the colony, and effectively sent a message to their tribes. In addition, there are so many factors that played a part in the demise of the Wessagussetts colony, that it’s impossible to blame them all on the acts of one person. “[Wessagusetts] was settled… by… colonists who were ill-prepared for colonial life. After settling without adequate provisions” (“Wessagusset Colony"). In all, the decisions of the jury were well thought out, and reflected the points of both the prosecutors and the defenders.
“Wessagusset Colony”
Wikipedia. 27 September 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessagusset_Colony>
The Trial’s Significance
Upon the arrival of the English, a relationship was formed between the new settlers and the natives of the land. Historically, this relationship is seen as hostile, for reasons of extreme cultural differences. The English and the Indians were complete strangers to each other, both possessing contrasting ideals, making collaboration difficult. The English lacked morality, and entered the new land with a sense of superiority, and a one world belief system. Thusly, they focused on the pursuit of land, religion, mercantilism, modernization, and a stronger and more plentiful economy. This didn’t coexist with the Indians, who felt rightful ownership over their land, and maintained a strong two-world belief system essentially putting them at a disadvantage. The difference in attitudes between the English and the Indians was based on the English’s ideals of how a societies exceptionalism is directly dependant on their state of modernization. Based on the low levels of modernization in the Natives culture, it’s easy to suspect that they felt intimidated, and fearful during the arrival of the colonists. This idea of exceptionalism can still be seen in society today, as America continues with it’s outlook on it’s existence as the superpower of the world, who is superior to all. Our economic, religious, technological, and moral values exceed those of all other countries, which can act as a point of issue when it comes to the cultural differences and coexistence of our world.
During the start of the colonies, survival was the main goal of the British colonists; however, their means of survival wasn’t always synonymous with moral options. Their desperation for a lifesource during their start, motivated the colonists to make rash and unfair decisions. An example of such a decision can be seen from the stealing of food from the Indians. “showed no inclination or ability to hunt, fish, or farm, instead relying on overseas shipments or food that they could bargain, or often outright steal, from the Indians.” (“The Starving Time”). Perhaps the English could have declared more principled methods of resolving their problems, however even to this day immoral decisions are often made out of instincts of survival.
The idea of American exceptionalism is seen through the English’s treatment of the Indians; and this outlook established a tradition of aggression from the British. Their personal view of the English as superior beings made it seemingly easier to kill those lower that them, without experiencing second thoughts. One example is the staking of Witueamette’s head, serving as a symbol of the power of the British, and the superiority they held over Indian tribes. This event established Plymouth as a strong, ruthless, dominant colony, though it may have been a facade. The essence of American exceptionalism has been observed since the beginning of the New World, however some may argue that it’s most apparent in modern times. Our involvement in the Middle East is largely based upon the fact that we can’t let attack upon the US go unpunished. Our nation is considered too exceptional to be harassed by others, making our only option warfare, and the decimation of these groups such as ISIS. American exceptionalism is seen as an ideal which calls to our nations involvement in unnecessary disputes, for reasons of believe that we’re the “policemen” of the world.
“The Starving Time”
Encyclopedia Virginia. 23 September 2014.
<http://encyclopediavirginia.org/starving_time_the#start_entry>
Back to Top
Page 1: Standish Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Standish Biography
The Mayflower was chartered to bring colonists to the new world. However unlike other other ships, the Mayflower carried passengers with unconventional motives, focused on more than starting a new life. “The ship was headed for Virginia, where the colonists - half religious dissenters and half entrepreneurs - had been authorized to settle by the british crown” (“Mayflower departs England”). This created a settlement heavily based on the religious values of the Puritans; a Protestant Separatist group who anticipated the establishment of their new church in the new world, and the economic values of the Virginia Company.
Upon reaching their destination in 1620, the colonists of the Mayflower found home in the land they called Plymouth colony, and eventually sparked the growth of a sub-colony known as Wessagusset. The primary purpose of the Wessagusset colony was for economical profit, compared to the religious reasons of the Plymouth settlers. However, the Wessagusset colony never lived up to the virtues of its predecessor, due to it’s short life span of less than one year. The neglect for future planning led to the quick demise of this sub-colony, erasing much of its tale from history.
History tells us that the Wessagussett colony never found prosperity because of political strife between the natives of the land, and the colonists. Tension grew through the immoral actions of both parties, and the colonists felt as though there was an imminent attack underway. Thusly, Plymouth leaders hired a military expert, Miles Standish, to defend the colonists from the Native Americans. The Wessagusset colony’s claim to fame, is site of the the massacre that took place between colonial troops led by Miles Standish, and Native American forces. Controversy is commonly found in this war, namely in Standish’s slaughter of innocent natives, and whether or not he was the true reason for the fall of the Wessagusset colony.
“Mayflower departs England.” The History Channel. 16 September 2014.
<http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mayflower-departs-england>
Trial Recount
The trial of Miles Standish took place on account of two charges: the murder of the Native Americans Pesquat and Witueamette, and the responsibility for the loss and destruction of the Wessagussett colony. At the start of the trial six randomized jury members were instituted. To find the optimal jury to benefit the cases of both the defense and prosecution, each attorney questioned the six members twice to ascertain their opinions, and eventually decided which juror they would each like to dismiss. Starting with the prosecuting attorney, he proposed a multitude of questions. First identifying what political party they identified themselves with, then proceeded with questions regarding their opinions on the Native Americans. These questions probed the jurors’ opinions on the treatment of the natives, and their personal views of Indians and equal rights. The defense attorney similarly asked questions regarding whether or not the jury members liked Indians, however he also posed the controversial question, “would you save an Indian over a white man?” Each answer made it very clear where the opinions of the jurors stood, making it easy for each attorney to excuse one member whom they believed posed the greatest threat to their case. As a witness of their selection, I noticed a case of bias between one jury member and the defense attorney. Unlike the questions posed to the other five jury members, the defense attorney posed an irrelevant question, and eventually chose to dismiss that specific member. Though both attorneys took part in another round of questions, it proved to be unneeded; for they both decided they were satisfied with the current jury, and proceeded to give their opening statements.
The opening statements of both the defense and prosecution stated their opinions on the two counts against Miles Standish, and introduced each of their witnesses. Starting off, the prosecution attorney highlighted the facts that Standish effectively tricked the Indians, and purposely took it upon himself to create a sense of fear towards the natives. In addition, he stated that Standish intentionally ignored any possible peaceful conclusions, and quickly resorted to violence. The three prosecution witnesses were revealed as John Robinson, Thomas Weston, and the directly effected Indian, Witueamette. On the other hand, the defense attorney claimed that Miles Standish was not guilty of either of these charges. His opening statement proclaimed that Standish did indeed try to make peace with the Indians, and the killing of Pesquat and Witueamette was only out of self-defense. Lastly, he introduced his three defense witnesses: William Bradford, Miles Standish, and the native, Squanto. Each of these witnesses went on to further exemplify the points made by each opening statement.
After watching the cross examination of all six witnesses, I believe both the defense and prosecution had at least one historical figure who immensely aided their case. The prosecutions third witness, Witueamette from the Massachussetts tribe, proved to be the most helpful; for he had experienced the interactions with Standish first-handedly, and his information was regarded as the most plausible. He stated that as the head warrior, it was his duty to keep his tribe safe, meaning that any attack upon the colonies wouldn’t be sensible. In addition, he provided his insight on the incident of the arrows gifted by his people. He claimed that the gift was a sign of peace towards the colonists, and their interpretation of a planned attack was far-fetched. Lastly Witueamette explained that his attendance to the dinner party event was in efforts of looking past their differences. There was no attempt of an attack from the Indians, and Standish’s actions were completely voluntary. On the other hand, the defenses best witness was William Bradford, the leader of the Plymouth colony and employer of Miles Standish. Bradford made it clear that he hired Standish for reasons of his well-known capability to solving problems. One many wonder however, why he hired a military leader such as Standish to create peace. In any case, he explained that he trusted the interpretation of the arrows as a sign of war, and put his faith in Standish to solve this hostility. He never explicitly said to use methods of violence, but he stood by the decisions of Standish and trusted his judgment. Because of his high power, this stance aided the defense immensely, and put them at an equal advantage for the jury’s deliberation.
Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
The start of the jury’s deliberation was through a displayed discussion of the pros and cons they found from both the defense, and the prosecution. Starting with the performance of the prosecution team, the jury reflected on the pros of their case. The prosecutors supplied strong witnesses, accurate evidence, non-biased information, and showed a proper preparation through their cross-examination skills, and ability to undermine others. In addition, the jury liked how they incorporated personal factors about Standish, for example how his temper came into play, and effected his decisions as a leader. Though they did a lot well, the jury felt that the use of John Robinson as a witness might not have provided the strength of argument they were looking for. Also, their line of questioning could have been more beneficial if they fully developed hard-hitting questions, rather than borderline statements. In the case of the defense, the jury liked their attention grabbing methods, and the humor found throughout their actions. The line of questioning with defense witnesses was very effective, and their witnesses did well under the cross-examination questions. They could have however worked on their own arguments more, and could have come prepared with convincing points. Lastly, they could use work on their overall collaboration, as small disagreements were seen during their performance.
After the jury discussed the performance of the trial teams, they posed questions to each other regarding the main points of the trial. Through the discussion of these questions, they could form decisive answers to effectively formulate verdict of the trial. The questions that were posed all reflected on the accounts of the interactions between Standish and the Massachusetts Indians. They ranged from “what was up with the Massachusetts tribe?” all the way to “Would the Wessagussetts colony have fallen anyways?” and probed details about all the events in between. Their answers can be summed up into one statement. The arrows sent from the Indians to the colonists were indeed an act of peace, and was wrongfully interpreted by Squanto. This interpretation can be seen as a true accident, or a plan to hatch trouble. If so, Squanto has the possibility of eliminating his enemy tribe and those who took over his land. In any case, The Indians looked to pass their differences, thus explaining their attendance to Standish’s dinner party. It’s questionable who attacked first in the hut, however the treatment of Witueamette’s head proves that Standish wasn’t looking for peace with the Indians. In addition, the fact that Standish and the Indians previously had a shaky relationship, his temper and and easy aggravation could have easily acted as a catalyst for an attack. Furthermore, the jury believed that Standish’s rash decision were a part of the stressful situation he was put into, which was trying to save the Wessagussetts colony from failure, and preventing an attack on the colony from the Indians. From this information, the jury found Miles Standing guilty of murder, however innocent of the loss of the Wessagussetts colony.
Personally, I agree with the verdict of the jury and I would have drawn the same conclusions. Based on the personality of Standish, and past events between him and the Indians, his attack upon them is completely plausible. It explains how he prevented the Indians from taking over the colony, and effectively sent a message to their tribes. In addition, there are so many factors that played a part in the demise of the Wessagussetts colony, that it’s impossible to blame them all on the acts of one person. “[Wessagusetts] was settled… by… colonists who were ill-prepared for colonial life. After settling without adequate provisions” (“Wessagusset Colony"). In all, the decisions of the jury were well thought out, and reflected the points of both the prosecutors and the defenders.
“Wessagusset Colony”
Wikipedia. 27 September 2014.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessagusset_Colony>
The Trial’s Significance
Upon the arrival of the English, a relationship was formed between the new settlers and the natives of the land. Historically, this relationship is seen as hostile, for reasons of extreme cultural differences. The English and the Indians were complete strangers to each other, both possessing contrasting ideals, making collaboration difficult. The English lacked morality, and entered the new land with a sense of superiority, and a one world belief system. Thusly, they focused on the pursuit of land, religion, mercantilism, modernization, and a stronger and more plentiful economy. This didn’t coexist with the Indians, who felt rightful ownership over their land, and maintained a strong two-world belief system essentially putting them at a disadvantage. The difference in attitudes between the English and the Indians was based on the English’s ideals of how a societies exceptionalism is directly dependant on their state of modernization. Based on the low levels of modernization in the Natives culture, it’s easy to suspect that they felt intimidated, and fearful during the arrival of the colonists. This idea of exceptionalism can still be seen in society today, as America continues with it’s outlook on it’s existence as the superpower of the world, who is superior to all. Our economic, religious, technological, and moral values exceed those of all other countries, which can act as a point of issue when it comes to the cultural differences and coexistence of our world.
During the start of the colonies, survival was the main goal of the British colonists; however, their means of survival wasn’t always synonymous with moral options. Their desperation for a lifesource during their start, motivated the colonists to make rash and unfair decisions. An example of such a decision can be seen from the stealing of food from the Indians. “showed no inclination or ability to hunt, fish, or farm, instead relying on overseas shipments or food that they could bargain, or often outright steal, from the Indians.” (“The Starving Time”). Perhaps the English could have declared more principled methods of resolving their problems, however even to this day immoral decisions are often made out of instincts of survival.
The idea of American exceptionalism is seen through the English’s treatment of the Indians; and this outlook established a tradition of aggression from the British. Their personal view of the English as superior beings made it seemingly easier to kill those lower that them, without experiencing second thoughts. One example is the staking of Witueamette’s head, serving as a symbol of the power of the British, and the superiority they held over Indian tribes. This event established Plymouth as a strong, ruthless, dominant colony, though it may have been a facade. The essence of American exceptionalism has been observed since the beginning of the New World, however some may argue that it’s most apparent in modern times. Our involvement in the Middle East is largely based upon the fact that we can’t let attack upon the US go unpunished. Our nation is considered too exceptional to be harassed by others, making our only option warfare, and the decimation of these groups such as ISIS. American exceptionalism is seen as an ideal which calls to our nations involvement in unnecessary disputes, for reasons of believe that we’re the “policemen” of the world.
“The Starving Time”
Encyclopedia Virginia. 23 September 2014.
<http://encyclopediavirginia.org/starving_time_the#start_entry>
Back to Top
Eugene Debs Trial
Contents -
Page 1: Debs Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Debs Biography
Eugene Debs’ rise to power led him to became an influential union leader, and creator of the American Railroad Union. Although he was raised to gain a proper education, Debs followed his own path, eventually leading him to his destined line of work. “Though his parents encouraged an intellectual spirit, Debs left high school...and among the...railway men, Debs found his calling...Debs raised his voice in defense of the common man.” (“People | Eugene Debs 1955 - 1926.”). Eugene Debs provided a voice for the American workforce, and obtained popularity as a political leader and social activist. His heavy involvement in democratic politics lead him to create the American Railway Union; for he sought to improve the working conditions he had experienced previously in his life, for those still experiencing it. This union was the first exemplar of efforts by a politician to protect the rights of workers, and take a public stance on the humane treatment of workers.
In the summer of 1894, Eugene Debs continued his career in the defense of the common man, and created The Pullman Strike. This strike opposed the Pullman Company, a Chicago based railroad corporation who had created a company town (“Pullman Town”), that held a large number of laborers and their families. As the leader of the American Railway Union (ARU), Debs lead a boycott when the wages of Pullman Company workers significantly dropped; thusly leaving families to live in extreme poverty. George Pullman refused to hear the negotiations of workers, leading the ARU to stop Pullman trains containing U.S. mail, in protest. In consequence of the obstruction of the mail, a court injunction was placed upon Eugene Debs. However his strikers were too caught up in the situation, causing them to neglect his guidance to cease. Thusly, federal forces became involved, shutting down strikers for the violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and public safety. The ARU was dissolved upon defeat, and Pullman Town was given to Chicago for reasons of it’s un-American ideology.
In consequence of the ARU strike, Eugene Debs was arrested on two different counts: federal conspiracy to interfere with U.S. mail, and his neglect to follow the court injunction set upon him. The prosecution eventually dropped the charges for Deb’s violation of the court injunction, leading Debs to a short sentence of six months in jail. While in jail, Debs familiarized himself with the work of Karl Marx. Following Debs’ discharge, he gave up his previous profession and became the dominant socialist figure in America. This would lead him to eventually run for presidency five times, however with no success.
People | Eugene Debs 1955 - 1926.”
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 19 October 2014.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/peopleevents/p_debs.html>
Trial Recount
During the trial of Eugene Debs, the prosecution team took a strong conservative stance, and focused on the facts of the situation. They claimed that Debs was clearly a striker against Pullman operations, who specifically ignored the court injunction placed upon him. Therefore Debs directly caused distress to the American economy, and intended to hurt the modernization of the country. On the other hand, the defense attorney took a liberal stance to the situation. She explained that Debs was an advocate of equality who boycotted for rights, had faith in workers, and was against unlawful acts. Equality, morals, and human rights caused Debs to go against Pullman, who was said to directly suppressed workers, and stopped the mail by acount of his own actions. Per usual, the attorneys were very purposeful when selecting the jury for the trial. The prosecuting team started by questioning each jurors opinions on technology, forward thinking, the Industrial Revolution, freedom, America’s hard work, and the right for one to make their own money. This allowed them to gauge which jury members had liberal ideals, and would put the defense’s case at a disadvantage. The defense team questioned jurors on on the mobility of a healthy body, the safety of food and jobs, minimum wage, equality, coercion between economic elites and politicians, consumerism and the laziness of the rich, and cheap labor/foreign outsourcing. Between this myriad of questions, both the defense and prosecution attorneys collectively dismissed over four jury members.
Both trial teams were given the chance to question and cross-examine each of the six provided witness. The major witness in the case of the prosecution was George Pullman himself, for he effectively communicated the entirety of the case. Pullman made it clear that his workers were provided the topmost living conditions, and were unclear of the companies economic positions. Pullman expressed that the wage cuts were a result of an extreme recession, and had he not cut wages the company would have crumbled, leaving every single worker jobless. Furthermore, Pullman believed there were no negotiations to be made at the time, and was threatened by the actions of the strikers. On the other hand, the most effective witness on the defense team was Molly McGee, a woman who hadn’t even experienced the strike first hand. Though she lacked the full understanding of the economic situation, Molly represented the people of Pullman Town well, and effectively communicated that that the wage cuts made it impossible for families to afford meals, and that George Pullman had a lack of sympathy for his mistreated workers.
As a result of these factual debates and opinions, one can understand that the defense found Debs innocent of all three charges, whereas the prosecution found him to be the opposite. In their closing statement, the defense elaborated upon the fact that Sherman Antitrust Act was created to stop business monopolies AND unions, essentially making Pullman just as guilty. Additionally, the defense imposed the fact that Debs was not directly at fault for the stoppage of the U.S. mail after the institution of the court injunction, making actions solely on behalf of his workers whom he has advised to stop. Therefore he never disregarded the rules or regulations of the injunction. The last count concerning Debs’ fault for stopping the U.S. mail was capitalized upon by the prosecution's closing statement. Before the court injunction, he was at the top of the ARU’s chain of command, making it clear that he was the one advocating for the continuation of the strike, and the sabotage of Pullman trains. Between his business associates, conspirators, and personal actions, the justifications for deeming him guilty of such acts was clearly presented.
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
The jury’s deliberation started with an overview of the aspects they liked and disliked from both the defense and the prosecution. The performance of the prosecution team was highly regarded; for they had a clear argument, displayed their facts clearly, and used their line of questioning towards the jury, and cross-examination of witnessess to their advantage. The jury enjoyed the personal touches that the prosecution put into their witness characters, and the realism of the case. However, the jury felt that the prosecution team could have improved upon their explanation of the Sherman Antitrust act, and made sure their guest witness was better prepared for the situation. In the case of the defense, a strong opening statement was prepared, strong witnesses provided, and a clear argument outlining the grey areas of the laws set upon Debs was displayed. The defense could have improved upon the consistency of their line of questioning, the volume and aggressiveness of both the witnesses and the lawyers’ voices, and their display of Debs personality. After reflecting on the performance of both trial groups, the jury proceeded to discuss questions they had regarding the counts against Eugene Debs. The jury was still confused on purpose and application of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the timeline regarding the stoppage of the mail, the purpose of Pullman’s actions when rearranging the cars, and whether or not Debs should indeed be guilty for these actions. Lastly, the jury questioned the relationship between Pullman and Olney, the legality of the court injunction, and the realistic effects of the chain of command Debs was involved in. Based on the information the jury had been given during the trial, they came to the verdict that Eugene Debs was guilty for stopping the U.S. Mail. The verdict regarding his violations to both the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the his Court Injunction were split decisions, for the chain of command in his strike efforts were unclear, and the fact that he had moral intentions.
I believe that the jury’s verdict regarding Eugene Deb’s guilty actions of stopping the U.S. mail was both justified, and correct. Though the timeline of the situation is unclear and it’s unknown when exactly the federal troops got involved, it’s known that the main reason for the institution of the court injunction was the fact that the mail was simply not going through. This meant that there must have been a blockage of the mail system, essentially harming the United States commerce system and economy. “The membership … refused to handle Pullman cars or any other railroad cars attached to them, including cars containing U.S. Mail.” (“Eugene V. Debs”.) Furthermore, it’s clear that Eugene Debs’ actions directly obstructed the U.S. Mail through purposeful intentions until the placement of the court injunction, ultimately justifying the jury’s decision.
“Eugene V. Debs.” Wikipedia. 21 October 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs>
Trial Significance
The Industrial Revolution caused many changes in the American economy system, through the transition to factory jobs and the mass production of products. Factories outdated the previous methods of hand making products, and the creation of machines presented a modernization and increase in the output of everyday goods. However, these jobs involved heavy machinery and labor intensive work which proved to be very dangerous but also immensely populated, therefore producing very little pay for each worker. As a result, unions formed to support and defend the rights and wages of the average worker. Commonly during economic downturns, many factories had to limit the wages allocated per worker, ultimately causing worker unions to protest, and speak out against the impersonal actions of large companies. Similar practices are still seen today, however unions most commonly involve public-sector employees (ie. government workers) rather than those of private businesses. In the United States, Wisconsin became the first state to allow public-sector unions; therefore giving government and public-sector employees the right to form unions, and represent themselves. More recently, the decision regarding the eradication of such unions arose in Ohio. Though the bill was vetoed by a large majority, many Republican voters voiced that the unionized public-sector employees were being overpaid. Union workers spent over 30 million dollars on successful efforts of rejecting the bill, however elements such as higher minimum contributions from workers, are likely to be revisited.
Historically, rich business owners made the formation of unions and strikes as difficult as possible for the poor. Sometimes this involved hiring strike breakers, or private detectives to “resolve” issues, whether this be though peaceful or non-peaceful methods. Typically the rich hold capitalistic views when it comes to the free market of economies, meaning that they previously held the same chances as the poor when it came to succeeding or failing; ergo their high regard from the poor is justified by their hard work and individual initiative. This belief can be further inferred by Social Darwinism, the Gospel of the Wealth, and the Puritan Beliefs for which America was created upon.
In accordance with history, the interest of the poor and rich are still under conflict, especially with the current state of the American economy. The case of social security begs for conflict, for it’s a Democratic reform that promotes the redistribution of wealth from the rich, to the poor. Clearly this is against the interests of the rich, for their money is being stripped from their accounts and given to those they don’t even know. This conflict relates to the Occupy Wallstreet movement; for it’s known that 1% of the nations population controls majority of the nations wealth, and the remaining 99% feel as though the rich should contribute more through their annual taxes. This movement contributed to the presidential debate of 2008; for President Obama spoke for for higher taxes towards the rich, whereas Romney advocated for equal taxation between economic levels.
Back to Top
Contents -
Page 1: Debs Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Debs Biography
Eugene Debs’ rise to power led him to became an influential union leader, and creator of the American Railroad Union. Although he was raised to gain a proper education, Debs followed his own path, eventually leading him to his destined line of work. “Though his parents encouraged an intellectual spirit, Debs left high school...and among the...railway men, Debs found his calling...Debs raised his voice in defense of the common man.” (“People | Eugene Debs 1955 - 1926.”). Eugene Debs provided a voice for the American workforce, and obtained popularity as a political leader and social activist. His heavy involvement in democratic politics lead him to create the American Railway Union; for he sought to improve the working conditions he had experienced previously in his life, for those still experiencing it. This union was the first exemplar of efforts by a politician to protect the rights of workers, and take a public stance on the humane treatment of workers.
In the summer of 1894, Eugene Debs continued his career in the defense of the common man, and created The Pullman Strike. This strike opposed the Pullman Company, a Chicago based railroad corporation who had created a company town (“Pullman Town”), that held a large number of laborers and their families. As the leader of the American Railway Union (ARU), Debs lead a boycott when the wages of Pullman Company workers significantly dropped; thusly leaving families to live in extreme poverty. George Pullman refused to hear the negotiations of workers, leading the ARU to stop Pullman trains containing U.S. mail, in protest. In consequence of the obstruction of the mail, a court injunction was placed upon Eugene Debs. However his strikers were too caught up in the situation, causing them to neglect his guidance to cease. Thusly, federal forces became involved, shutting down strikers for the violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and public safety. The ARU was dissolved upon defeat, and Pullman Town was given to Chicago for reasons of it’s un-American ideology.
In consequence of the ARU strike, Eugene Debs was arrested on two different counts: federal conspiracy to interfere with U.S. mail, and his neglect to follow the court injunction set upon him. The prosecution eventually dropped the charges for Deb’s violation of the court injunction, leading Debs to a short sentence of six months in jail. While in jail, Debs familiarized himself with the work of Karl Marx. Following Debs’ discharge, he gave up his previous profession and became the dominant socialist figure in America. This would lead him to eventually run for presidency five times, however with no success.
People | Eugene Debs 1955 - 1926.”
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). 19 October 2014.
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/peopleevents/p_debs.html>
Trial Recount
During the trial of Eugene Debs, the prosecution team took a strong conservative stance, and focused on the facts of the situation. They claimed that Debs was clearly a striker against Pullman operations, who specifically ignored the court injunction placed upon him. Therefore Debs directly caused distress to the American economy, and intended to hurt the modernization of the country. On the other hand, the defense attorney took a liberal stance to the situation. She explained that Debs was an advocate of equality who boycotted for rights, had faith in workers, and was against unlawful acts. Equality, morals, and human rights caused Debs to go against Pullman, who was said to directly suppressed workers, and stopped the mail by acount of his own actions. Per usual, the attorneys were very purposeful when selecting the jury for the trial. The prosecuting team started by questioning each jurors opinions on technology, forward thinking, the Industrial Revolution, freedom, America’s hard work, and the right for one to make their own money. This allowed them to gauge which jury members had liberal ideals, and would put the defense’s case at a disadvantage. The defense team questioned jurors on on the mobility of a healthy body, the safety of food and jobs, minimum wage, equality, coercion between economic elites and politicians, consumerism and the laziness of the rich, and cheap labor/foreign outsourcing. Between this myriad of questions, both the defense and prosecution attorneys collectively dismissed over four jury members.
Both trial teams were given the chance to question and cross-examine each of the six provided witness. The major witness in the case of the prosecution was George Pullman himself, for he effectively communicated the entirety of the case. Pullman made it clear that his workers were provided the topmost living conditions, and were unclear of the companies economic positions. Pullman expressed that the wage cuts were a result of an extreme recession, and had he not cut wages the company would have crumbled, leaving every single worker jobless. Furthermore, Pullman believed there were no negotiations to be made at the time, and was threatened by the actions of the strikers. On the other hand, the most effective witness on the defense team was Molly McGee, a woman who hadn’t even experienced the strike first hand. Though she lacked the full understanding of the economic situation, Molly represented the people of Pullman Town well, and effectively communicated that that the wage cuts made it impossible for families to afford meals, and that George Pullman had a lack of sympathy for his mistreated workers.
As a result of these factual debates and opinions, one can understand that the defense found Debs innocent of all three charges, whereas the prosecution found him to be the opposite. In their closing statement, the defense elaborated upon the fact that Sherman Antitrust Act was created to stop business monopolies AND unions, essentially making Pullman just as guilty. Additionally, the defense imposed the fact that Debs was not directly at fault for the stoppage of the U.S. mail after the institution of the court injunction, making actions solely on behalf of his workers whom he has advised to stop. Therefore he never disregarded the rules or regulations of the injunction. The last count concerning Debs’ fault for stopping the U.S. mail was capitalized upon by the prosecution's closing statement. Before the court injunction, he was at the top of the ARU’s chain of command, making it clear that he was the one advocating for the continuation of the strike, and the sabotage of Pullman trains. Between his business associates, conspirators, and personal actions, the justifications for deeming him guilty of such acts was clearly presented.
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
The jury’s deliberation started with an overview of the aspects they liked and disliked from both the defense and the prosecution. The performance of the prosecution team was highly regarded; for they had a clear argument, displayed their facts clearly, and used their line of questioning towards the jury, and cross-examination of witnessess to their advantage. The jury enjoyed the personal touches that the prosecution put into their witness characters, and the realism of the case. However, the jury felt that the prosecution team could have improved upon their explanation of the Sherman Antitrust act, and made sure their guest witness was better prepared for the situation. In the case of the defense, a strong opening statement was prepared, strong witnesses provided, and a clear argument outlining the grey areas of the laws set upon Debs was displayed. The defense could have improved upon the consistency of their line of questioning, the volume and aggressiveness of both the witnesses and the lawyers’ voices, and their display of Debs personality. After reflecting on the performance of both trial groups, the jury proceeded to discuss questions they had regarding the counts against Eugene Debs. The jury was still confused on purpose and application of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the timeline regarding the stoppage of the mail, the purpose of Pullman’s actions when rearranging the cars, and whether or not Debs should indeed be guilty for these actions. Lastly, the jury questioned the relationship between Pullman and Olney, the legality of the court injunction, and the realistic effects of the chain of command Debs was involved in. Based on the information the jury had been given during the trial, they came to the verdict that Eugene Debs was guilty for stopping the U.S. Mail. The verdict regarding his violations to both the Sherman Antitrust Act, and the his Court Injunction were split decisions, for the chain of command in his strike efforts were unclear, and the fact that he had moral intentions.
I believe that the jury’s verdict regarding Eugene Deb’s guilty actions of stopping the U.S. mail was both justified, and correct. Though the timeline of the situation is unclear and it’s unknown when exactly the federal troops got involved, it’s known that the main reason for the institution of the court injunction was the fact that the mail was simply not going through. This meant that there must have been a blockage of the mail system, essentially harming the United States commerce system and economy. “The membership … refused to handle Pullman cars or any other railroad cars attached to them, including cars containing U.S. Mail.” (“Eugene V. Debs”.) Furthermore, it’s clear that Eugene Debs’ actions directly obstructed the U.S. Mail through purposeful intentions until the placement of the court injunction, ultimately justifying the jury’s decision.
“Eugene V. Debs.” Wikipedia. 21 October 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs>
Trial Significance
The Industrial Revolution caused many changes in the American economy system, through the transition to factory jobs and the mass production of products. Factories outdated the previous methods of hand making products, and the creation of machines presented a modernization and increase in the output of everyday goods. However, these jobs involved heavy machinery and labor intensive work which proved to be very dangerous but also immensely populated, therefore producing very little pay for each worker. As a result, unions formed to support and defend the rights and wages of the average worker. Commonly during economic downturns, many factories had to limit the wages allocated per worker, ultimately causing worker unions to protest, and speak out against the impersonal actions of large companies. Similar practices are still seen today, however unions most commonly involve public-sector employees (ie. government workers) rather than those of private businesses. In the United States, Wisconsin became the first state to allow public-sector unions; therefore giving government and public-sector employees the right to form unions, and represent themselves. More recently, the decision regarding the eradication of such unions arose in Ohio. Though the bill was vetoed by a large majority, many Republican voters voiced that the unionized public-sector employees were being overpaid. Union workers spent over 30 million dollars on successful efforts of rejecting the bill, however elements such as higher minimum contributions from workers, are likely to be revisited.
Historically, rich business owners made the formation of unions and strikes as difficult as possible for the poor. Sometimes this involved hiring strike breakers, or private detectives to “resolve” issues, whether this be though peaceful or non-peaceful methods. Typically the rich hold capitalistic views when it comes to the free market of economies, meaning that they previously held the same chances as the poor when it came to succeeding or failing; ergo their high regard from the poor is justified by their hard work and individual initiative. This belief can be further inferred by Social Darwinism, the Gospel of the Wealth, and the Puritan Beliefs for which America was created upon.
In accordance with history, the interest of the poor and rich are still under conflict, especially with the current state of the American economy. The case of social security begs for conflict, for it’s a Democratic reform that promotes the redistribution of wealth from the rich, to the poor. Clearly this is against the interests of the rich, for their money is being stripped from their accounts and given to those they don’t even know. This conflict relates to the Occupy Wallstreet movement; for it’s known that 1% of the nations population controls majority of the nations wealth, and the remaining 99% feel as though the rich should contribute more through their annual taxes. This movement contributed to the presidential debate of 2008; for President Obama spoke for for higher taxes towards the rich, whereas Romney advocated for equal taxation between economic levels.
Back to Top
Woodrow Wilson Trial
Contents -
Page 1: Wilson Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Wilson Biography
Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1956 in Staunton, Virginia. Previous to his presidential election in 1913, Wilson indulged in a life of education. Wilson’s college education began in North Carolina at Davidson College, however after only staying for one year, Wilson left in 1874. Based on his father’s job offer at Princeton University, Wilson transferred to Princeton and eventually graduated in 1879. Wilson then attended the University of Virginia Law School, however was forced to drop out when he experienced a decline in his health. Based on his continued studies at home, Wilson was able to earn his law degree and eventually become a Princeton professor in 1890. After teaching law and political economics for twelve years, Wilson was nobly promoted to president of the university. Ensuing this high ranked job after eight successful years, Wilson pushed himself to partake in the 1910 Governor election of New Jersey, and successfully earned the position. His gain of popularity as a Governor after two years led Wilson to run for US Presidency in 1912. Based on his dignified reputation, Wilson held an advantage and won the presidential election.
As many presidents do, Woodrow Wilson served two presidential terms. However it wasn’t until his second term that World War I begged for the US’s attention. In 1914 when World War I broke out in Europe, President Wilson continued to maintain neutrality as it was the best option for the wellbeing of America. After successfully running his first term on the slogan “I’ll keep us out of the war,” new events such as the sinking of the Lusitania and the violation of the Sussex Pledge occurred at the end of his four years. Ergo his change of slogan to “he kept us out of the war” when running for reelection in 1916. Though this new slogan may have insinuated to the American public that he would continue neutrality, he never outright promised to do so. Even though this may seem dishonest, President Wilson took such actions with the best of intentions for America. Based on new events such as the Zimmerman Telegram, it would not have been wise for him to abolish the idea of utilizing America defense. Based on continuous threats from Germany, President Wilson removed America’s neutral status, and rightly entered the United States into World War I in 1917. “In late March, Germany sank four more U.S. merchant ships, and on April 2, President Wilson went before Congress to deliver his famous war message. Within four days, both houses of Congress had voted in favor of a declaration of war” (“U.S. Enters World War 1”). Not only did all other US congressmen decide it was the best move for America, but the American public began to see the threat posed against them.
Toward the end of the war, President Wilson looked to create a way to prevent any large-scale conflict similar to WWI ever again; thus the creation of his Fourteen Points. This worldwide addressment looked to find peace in the postwar era, and attempted to persuade the world to support his vision. The last point in his peace rhetoric encompassed the creation of a League of Nations, which would be set up to guarantee territorial and political autonomy of all states. Wilson traveled to Paris to create the League of Nations, and to establish the Treaty of Versailles which encompassed the principles of his fourteen points. Controversy regarding the League of Nations occurred between Wilson and the Senate (Republican controlled). Wilson believe that the League should have the power to enter the US into war, whereas the Senate believed that this gave it too much power. Inconveniently, President Wilson suffered from a stroke and was force to take absense from the office. This resulted in the Senate rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and the United States to never join the League of Nations.
“U.S. Enters World War 1.”
History. 15 November. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-enters-world-war-i>
Trial Recount
Both the defense and the prosecution outlined their stances through their carefully crafted jury questions. These questions served to clearly display the views of each jury member, and ultimately allow each lawyer to excuse unwanted jurors. The prosecution attorney questioned jurors on the trust people should have in their presidents, their opinions on liars and the rationale behind lies, and the negative influence American leaders can have over their country. The defense attorney questioned jurors through examples of experiences they may have had. However the premise of such questions was to display the difference between promises and well-wishes, and a just and an unjust war. Other defense questions probed opinions regarding the proactiveness of a president, and the jurors opinions on war repercussions such as death. Both the defense and prosecution dismissed two jurors on account of opinionated answers, and found harmony within the group after the second round of dismissals.
Once the jury was decided upon, the two counts against President Woodrow Wilson were introduced: entering World War I under false pretenses, and violating a campaign promise. The prosecution attorney then continued to give his opening statement, which highlighted his opinions that President Wilson chose to ignore peaceful methods of dealing with the Germans, and furthermore only entered the war for personal and financial gain. The attorney then introduced his three witnesses: William Jennings Bryan, J.P. Morgan, and President Roosevelt. On the other hand, the defense attorney’s opening statement highlighted that the prosecution was basing their case on theories, as the German’s had sunk many US ships, violated the Sussex Pledge, and threatened to invade America through the Zimmerman Telegram. In addition, the prosecution attorney argued that President Wilson engaged in war when there was no other option, furthermore justifying that it was the best method of ensuring national security. The three introduced prosecution witnesses were Robert Lansing, Winston Churchill, and President Woodrow Wilson.
Out of the six witnesses, I believe that William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson proved to evoke the most information and debate. Bryan was the only witness that was able to form a negative statement against Wilson, and in doing so immensely helped the prosecution’s case. As Wilson’s former Secretary of State, Bryan testified that Wilson did indeed have the option to continue America’s neutrality, but chose to give up such a stance. President Wilson on the other hand was able to effectively defend his actions, and justify his motives. He aided the defense’s arguments regarding the timeline of events; for he explained that the time between his reelection and the sinking of the Lusitania evoked no response, because of the implementation of the Sussex Pledge. The prosecution’s closing arguments included the fact that Wilson was guilty, and failed his duties to serve the American people in the best ways possible; further highlighting the arguments from each of the prosecution witnesses. This statement was very opinionated, and the jury later decided that it didn’t contain enough substantial evidence. However, the defense’s closing statement reinstated all previous facts such as the Zimmerman Telegram, the Sussex Pledge, and the Lusitania to seal their argument, and continued to take it a step further by explaining the flaws in the prosecution’s argument.
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
In order to rationally determine the verdicts regarding the counts against President Wilson, the jury began their deliberation by addressing any points of confusion that still remained. The jury was unclear on the premise of the Lusitania event, the amount of US ships sunk by Germans before America entered the war, and the seriousness of the war during Wilson’s re-election. In addition, many of the jury’s questions regarded President Wilson’s campaign platform, specifically his stance on war and his slogan “he kept us out of the war.” This sparked confusion, for it was unclear to the American people during WWI if this statement was a slogan or a promise, and the jury questioned if President Wilson could’ve further clarified his campaign plan at the time. After discussing these questions, the jury was able to arrive on agreements which eventually became their verdicts for the trial. When discussing the Lusitania and other sunken American ships, the jury agreed that such actions from the Germans were indeed violations of the Sussex pledge, and were rightly perceived as a threat. When the judged posed a question concerning JP Morgan’s possible influence over President Wilson’s decisions, the jury also agreed that the President confided in his Secretary of Treasury William McAdoo, rather than the power-hungry JP Morgan. Moreover, the jury agreed that the United States economy didn’t play a very large part in the rationale behind the entrance of the war, and further decided that WWI was a matter of national security rather that finances. Based on this decision, the jury voted that the war was not entered under false pretense by a 4-2 majority, making President Wilson not guilty. When voting on the second count against President Wilson, the jury found him guilty also by a 4-2 majority. This was based on the jury’s previous decision that Wilson’s slogan wasn’t a promise, however the intentions of his campaign were not clear enough to the American public, in consequence misleading them. Moreover, the jury believed that President Wilson took advantage of the situation when campaigning for re-election, and ignored further clarifying the possibilities of war within his campaign.
Though I believe President Wilson should have been innocent on both counts, I’m please that the jury was able to understand the justification for the United States’ involvement in the war (first count). Many speculate that President Wilson entered the US into WWI for financial reasons, secret alliances, or even personal gain. However, if one looks at the facts, this war was about national security and defense against the belligerent Germans.
Wilson found it increasingly difficult to maintain neutrality, after Germany rescinded earlier promises—the Arabic pledge and the Sussex pledge...Then came the revelation of the Zimmermann Telegram, in which Germany attempted to enlist Mexico as an ally, promising Mexico that if Germany was victorious, she would support Mexico in winning back the states of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona from the U.S....Wilson called a cabinet meeting on March 20, in which the vote was unanimous for war. (“Woodrow Wilson”)
Furthermore, it’s clear that between the Lusitania event, the violation of the Sussex Pledge, and the Zimmerman Telegram, President Wilson’s action of entering the United States into war is fully justified. President Wilson didn’t enter the war on false pretenses as financial benefits and personal gain didn’t influence his decisions. After his entire cabinet unanimously agreed that war was the only option, he proceeded solely on account of national security; for the Germans were a violent force clearly displaying aggression, and a true threat to the American nation.
“Woodrow Wilson.”
Wikipedia. 13 November 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson>
The Trial’s Significance
Though Wilson’s first campaign promised neutrality, his second term excluded such promises; for the Germans’ violent actions proved to be a threat towards America. Many believe that Wilson purposely postponed the war until after his re election in order to ensure his win. However, many aren’t aware of the precautions that President Wilson took before the US’s entrance, and his justification for inserting America into the war. Based on the German attacks on multiple US passenger ships, the Sussex Pledge was constituted by the US government. This pledge worked to prevent any future attacks on American ships; for should it happen again, the US would consider it an act of war. Though many wanted to continue America’s neutral position, Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt pressured Wilson to enter the war. Such Republicans believed that Wilson was taking a non-aggressive stance on a seriously dangerous situation. Furthermore, President Wilson’s campaign promise transformed from “I’ll keep us out of the war” to “He kept us out of the war” in his second campaign. Many Americans who were unclear of the severity of the German attacks saw Wilson’s commencement of war as a violation of a his campaign promise; however given the circumstances with the Germans, I believe Wilson was only doing what was best in the case of national security. Loans given to Britain may have influenced the US to enter the war for protection over their investments, however when compared to other reasons, I don’t think finances played a large role.
The alliances formed within Europe are seen as a repercussion to the Industrial Revolution, and the eventual cause of WWI. The IR consisted of the large scale production of many items, ultimately requiring the cultivation and collection of many raw resources. Therefore many countries constructed their settlements near naturally enriched land, in efforts of becoming a part of the booming industrial economic system. In order to sell items, regulated trading systems were needed. Based on these trading systems, colonies began to merge together becoming interdependent. These colonies looked to work together for financial benefits and to expand their influence over the markets, subsequently tying together their economies. The settlements created within foreign territory created alliances between countries, eventually producing a complicated web of secrecy, all revolving around a similar market; eventually dividing Europe into two main powers and causing WWI. Many of the countries involved in the war were entangled in this conflict because of their allies. Furthermore, the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand acted as the catalyst of the war, and caused all allies to jump in and help those tied to their economies. In the case of the United States, the entrance into the war wasn’t based off any secret alliances. The benevolent neutrality within America disregarded any unfair trading systems or secured markers, therefore America continued trading with all countries (even Germany) until threatened. Furthermore, it’s clear that the United States entered the war out of national security, not based on industrialism or foreign alliances.
The United States’ entrance into the war was justified, for it was based off the fear of the unknown. Furthermore, I believe that the present-day United States should continue to stay out of war unless there’s a direct threat to the wellbeing of the country; this can be either physical or ideological violence. The abject fear of the Germans created such a frenzy regarding the unknown possibilities, that the defense of the country was of the utmost importance. Furthermore, America was very shrewd for resisting the temptation of entering the war out of alliance based, or economic reasons. Only direct threats prove to be a justifiable reason for such a powerful country to enter a war. During WWI before 1917, the US’s stance on benevolent neutrality provided more good than that of outright assault. In accordance to the modern day, reasons of commercialism or industrialism can justify war should there be no other options. In my opinion, Washington’s farewell address contained both good and bad advice. Resisting foreign entanglements during wartimes is paramount when attempting to pursue neutrality, however a lack of a standing army will have extremely negative repercussions. Furthermore, America should be frugal with trade systems and alliances during times of possible war, however a strong defense should always be maintained, especially in the modern world we live in.
Back to Top
Contents -
Page 1: Wilson Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Wilson Biography
Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1956 in Staunton, Virginia. Previous to his presidential election in 1913, Wilson indulged in a life of education. Wilson’s college education began in North Carolina at Davidson College, however after only staying for one year, Wilson left in 1874. Based on his father’s job offer at Princeton University, Wilson transferred to Princeton and eventually graduated in 1879. Wilson then attended the University of Virginia Law School, however was forced to drop out when he experienced a decline in his health. Based on his continued studies at home, Wilson was able to earn his law degree and eventually become a Princeton professor in 1890. After teaching law and political economics for twelve years, Wilson was nobly promoted to president of the university. Ensuing this high ranked job after eight successful years, Wilson pushed himself to partake in the 1910 Governor election of New Jersey, and successfully earned the position. His gain of popularity as a Governor after two years led Wilson to run for US Presidency in 1912. Based on his dignified reputation, Wilson held an advantage and won the presidential election.
As many presidents do, Woodrow Wilson served two presidential terms. However it wasn’t until his second term that World War I begged for the US’s attention. In 1914 when World War I broke out in Europe, President Wilson continued to maintain neutrality as it was the best option for the wellbeing of America. After successfully running his first term on the slogan “I’ll keep us out of the war,” new events such as the sinking of the Lusitania and the violation of the Sussex Pledge occurred at the end of his four years. Ergo his change of slogan to “he kept us out of the war” when running for reelection in 1916. Though this new slogan may have insinuated to the American public that he would continue neutrality, he never outright promised to do so. Even though this may seem dishonest, President Wilson took such actions with the best of intentions for America. Based on new events such as the Zimmerman Telegram, it would not have been wise for him to abolish the idea of utilizing America defense. Based on continuous threats from Germany, President Wilson removed America’s neutral status, and rightly entered the United States into World War I in 1917. “In late March, Germany sank four more U.S. merchant ships, and on April 2, President Wilson went before Congress to deliver his famous war message. Within four days, both houses of Congress had voted in favor of a declaration of war” (“U.S. Enters World War 1”). Not only did all other US congressmen decide it was the best move for America, but the American public began to see the threat posed against them.
Toward the end of the war, President Wilson looked to create a way to prevent any large-scale conflict similar to WWI ever again; thus the creation of his Fourteen Points. This worldwide addressment looked to find peace in the postwar era, and attempted to persuade the world to support his vision. The last point in his peace rhetoric encompassed the creation of a League of Nations, which would be set up to guarantee territorial and political autonomy of all states. Wilson traveled to Paris to create the League of Nations, and to establish the Treaty of Versailles which encompassed the principles of his fourteen points. Controversy regarding the League of Nations occurred between Wilson and the Senate (Republican controlled). Wilson believe that the League should have the power to enter the US into war, whereas the Senate believed that this gave it too much power. Inconveniently, President Wilson suffered from a stroke and was force to take absense from the office. This resulted in the Senate rejecting the Treaty of Versailles, and the United States to never join the League of Nations.
“U.S. Enters World War 1.”
History. 15 November. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-enters-world-war-i>
Trial Recount
Both the defense and the prosecution outlined their stances through their carefully crafted jury questions. These questions served to clearly display the views of each jury member, and ultimately allow each lawyer to excuse unwanted jurors. The prosecution attorney questioned jurors on the trust people should have in their presidents, their opinions on liars and the rationale behind lies, and the negative influence American leaders can have over their country. The defense attorney questioned jurors through examples of experiences they may have had. However the premise of such questions was to display the difference between promises and well-wishes, and a just and an unjust war. Other defense questions probed opinions regarding the proactiveness of a president, and the jurors opinions on war repercussions such as death. Both the defense and prosecution dismissed two jurors on account of opinionated answers, and found harmony within the group after the second round of dismissals.
Once the jury was decided upon, the two counts against President Woodrow Wilson were introduced: entering World War I under false pretenses, and violating a campaign promise. The prosecution attorney then continued to give his opening statement, which highlighted his opinions that President Wilson chose to ignore peaceful methods of dealing with the Germans, and furthermore only entered the war for personal and financial gain. The attorney then introduced his three witnesses: William Jennings Bryan, J.P. Morgan, and President Roosevelt. On the other hand, the defense attorney’s opening statement highlighted that the prosecution was basing their case on theories, as the German’s had sunk many US ships, violated the Sussex Pledge, and threatened to invade America through the Zimmerman Telegram. In addition, the prosecution attorney argued that President Wilson engaged in war when there was no other option, furthermore justifying that it was the best method of ensuring national security. The three introduced prosecution witnesses were Robert Lansing, Winston Churchill, and President Woodrow Wilson.
Out of the six witnesses, I believe that William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson proved to evoke the most information and debate. Bryan was the only witness that was able to form a negative statement against Wilson, and in doing so immensely helped the prosecution’s case. As Wilson’s former Secretary of State, Bryan testified that Wilson did indeed have the option to continue America’s neutrality, but chose to give up such a stance. President Wilson on the other hand was able to effectively defend his actions, and justify his motives. He aided the defense’s arguments regarding the timeline of events; for he explained that the time between his reelection and the sinking of the Lusitania evoked no response, because of the implementation of the Sussex Pledge. The prosecution’s closing arguments included the fact that Wilson was guilty, and failed his duties to serve the American people in the best ways possible; further highlighting the arguments from each of the prosecution witnesses. This statement was very opinionated, and the jury later decided that it didn’t contain enough substantial evidence. However, the defense’s closing statement reinstated all previous facts such as the Zimmerman Telegram, the Sussex Pledge, and the Lusitania to seal their argument, and continued to take it a step further by explaining the flaws in the prosecution’s argument.
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
In order to rationally determine the verdicts regarding the counts against President Wilson, the jury began their deliberation by addressing any points of confusion that still remained. The jury was unclear on the premise of the Lusitania event, the amount of US ships sunk by Germans before America entered the war, and the seriousness of the war during Wilson’s re-election. In addition, many of the jury’s questions regarded President Wilson’s campaign platform, specifically his stance on war and his slogan “he kept us out of the war.” This sparked confusion, for it was unclear to the American people during WWI if this statement was a slogan or a promise, and the jury questioned if President Wilson could’ve further clarified his campaign plan at the time. After discussing these questions, the jury was able to arrive on agreements which eventually became their verdicts for the trial. When discussing the Lusitania and other sunken American ships, the jury agreed that such actions from the Germans were indeed violations of the Sussex pledge, and were rightly perceived as a threat. When the judged posed a question concerning JP Morgan’s possible influence over President Wilson’s decisions, the jury also agreed that the President confided in his Secretary of Treasury William McAdoo, rather than the power-hungry JP Morgan. Moreover, the jury agreed that the United States economy didn’t play a very large part in the rationale behind the entrance of the war, and further decided that WWI was a matter of national security rather that finances. Based on this decision, the jury voted that the war was not entered under false pretense by a 4-2 majority, making President Wilson not guilty. When voting on the second count against President Wilson, the jury found him guilty also by a 4-2 majority. This was based on the jury’s previous decision that Wilson’s slogan wasn’t a promise, however the intentions of his campaign were not clear enough to the American public, in consequence misleading them. Moreover, the jury believed that President Wilson took advantage of the situation when campaigning for re-election, and ignored further clarifying the possibilities of war within his campaign.
Though I believe President Wilson should have been innocent on both counts, I’m please that the jury was able to understand the justification for the United States’ involvement in the war (first count). Many speculate that President Wilson entered the US into WWI for financial reasons, secret alliances, or even personal gain. However, if one looks at the facts, this war was about national security and defense against the belligerent Germans.
Wilson found it increasingly difficult to maintain neutrality, after Germany rescinded earlier promises—the Arabic pledge and the Sussex pledge...Then came the revelation of the Zimmermann Telegram, in which Germany attempted to enlist Mexico as an ally, promising Mexico that if Germany was victorious, she would support Mexico in winning back the states of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona from the U.S....Wilson called a cabinet meeting on March 20, in which the vote was unanimous for war. (“Woodrow Wilson”)
Furthermore, it’s clear that between the Lusitania event, the violation of the Sussex Pledge, and the Zimmerman Telegram, President Wilson’s action of entering the United States into war is fully justified. President Wilson didn’t enter the war on false pretenses as financial benefits and personal gain didn’t influence his decisions. After his entire cabinet unanimously agreed that war was the only option, he proceeded solely on account of national security; for the Germans were a violent force clearly displaying aggression, and a true threat to the American nation.
“Woodrow Wilson.”
Wikipedia. 13 November 2014. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson>
The Trial’s Significance
Though Wilson’s first campaign promised neutrality, his second term excluded such promises; for the Germans’ violent actions proved to be a threat towards America. Many believe that Wilson purposely postponed the war until after his re election in order to ensure his win. However, many aren’t aware of the precautions that President Wilson took before the US’s entrance, and his justification for inserting America into the war. Based on the German attacks on multiple US passenger ships, the Sussex Pledge was constituted by the US government. This pledge worked to prevent any future attacks on American ships; for should it happen again, the US would consider it an act of war. Though many wanted to continue America’s neutral position, Republicans such as Theodore Roosevelt pressured Wilson to enter the war. Such Republicans believed that Wilson was taking a non-aggressive stance on a seriously dangerous situation. Furthermore, President Wilson’s campaign promise transformed from “I’ll keep us out of the war” to “He kept us out of the war” in his second campaign. Many Americans who were unclear of the severity of the German attacks saw Wilson’s commencement of war as a violation of a his campaign promise; however given the circumstances with the Germans, I believe Wilson was only doing what was best in the case of national security. Loans given to Britain may have influenced the US to enter the war for protection over their investments, however when compared to other reasons, I don’t think finances played a large role.
The alliances formed within Europe are seen as a repercussion to the Industrial Revolution, and the eventual cause of WWI. The IR consisted of the large scale production of many items, ultimately requiring the cultivation and collection of many raw resources. Therefore many countries constructed their settlements near naturally enriched land, in efforts of becoming a part of the booming industrial economic system. In order to sell items, regulated trading systems were needed. Based on these trading systems, colonies began to merge together becoming interdependent. These colonies looked to work together for financial benefits and to expand their influence over the markets, subsequently tying together their economies. The settlements created within foreign territory created alliances between countries, eventually producing a complicated web of secrecy, all revolving around a similar market; eventually dividing Europe into two main powers and causing WWI. Many of the countries involved in the war were entangled in this conflict because of their allies. Furthermore, the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand acted as the catalyst of the war, and caused all allies to jump in and help those tied to their economies. In the case of the United States, the entrance into the war wasn’t based off any secret alliances. The benevolent neutrality within America disregarded any unfair trading systems or secured markers, therefore America continued trading with all countries (even Germany) until threatened. Furthermore, it’s clear that the United States entered the war out of national security, not based on industrialism or foreign alliances.
The United States’ entrance into the war was justified, for it was based off the fear of the unknown. Furthermore, I believe that the present-day United States should continue to stay out of war unless there’s a direct threat to the wellbeing of the country; this can be either physical or ideological violence. The abject fear of the Germans created such a frenzy regarding the unknown possibilities, that the defense of the country was of the utmost importance. Furthermore, America was very shrewd for resisting the temptation of entering the war out of alliance based, or economic reasons. Only direct threats prove to be a justifiable reason for such a powerful country to enter a war. During WWI before 1917, the US’s stance on benevolent neutrality provided more good than that of outright assault. In accordance to the modern day, reasons of commercialism or industrialism can justify war should there be no other options. In my opinion, Washington’s farewell address contained both good and bad advice. Resisting foreign entanglements during wartimes is paramount when attempting to pursue neutrality, however a lack of a standing army will have extremely negative repercussions. Furthermore, America should be frugal with trade systems and alliances during times of possible war, however a strong defense should always be maintained, especially in the modern world we live in.
Back to Top
Harry Truman Trial
Contents -
Page 1: Truman Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Truman Biography
Harry S. Truman was born on May 8th, 1884 in Lamar, Missouri. Unlike many of our nation’s presidents, Truman took an alternative route in his early life. After growing up on his family farm, Truman decided that college wasn’t in his life plan. Instead he took up a multitude of jobs. “Truman...did not attend college. He worked a variety of jobs after high school, first as a timekeeper for a railroad construction company, and then as a clerk and a bookkeeper at two separate banks in Kansas City. After five years, he returned to farming and joined the National Guard” (“Harry S. Truman”). His first job in the field of politics was in the Jackson County Court as a judge, however he primary did administrative work. Truman went through a long period of losing elections and winning elections for various judicial positions, however decided through that time that he wanted to become Congressman or Governor. Truman became Senator of Missouri, and served in the position for ten years until becoming Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President in 1945.
Truman only served as vice president for a few months until Roosevelt died of declining health. WWII was in the midst of action when he was placed into presidency, causing him to look to his fellow cabinet members for advice. Based on America’s general consensus to stay out of the war, Truman advocated for neutrality. However news of the atomic bomb was soon disclosed to him, and Truman stood by the continuation of the Manhattan Project. During his visit to Germany for the Potsdam conference, Truman received word that the testing of the bomb was a success. He had hinted to Stalin that America had a new weapon, and surprisingly Stalin was already aware of it. This was a confirmation that there were Soviet spies within the US. Regardless, Truman decided to withhold the weapon. By this time, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had long ago occured and the US had already been immensely involved in the war. After Germany surrendered and America turned to deal with Japan, the bombs were finally put into use. Truman’s decision to drop the bomb only came after Japan refused to give an unconditional surrender the US. Two atomic bombs, “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th of 1945, and officially ended WWII.
Following the end of WWII, Truman’s administration had to deal with the diminished relations between the Soviet Union and the US. The Cold War quickly began and occurred throughout his presidency, as Truman has created a containment policy against the Soviet Union’s efforts of communist expansion. Truman instituted the Marshall plan to aid recovering European nations, and stimulated the European economy in order to prevent an adoption of communism. In the US Truman transitioned the country into a peacetime economy. His approval ratings were seen to decrease when a multitude of labor disputes and a shortage of customer good occured. For this reason, it was a surprise that we was re-elected in 1948. Truman’s second term pushed forward an avid agenda for social reform called the Fair Deal. This created federal housing programs, assistance to farmers, national medical insurance, a raise in minimum wage, boosts in social security, and many civil rights reforms. In addition Truman worked to end discrimination and prohibit segregation. Throughout the Red Scare and the Cold War Truman supported NATO, and worked to fight communism and promote democracy worldwide. Although Truman could have run for onother term, he decided in March of 1952 that he was not interested in doing so.
“Harry S. Truman.” Biography. 17 February 2015. <http://www.biography.com/people/harry-s-truman-9511121>
Trial Recount
Before the trial against Harry Truman could commence, the jury had to be selected. Both the attorneys questioned each juror to determine whether or not their opinion would aid the case. The prosecuting attorney, Mikayla, began by questioning juror’s beliefs regarding honesty, and their political preferences. One juror was dismissed because they didn’t believe that honesty was the best policy in every situation. The defense attorney, Richie, questioned juror’s opinions regarding the future, and whether long term planning is beneficial. One juror was excused because of his insincere answers. Although the prosecution was satisfied with the jury, the defense excused one more juror on the grounds of argumentative and biased opinions.
Once the final jury and both attorneys were sworn in, the count against Harry Truman was presented. Truman was being accused of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan for political rather than military reasons. The opening statements of each trial team summed up their stances on the situation.. The prosecution attorney, Mikayla, provided all evidence that suggested Truman’s decision was based on politics and personal reasons. She argued that Truman was a racist who wanted to punish the Japanese and only dropped the bombs to prevent Russia from dominating Europe. In addition she claimed that this event was strictly a matter of exposing American exceptionalism, and it was Truman who committed genocide. One the other side of the case, Richie defended Truman by stating that his actions were strictly for military purposes. The defense argued that the bombs saved the lives of American soldiers who would have died from a land invasion, and that the Japanese were relentless in their efforts to win. Richie stated that had the bombs not been dropped, American casualties would be been boosted by 50%.
The distinct positions each lawyer held remained evident throughout the rest of the trial and were reflected by each of their witnesses. On the prosecution, James Byrnes (Secretary of State), Dwight Eisenhower (Military Expert), and Hirohito (Emperor of Japan) testified against Truman. Eisenhower brought up the interesting point that many military personnel did not agree with Truman’s decision, and Hitohito explained that the bombs were very unnecessary. Japan was already weak from the war, and would have given an unconditional surrender had there been more time. Overall the main points brought up by the prosecution witnesses were that the bombs were a form of revenge for Pearl Harbor and the Japanese, to show the US’s superiority over the Soviet Union, and to justify the immense budget spent on the Manhattan Project. On the defense, Joseph Stalin (dictator of the Soviet Union), Douglas MacArthur (Chief of Staff of US Army), and Harry Truman himself defended the case at hand. Stalin brought forward an interesting point, claiming that the Soviet Union was already aware of the bombs, and were not impressed or interested in them. MacArthur turned the blame for the situation and claimed that all decisions were based on his own military advice. As expected, Truman proceeded to explain that he was trying to do what was best for the American people and that the bombs were strictly a military decision. Overall the defense provided the point that Truman served his duty as the president and made a decision with the best of interests in mind for the American people. Truman was looking to save American lives, and swiftly end the long and arduous war.
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
Before the jury made any final decisions, they discussed what they liked and disliked about the performance of both the defense and prosecution. In the case of the prosecution, the jury enjoyed their relevant questions, hard hitting evidence, direct answers, and both the opening and closing statements. However, the jury felt as though they weren’t well rehearsed, their arguments were repetitive, they could have kept the audience better informed of historical facts, and they used too many statements rather than questions. In the case of the defense, the jury noticed the clear preparation put into the witnesses roles, their strong cross examination and their swift and control performance. However they could have given more historical context and background info, projected their voice more, and the lawyer could have prepared more hard-hitting questions. Before determining the verdict of the trial, the jury gathered to discuss further inquiries. The questions produced by the jury are as follows: What were the iron and bamboo curtains? What was the significance of the Potsdam and Yalta conferences? What was the timeline of events? And lastly, why did Truman feel the need to drop the second bomb after the destruction produced from the first? Upon discussion, the jury hammered out the answers. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences were important because they established an alliance and success between America and Russia. The iron and bamboo curtains divided communist territories from capitalist territories, and were important because they showed what Russia was capable of conquering, and identified areas of political motivation. The timeline of events followed this sequence: Japan ignored Truman’s request for an unconditional surrender, hence the dropping of the first bomb. When Japan responded with only a conditional surrender, Truman proceeded to drop the second bomb. Many jurors argued that perhaps the first bomb was necessary, but the second one was not. They concluded that the Japanese would have most likely given an unconditional surrender, however the three days between the bombs was not enough time to produce one. In addition, the jury agreed that the threat of the bamboo curtain was large, and it was clear that Russia was not intimidated by the current state of the US military, causing the bombs to be used to show power. Furthermore the jury unanimously voted that Truman was guilty of dropping the atomic bombs for political rather than military reasons.
I disagree with the jury’s verdict of guilty. I feel as though there were valid and justifiable reasons for Truman’s decisions. By using the atomic bombs Truman avoided a highly dangerous land invasion, prevented American casualties, and ensured that Russia didn’t gain or abuse the power it sought after. Any other course of action would have produced negative results, which can be factually identified.
Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives. (“The Decision to Drop the Bomb”)
These quantitative facts defend Truman’s role as president, and present clear reasons why there was no other option in a situation like the US’s. For these reasons, I disagree with the jury’s verdict of guilty.
“The Decision to Drop the Bomb.” US History. 19 February 2015. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp>
The Trial’s Significance
The use of the atomic bombs can be justified as a military decision, just as it has been for over 50 years. By bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government was simply defending American troops and ensuring the safety of its country. The Japanese were so formidable, that the use of nuclear weapons was the only way to ensure that neither the Japanese nor the Russians would gain control. At the time there weren't other options which would have ensured an unconditional surrender from Japan. A land attack or alternate methods of occupation would have produced many more American casualties. Based on the events in Nanking and the ferocious yet undeniable loyalty of Japanese militants, the US would have been at a greater risk should the bombs not have been dropped. Majority of the cities in Japan had already been destroyed by the use of firebombs, leaving Hiroshima and Nagasaki as two of the few cities which had been left untouched. In order to make a statement and create the greatest possible impact on Japan, the bombs had to be used in those areas. Truman’s job was to secure the safety of the American people, and this proved to be the only option.
Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Japan can be argued between being for either political or military reasons. Although I believe Truman took action in order to prevent US participation in a land invasion, I understand why some think the bombs were dropped for political reasons. Russia had recently begun overtaking islands in northern Japan, and were attempting to gain more territory. The iron curtain was being drawn across Europe by Russia, and the US was frightened that the Soviet Union would try to create a communist nation out of Japan. With the beginnings of the Cold War upon the world, the bombs can also be furthermore seen as an attempt to prove America’s power, and show dominance over the power hungry Soviet Union. Moreover, some believe that Truman was motivated to use the atomic bombs in order to show the Soviet Union that America was the superior force. Furthermore, the use of the bombs can be argued between an attempt to defend America, keeping the Soviet Union from gaining this territory, and defending capitalism.
Although the development and use of advanced weapons systems such as nuclear bombs held America to a high regard, I don’t think it was American exceptionalism that led to the bombing of Japan. Since Japan had continued to expand their military after warnings from America, the US held the right to take action. It’s true that these actions were perhaps more harsh than actions other countries would have taken, however the US was in a different position. Nuclear warfare was the country’s newest piece of technology, and placed the nation high on the list of innovative countries. In order to take a strong stance on the issue and ensure that the country wouldn’t be messed with, the U.S. rightly dropped the bombs. Revisionists have dwelled on the issue for decades because of it’s devastating effects, and many see reasons why this wasn’t the proper response; however many more regard this situation as something that was necessary. I believe America is and has been adequately reflective because many have realized that the absence of the bombs would have caused more American casualties and conflict, specifically with Russia.
Back To Top
Contents -
Page 1: Truman Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Truman Biography
Harry S. Truman was born on May 8th, 1884 in Lamar, Missouri. Unlike many of our nation’s presidents, Truman took an alternative route in his early life. After growing up on his family farm, Truman decided that college wasn’t in his life plan. Instead he took up a multitude of jobs. “Truman...did not attend college. He worked a variety of jobs after high school, first as a timekeeper for a railroad construction company, and then as a clerk and a bookkeeper at two separate banks in Kansas City. After five years, he returned to farming and joined the National Guard” (“Harry S. Truman”). His first job in the field of politics was in the Jackson County Court as a judge, however he primary did administrative work. Truman went through a long period of losing elections and winning elections for various judicial positions, however decided through that time that he wanted to become Congressman or Governor. Truman became Senator of Missouri, and served in the position for ten years until becoming Franklin Roosevelt’s Vice President in 1945.
Truman only served as vice president for a few months until Roosevelt died of declining health. WWII was in the midst of action when he was placed into presidency, causing him to look to his fellow cabinet members for advice. Based on America’s general consensus to stay out of the war, Truman advocated for neutrality. However news of the atomic bomb was soon disclosed to him, and Truman stood by the continuation of the Manhattan Project. During his visit to Germany for the Potsdam conference, Truman received word that the testing of the bomb was a success. He had hinted to Stalin that America had a new weapon, and surprisingly Stalin was already aware of it. This was a confirmation that there were Soviet spies within the US. Regardless, Truman decided to withhold the weapon. By this time, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had long ago occured and the US had already been immensely involved in the war. After Germany surrendered and America turned to deal with Japan, the bombs were finally put into use. Truman’s decision to drop the bomb only came after Japan refused to give an unconditional surrender the US. Two atomic bombs, “Little Boy” and “Fat Man” were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and 9th of 1945, and officially ended WWII.
Following the end of WWII, Truman’s administration had to deal with the diminished relations between the Soviet Union and the US. The Cold War quickly began and occurred throughout his presidency, as Truman has created a containment policy against the Soviet Union’s efforts of communist expansion. Truman instituted the Marshall plan to aid recovering European nations, and stimulated the European economy in order to prevent an adoption of communism. In the US Truman transitioned the country into a peacetime economy. His approval ratings were seen to decrease when a multitude of labor disputes and a shortage of customer good occured. For this reason, it was a surprise that we was re-elected in 1948. Truman’s second term pushed forward an avid agenda for social reform called the Fair Deal. This created federal housing programs, assistance to farmers, national medical insurance, a raise in minimum wage, boosts in social security, and many civil rights reforms. In addition Truman worked to end discrimination and prohibit segregation. Throughout the Red Scare and the Cold War Truman supported NATO, and worked to fight communism and promote democracy worldwide. Although Truman could have run for onother term, he decided in March of 1952 that he was not interested in doing so.
“Harry S. Truman.” Biography. 17 February 2015. <http://www.biography.com/people/harry-s-truman-9511121>
Trial Recount
Before the trial against Harry Truman could commence, the jury had to be selected. Both the attorneys questioned each juror to determine whether or not their opinion would aid the case. The prosecuting attorney, Mikayla, began by questioning juror’s beliefs regarding honesty, and their political preferences. One juror was dismissed because they didn’t believe that honesty was the best policy in every situation. The defense attorney, Richie, questioned juror’s opinions regarding the future, and whether long term planning is beneficial. One juror was excused because of his insincere answers. Although the prosecution was satisfied with the jury, the defense excused one more juror on the grounds of argumentative and biased opinions.
Once the final jury and both attorneys were sworn in, the count against Harry Truman was presented. Truman was being accused of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan for political rather than military reasons. The opening statements of each trial team summed up their stances on the situation.. The prosecution attorney, Mikayla, provided all evidence that suggested Truman’s decision was based on politics and personal reasons. She argued that Truman was a racist who wanted to punish the Japanese and only dropped the bombs to prevent Russia from dominating Europe. In addition she claimed that this event was strictly a matter of exposing American exceptionalism, and it was Truman who committed genocide. One the other side of the case, Richie defended Truman by stating that his actions were strictly for military purposes. The defense argued that the bombs saved the lives of American soldiers who would have died from a land invasion, and that the Japanese were relentless in their efforts to win. Richie stated that had the bombs not been dropped, American casualties would be been boosted by 50%.
The distinct positions each lawyer held remained evident throughout the rest of the trial and were reflected by each of their witnesses. On the prosecution, James Byrnes (Secretary of State), Dwight Eisenhower (Military Expert), and Hirohito (Emperor of Japan) testified against Truman. Eisenhower brought up the interesting point that many military personnel did not agree with Truman’s decision, and Hitohito explained that the bombs were very unnecessary. Japan was already weak from the war, and would have given an unconditional surrender had there been more time. Overall the main points brought up by the prosecution witnesses were that the bombs were a form of revenge for Pearl Harbor and the Japanese, to show the US’s superiority over the Soviet Union, and to justify the immense budget spent on the Manhattan Project. On the defense, Joseph Stalin (dictator of the Soviet Union), Douglas MacArthur (Chief of Staff of US Army), and Harry Truman himself defended the case at hand. Stalin brought forward an interesting point, claiming that the Soviet Union was already aware of the bombs, and were not impressed or interested in them. MacArthur turned the blame for the situation and claimed that all decisions were based on his own military advice. As expected, Truman proceeded to explain that he was trying to do what was best for the American people and that the bombs were strictly a military decision. Overall the defense provided the point that Truman served his duty as the president and made a decision with the best of interests in mind for the American people. Truman was looking to save American lives, and swiftly end the long and arduous war.
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
Before the jury made any final decisions, they discussed what they liked and disliked about the performance of both the defense and prosecution. In the case of the prosecution, the jury enjoyed their relevant questions, hard hitting evidence, direct answers, and both the opening and closing statements. However, the jury felt as though they weren’t well rehearsed, their arguments were repetitive, they could have kept the audience better informed of historical facts, and they used too many statements rather than questions. In the case of the defense, the jury noticed the clear preparation put into the witnesses roles, their strong cross examination and their swift and control performance. However they could have given more historical context and background info, projected their voice more, and the lawyer could have prepared more hard-hitting questions. Before determining the verdict of the trial, the jury gathered to discuss further inquiries. The questions produced by the jury are as follows: What were the iron and bamboo curtains? What was the significance of the Potsdam and Yalta conferences? What was the timeline of events? And lastly, why did Truman feel the need to drop the second bomb after the destruction produced from the first? Upon discussion, the jury hammered out the answers. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences were important because they established an alliance and success between America and Russia. The iron and bamboo curtains divided communist territories from capitalist territories, and were important because they showed what Russia was capable of conquering, and identified areas of political motivation. The timeline of events followed this sequence: Japan ignored Truman’s request for an unconditional surrender, hence the dropping of the first bomb. When Japan responded with only a conditional surrender, Truman proceeded to drop the second bomb. Many jurors argued that perhaps the first bomb was necessary, but the second one was not. They concluded that the Japanese would have most likely given an unconditional surrender, however the three days between the bombs was not enough time to produce one. In addition, the jury agreed that the threat of the bamboo curtain was large, and it was clear that Russia was not intimidated by the current state of the US military, causing the bombs to be used to show power. Furthermore the jury unanimously voted that Truman was guilty of dropping the atomic bombs for political rather than military reasons.
I disagree with the jury’s verdict of guilty. I feel as though there were valid and justifiable reasons for Truman’s decisions. By using the atomic bombs Truman avoided a highly dangerous land invasion, prevented American casualties, and ensured that Russia didn’t gain or abuse the power it sought after. Any other course of action would have produced negative results, which can be factually identified.
Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives. (“The Decision to Drop the Bomb”)
These quantitative facts defend Truman’s role as president, and present clear reasons why there was no other option in a situation like the US’s. For these reasons, I disagree with the jury’s verdict of guilty.
“The Decision to Drop the Bomb.” US History. 19 February 2015. <http://www.ushistory.org/us/51g.asp>
The Trial’s Significance
The use of the atomic bombs can be justified as a military decision, just as it has been for over 50 years. By bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government was simply defending American troops and ensuring the safety of its country. The Japanese were so formidable, that the use of nuclear weapons was the only way to ensure that neither the Japanese nor the Russians would gain control. At the time there weren't other options which would have ensured an unconditional surrender from Japan. A land attack or alternate methods of occupation would have produced many more American casualties. Based on the events in Nanking and the ferocious yet undeniable loyalty of Japanese militants, the US would have been at a greater risk should the bombs not have been dropped. Majority of the cities in Japan had already been destroyed by the use of firebombs, leaving Hiroshima and Nagasaki as two of the few cities which had been left untouched. In order to make a statement and create the greatest possible impact on Japan, the bombs had to be used in those areas. Truman’s job was to secure the safety of the American people, and this proved to be the only option.
Truman’s decision to drop the bombs on Japan can be argued between being for either political or military reasons. Although I believe Truman took action in order to prevent US participation in a land invasion, I understand why some think the bombs were dropped for political reasons. Russia had recently begun overtaking islands in northern Japan, and were attempting to gain more territory. The iron curtain was being drawn across Europe by Russia, and the US was frightened that the Soviet Union would try to create a communist nation out of Japan. With the beginnings of the Cold War upon the world, the bombs can also be furthermore seen as an attempt to prove America’s power, and show dominance over the power hungry Soviet Union. Moreover, some believe that Truman was motivated to use the atomic bombs in order to show the Soviet Union that America was the superior force. Furthermore, the use of the bombs can be argued between an attempt to defend America, keeping the Soviet Union from gaining this territory, and defending capitalism.
Although the development and use of advanced weapons systems such as nuclear bombs held America to a high regard, I don’t think it was American exceptionalism that led to the bombing of Japan. Since Japan had continued to expand their military after warnings from America, the US held the right to take action. It’s true that these actions were perhaps more harsh than actions other countries would have taken, however the US was in a different position. Nuclear warfare was the country’s newest piece of technology, and placed the nation high on the list of innovative countries. In order to take a strong stance on the issue and ensure that the country wouldn’t be messed with, the U.S. rightly dropped the bombs. Revisionists have dwelled on the issue for decades because of it’s devastating effects, and many see reasons why this wasn’t the proper response; however many more regard this situation as something that was necessary. I believe America is and has been adequately reflective because many have realized that the absence of the bombs would have caused more American casualties and conflict, specifically with Russia.
Back To Top
Ronald Reagan Trial
Contents -
Page 1: Reagan Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Reagan Biography
Ronald Reagan didn’t initially chose a career in politics. Unlike many of our nation’s previous presidents who obtained an education specifically for their future job as a political leader, Reagan decided to become a Hollywood actor. Interestingly, it was Reagan’s work in Hollywood that introduced him to the field of politics and developed his interest.
After seeing the atrocities of World War II on film while in the First Motion Picture Unit, Reagan was convinced that Americans needed to protect against racism and other forms of prejudice. As he traveled to speak to various groups, however, he became convinced that many groups in America were beginning in his estimation to forget everything the US had fought for in Europe and Asia. At the recommendation of his pastor, he also began speaking out against Communism in America, and that was when he sometimes noticed a change in his audience's responses in Hollywood. (“Ronald Reagan”)
Only after pursuing and achieving a very successful job in film and acting, Reagan shifted his focus to American politics. By 1954, Reagan’s acting career seemed to be deteriorating while his political career was beginning to blossom. Although Reagan began his political career as a democrat, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962. Reagan was elected as California’s 33rd Governor on January of 1967, and served in this position until 1975. It was then that Reagan decided to run to presidency. Reagan wasn’t nominated as the Republican Party’s sole candidate for the 1976 election, however was in 1980. After a successful campaign against Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy was elected as the 40th President of the United States. Reagan served two presidential terms from 1980 to 1989.
In 1986, President Reagan became aware of what was known as the Iran-Contra Affair. This scandal involved the indirect selling of U.S. weapons to Iran, in exchange for hostages. The profits from these transactions were then diverted to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters known as the Contras. This diversion of funds was technically illegal since the Boland Amendment of 1984 prohibited such actions. This caused a great scandal within the Reagan administration because Reagan wasn’t actually ever made aware of the diversion of funds. His self-elected government officials in the National Security Council (NSC) had taken it upon themselves to deliberately withhold information from the President. This scandal proved that there was corruption within the government, and questioned the leadership capabilities of Reagan.
Oliver North, the deputy to the National Security Advisor of the NSC, played a key role in the Iran-Contra Affair. He was revealed as the mastermind behind the diversion of funds to the Contras, and one of the few individuals who was completely aware of the affair as it unfolded. Majority of the counts against North were acquitted, however he was still found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation, destroying official documents, and illegally accepting expensive gifts. North was viewed as an American hero from his actions in the affair, leading to the repeal of his convictions. Reagan was also acquitted of his suggested crimes. Many see this as a result of his high stature in American society, and the sheer amount of love he received from the public. His ability to end the Cold War earned him much praise, and the pressure of presidency during the Cold War era gave him leniency in the eyes of Americans. To this day millions of Americans think that Reagan is innocent when it comes to the Iran-Contra Affair.
“Ronald Reagan.” Sparknotes. 23 March 2015. <http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/reagan/section4.rhtml>
Trial Recount
Before the trial against Ronald Reagan could commence, the jury had to be selected. Each of the attorneys asked the jurors an assortment of questions in order to determine whether or not they would be beneficial to their case. The prosecuting attorney, Nikki, questioned juror’s opinions regarding social issues such as gun control, abortion rights, gay rights, social programs, and taxes. It was clear that she was looking to pick out any conservative members of the jury. The defense attorney, Madi, questioned juror’s beliefs regarding management styles, the importance of honesty and American lives, and the dangers of the Cold War. Each lawyer chose to dismiss multiple jurors because of their biased opinions, insincere answers, or inability to show interest in the case.
After all jury members were sworn in, the counts against President Reagan were revealed and each lawyer made their opening statement. There were two counts against Reagan: a failure in leadership which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, and the breaking of the Boland Amendment. The prosecution attorney’s opening statement proposed that Reagan was completely aware of both the Iran and Contra parts of the affair, and it was his poor macro-management style that led to the scandal. In addition she argued that the NSC broke the Boland Amendment based on the fact that it was an intelligence agency. On the other hand, the defense attorney argued that there was absolutely no evidence that Reagan was guilty of causing the affair, and that at the time, Reagan was unaware of his subordinate’s actions. She made it clear that Reagan never took part in the diversion of funds to the Contras, as that was the unlawful misdoings of Oliver North and John Poindexter. They key witnesses in this trial proved to be all three of the defense witnesses: John Poindexter, Oliver North and Ronald Reagan. North and Poindexter both testified that they were completely responsible for the unlawful actions that took place and that they were proud of their actions. In accordance, Reagan agreed that the diversion of funds to the Contras was done under his nose and against what was advised to the NSC.
Before the jury made their final decision regarding the counts against President Reagan, they discussed the strengths and areas of improvement for both trial teams. In the case of the prosecution, the jury liked their well-thought out questions, hard-hitting cross examination, overall preparedness, and opening and closing statements. However, the jury felt as though the lawyer could have restrained her temper more, showed more courtroom etiquette, and used less statements. In addition the jury noticed that the prosecution witnesses could have been more prepared and confident in their roles. In the case of the defense, the jury enjoyed the opening and closing statements, the direct and cross examination questions, the preparedness of the witnesses when it came to historical information, and the lawyer’s ability to clarify confusing information. However they jury felt as though the defense could have found more substantial evidence and used more spontaneity in their performance. Also before determining the verdict, the jury discussed areas of confusion when it came to the Iran-Contra affair. The questions asked by the jury are as follows: Was choosing untrustworthy officials an act of poor leadership? Is the NSC really considered an intelligence organization? Does Jimmy Carter’s situation relate to that of President Reagan’s? Was the trade of weapons a good idea based on the situation? And lastly, what’s the difference between the two Boland Amendments/What are they?
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
The jury arrived on their verdict after discussing areas of confusion when it came to the history of the event. They collectively agreed that the National Security Council (NSC) was indeed a government intelligence agency, furthermore confirming the fact that the Boland Amendment was violated by the affair. They also agreed that Reagan failed to do his job as the president since the self-elected members of his administration proved to be untrustworthy and unlawful. Majority of the jury members agreed that it was Reagan's job to ensure that his cabinet members were carrying out trustworthy and responsible work, and that his macromanagement style was a poor method of leadership. Furthermore the jury interpreted his failure in leadership as the reason why the Iran-Contra affair occurred. Based on this discussion and conclusion of events, President Ronald Reagan was found guilty of a failure in leadership and of violating the Boland Amendment. Both counts received a 5-1 majority vote.
I disagree with the jury’s decision to find President Reagan guilty of causing the Iran-Contra affair and the violation of the Boland Amendment through his so called ‘poor leadership’. This is because all of the unlawful actions that were taken, such as the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras, were the misdoings of Reagan’s subordinates and not Reagan himself. In fact, it was proven by the Tower Commission that President Reagan had absolutely no knowledge of the events that were being unfolded, as they were being deliberately withheld from him by John Poindexter and Oliver North.
Several of the President’s advisers pursued a covert action to support the Contras in disregard of the Boland Amendment and of several statutes and Executive orders requiring Congressional notification. Several of these same advisers lied, shredded documents, and covered up their actions...As it stands, the President has publicly stated that he did not know of the diversion. Poindexter testified that he shielded the President from knowledge of the diversion..The record of the Iran-Contra Affair also shows a seriously flawed policymaking process...There was confusion and disarray at the highest levels of Government. The Iran-Contra Affair was characterized by pervasive dishonesty and inordinate secrecy...North admitted that he and other officials lied repeatedly to Congress and to the American people about the Contra covert action and Iran arms sales, and that he altered and destroyed official documents. North’s testimony demonstrates that he also lied to members of the Executive branch. (“The Majority Report”)
Clearly it seems absurd to blame President Reagan for actions taken without his approval or knowledge. His workers, Oliver North and John Poindexter, were the ones who took unlawful actions and purposely kept it to themselves. The president couldn’t be expected to be at fault for a situation which he was unaware of. Furthermore, I disagree with the jury’s verdict of guilty.
The Majority Report.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs. 19 March 2015. <https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/h-themajorityreport.php>
The Trial’s Significance
I believe that the President’s actions should be limited by the law, unless he or she is put into an extreme situation. The President should maintain proper checks and balances by always consulting with the other branches of government, and keeping his/her administration well informed of actions taken. Although some presidents believe that acting without authorization in order to do what is best for the country is justified, I do not think so. The president’s job is to have the country’s best interests at heart, however it doesn’t always end up as so. Just because the president holds a high position doesn’t mean that he or she’s actions should go unquestioned. When it came to the Iran-Contra Affair, President Reagan was found not guilty because he was well viewed in the eyes of Americans. In addition, the stressful times of the Cold War caused the public to see beyond the faults in his administration, furthermore forgiving Reagan for his actions. The Cold War climate changed the way the public viewed Reagan when he was accused of the scandal. People loved Reagan for ending the Cold War. Oliver North came out of the affair as a war hero because all of his actions were seen to have been taken for the great good of America. His charisma and patriotism seemed to defend and justify his actions. Nowadays many people don’t really consider Reagan’s involvement in the Iran-Contra affair as important because it took place a long time ago, and because Reagan was a very popular president.
The boundaries between government branches exist for a reason. Each branch serves a different purpose, calling for distinct lines when it comes to the affairs they’re involved with and their duties. Should this separation of power cease and a single branch of government take over the country, all checks and balances within the government would be lost and too much power would be vested in one pair of hands. Nobody would be able to control that single branch, and all “bad ideas” would go unchecked and unstopped. Since it’s most likely that the executive branch would be the one to hold enough power to take over, we could assume that this hypothetical situation would end up being similar to a dictatorship or monarchy. Rather than equal representation, the single branch would hold the ability to make all decisions without the authorization of anyone else. For these reasons, the Iran-Contra affair was seen to be a major scandal, as President Reagan and his administration were found to have disregarded the Constitution’s declaration of separation of power. This was based on the fact that funds were diverted to the Contra’s using only executive approval and disregarded both the judicial and legislative branch in the decision. The framers of the Constitution were wise to include the separation of power within their writing, as they prevented possible attempts at centralized power, and created checks and balances and a codependent governmental system.
Although any given President should be able in complete control of their administration, I have a hard time blaming those who are blamed for the wrongdoings of their subordinates. If something goes wrong in one’s administration and it was beyond their control, I don’t think they should be the one who is blamed for the situation. Furthermore, if a President is misled or lied to by his or her workers, I do not believe it is the president’s fault, especially if it involves the breaking of laws when unauthorized actions are taken. If a follower takes unlawful or unauthorized actions they should be the ones who pay for their misdoings rather than blaming the President who was unaware of the situation. If the leader truly took no part in the misdoings it is unfair to them to be prosecuted.
Back to Top
Contents -
Page 1: Reagan Biography
Page 2: Trial Recount
Page 3: Jury Deliberation/Trial Evaluation
Page 4: Trial Significance
Reagan Biography
Ronald Reagan didn’t initially chose a career in politics. Unlike many of our nation’s previous presidents who obtained an education specifically for their future job as a political leader, Reagan decided to become a Hollywood actor. Interestingly, it was Reagan’s work in Hollywood that introduced him to the field of politics and developed his interest.
After seeing the atrocities of World War II on film while in the First Motion Picture Unit, Reagan was convinced that Americans needed to protect against racism and other forms of prejudice. As he traveled to speak to various groups, however, he became convinced that many groups in America were beginning in his estimation to forget everything the US had fought for in Europe and Asia. At the recommendation of his pastor, he also began speaking out against Communism in America, and that was when he sometimes noticed a change in his audience's responses in Hollywood. (“Ronald Reagan”)
Only after pursuing and achieving a very successful job in film and acting, Reagan shifted his focus to American politics. By 1954, Reagan’s acting career seemed to be deteriorating while his political career was beginning to blossom. Although Reagan began his political career as a democrat, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962. Reagan was elected as California’s 33rd Governor on January of 1967, and served in this position until 1975. It was then that Reagan decided to run to presidency. Reagan wasn’t nominated as the Republican Party’s sole candidate for the 1976 election, however was in 1980. After a successful campaign against Jimmy Carter, John F. Kennedy was elected as the 40th President of the United States. Reagan served two presidential terms from 1980 to 1989.
In 1986, President Reagan became aware of what was known as the Iran-Contra Affair. This scandal involved the indirect selling of U.S. weapons to Iran, in exchange for hostages. The profits from these transactions were then diverted to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters known as the Contras. This diversion of funds was technically illegal since the Boland Amendment of 1984 prohibited such actions. This caused a great scandal within the Reagan administration because Reagan wasn’t actually ever made aware of the diversion of funds. His self-elected government officials in the National Security Council (NSC) had taken it upon themselves to deliberately withhold information from the President. This scandal proved that there was corruption within the government, and questioned the leadership capabilities of Reagan.
Oliver North, the deputy to the National Security Advisor of the NSC, played a key role in the Iran-Contra Affair. He was revealed as the mastermind behind the diversion of funds to the Contras, and one of the few individuals who was completely aware of the affair as it unfolded. Majority of the counts against North were acquitted, however he was still found guilty of obstructing a congressional investigation, destroying official documents, and illegally accepting expensive gifts. North was viewed as an American hero from his actions in the affair, leading to the repeal of his convictions. Reagan was also acquitted of his suggested crimes. Many see this as a result of his high stature in American society, and the sheer amount of love he received from the public. His ability to end the Cold War earned him much praise, and the pressure of presidency during the Cold War era gave him leniency in the eyes of Americans. To this day millions of Americans think that Reagan is innocent when it comes to the Iran-Contra Affair.
“Ronald Reagan.” Sparknotes. 23 March 2015. <http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/reagan/section4.rhtml>
Trial Recount
Before the trial against Ronald Reagan could commence, the jury had to be selected. Each of the attorneys asked the jurors an assortment of questions in order to determine whether or not they would be beneficial to their case. The prosecuting attorney, Nikki, questioned juror’s opinions regarding social issues such as gun control, abortion rights, gay rights, social programs, and taxes. It was clear that she was looking to pick out any conservative members of the jury. The defense attorney, Madi, questioned juror’s beliefs regarding management styles, the importance of honesty and American lives, and the dangers of the Cold War. Each lawyer chose to dismiss multiple jurors because of their biased opinions, insincere answers, or inability to show interest in the case.
After all jury members were sworn in, the counts against President Reagan were revealed and each lawyer made their opening statement. There were two counts against Reagan: a failure in leadership which led to the Iran-Contra Affair, and the breaking of the Boland Amendment. The prosecution attorney’s opening statement proposed that Reagan was completely aware of both the Iran and Contra parts of the affair, and it was his poor macro-management style that led to the scandal. In addition she argued that the NSC broke the Boland Amendment based on the fact that it was an intelligence agency. On the other hand, the defense attorney argued that there was absolutely no evidence that Reagan was guilty of causing the affair, and that at the time, Reagan was unaware of his subordinate’s actions. She made it clear that Reagan never took part in the diversion of funds to the Contras, as that was the unlawful misdoings of Oliver North and John Poindexter. They key witnesses in this trial proved to be all three of the defense witnesses: John Poindexter, Oliver North and Ronald Reagan. North and Poindexter both testified that they were completely responsible for the unlawful actions that took place and that they were proud of their actions. In accordance, Reagan agreed that the diversion of funds to the Contras was done under his nose and against what was advised to the NSC.
Before the jury made their final decision regarding the counts against President Reagan, they discussed the strengths and areas of improvement for both trial teams. In the case of the prosecution, the jury liked their well-thought out questions, hard-hitting cross examination, overall preparedness, and opening and closing statements. However, the jury felt as though the lawyer could have restrained her temper more, showed more courtroom etiquette, and used less statements. In addition the jury noticed that the prosecution witnesses could have been more prepared and confident in their roles. In the case of the defense, the jury enjoyed the opening and closing statements, the direct and cross examination questions, the preparedness of the witnesses when it came to historical information, and the lawyer’s ability to clarify confusing information. However they jury felt as though the defense could have found more substantial evidence and used more spontaneity in their performance. Also before determining the verdict, the jury discussed areas of confusion when it came to the Iran-Contra affair. The questions asked by the jury are as follows: Was choosing untrustworthy officials an act of poor leadership? Is the NSC really considered an intelligence organization? Does Jimmy Carter’s situation relate to that of President Reagan’s? Was the trade of weapons a good idea based on the situation? And lastly, what’s the difference between the two Boland Amendments/What are they?
Jury Deliberation / Trial Evaluation
The jury arrived on their verdict after discussing areas of confusion when it came to the history of the event. They collectively agreed that the National Security Council (NSC) was indeed a government intelligence agency, furthermore confirming the fact that the Boland Amendment was violated by the affair. They also agreed that Reagan failed to do his job as the president since the self-elected members of his administration proved to be untrustworthy and unlawful. Majority of the jury members agreed that it was Reagan's job to ensure that his cabinet members were carrying out trustworthy and responsible work, and that his macromanagement style was a poor method of leadership. Furthermore the jury interpreted his failure in leadership as the reason why the Iran-Contra affair occurred. Based on this discussion and conclusion of events, President Ronald Reagan was found guilty of a failure in leadership and of violating the Boland Amendment. Both counts received a 5-1 majority vote.
I disagree with the jury’s decision to find President Reagan guilty of causing the Iran-Contra affair and the violation of the Boland Amendment through his so called ‘poor leadership’. This is because all of the unlawful actions that were taken, such as the diversion of funds to the Nicaraguan Contras, were the misdoings of Reagan’s subordinates and not Reagan himself. In fact, it was proven by the Tower Commission that President Reagan had absolutely no knowledge of the events that were being unfolded, as they were being deliberately withheld from him by John Poindexter and Oliver North.
Several of the President’s advisers pursued a covert action to support the Contras in disregard of the Boland Amendment and of several statutes and Executive orders requiring Congressional notification. Several of these same advisers lied, shredded documents, and covered up their actions...As it stands, the President has publicly stated that he did not know of the diversion. Poindexter testified that he shielded the President from knowledge of the diversion..The record of the Iran-Contra Affair also shows a seriously flawed policymaking process...There was confusion and disarray at the highest levels of Government. The Iran-Contra Affair was characterized by pervasive dishonesty and inordinate secrecy...North admitted that he and other officials lied repeatedly to Congress and to the American people about the Contra covert action and Iran arms sales, and that he altered and destroyed official documents. North’s testimony demonstrates that he also lied to members of the Executive branch. (“The Majority Report”)
Clearly it seems absurd to blame President Reagan for actions taken without his approval or knowledge. His workers, Oliver North and John Poindexter, were the ones who took unlawful actions and purposely kept it to themselves. The president couldn’t be expected to be at fault for a situation which he was unaware of. Furthermore, I disagree with the jury’s verdict of guilty.
The Majority Report.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs. 19 March 2015. <https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/h-themajorityreport.php>
The Trial’s Significance
I believe that the President’s actions should be limited by the law, unless he or she is put into an extreme situation. The President should maintain proper checks and balances by always consulting with the other branches of government, and keeping his/her administration well informed of actions taken. Although some presidents believe that acting without authorization in order to do what is best for the country is justified, I do not think so. The president’s job is to have the country’s best interests at heart, however it doesn’t always end up as so. Just because the president holds a high position doesn’t mean that he or she’s actions should go unquestioned. When it came to the Iran-Contra Affair, President Reagan was found not guilty because he was well viewed in the eyes of Americans. In addition, the stressful times of the Cold War caused the public to see beyond the faults in his administration, furthermore forgiving Reagan for his actions. The Cold War climate changed the way the public viewed Reagan when he was accused of the scandal. People loved Reagan for ending the Cold War. Oliver North came out of the affair as a war hero because all of his actions were seen to have been taken for the great good of America. His charisma and patriotism seemed to defend and justify his actions. Nowadays many people don’t really consider Reagan’s involvement in the Iran-Contra affair as important because it took place a long time ago, and because Reagan was a very popular president.
The boundaries between government branches exist for a reason. Each branch serves a different purpose, calling for distinct lines when it comes to the affairs they’re involved with and their duties. Should this separation of power cease and a single branch of government take over the country, all checks and balances within the government would be lost and too much power would be vested in one pair of hands. Nobody would be able to control that single branch, and all “bad ideas” would go unchecked and unstopped. Since it’s most likely that the executive branch would be the one to hold enough power to take over, we could assume that this hypothetical situation would end up being similar to a dictatorship or monarchy. Rather than equal representation, the single branch would hold the ability to make all decisions without the authorization of anyone else. For these reasons, the Iran-Contra affair was seen to be a major scandal, as President Reagan and his administration were found to have disregarded the Constitution’s declaration of separation of power. This was based on the fact that funds were diverted to the Contra’s using only executive approval and disregarded both the judicial and legislative branch in the decision. The framers of the Constitution were wise to include the separation of power within their writing, as they prevented possible attempts at centralized power, and created checks and balances and a codependent governmental system.
Although any given President should be able in complete control of their administration, I have a hard time blaming those who are blamed for the wrongdoings of their subordinates. If something goes wrong in one’s administration and it was beyond their control, I don’t think they should be the one who is blamed for the situation. Furthermore, if a President is misled or lied to by his or her workers, I do not believe it is the president’s fault, especially if it involves the breaking of laws when unauthorized actions are taken. If a follower takes unlawful or unauthorized actions they should be the ones who pay for their misdoings rather than blaming the President who was unaware of the situation. If the leader truly took no part in the misdoings it is unfair to them to be prosecuted.
Back to Top
Modern Day Trial
Climate Change (Svanberg):
I agree with the jury’s verdict of not guilty of intentionally producing greenhouse gases. This is because Svanberg is currently playing an active role in moving BP towards a cleaner future. In fact, Svanberg supports the climate change cause, identifies it as a pressing issue, and is working to lead BP towards low-carbon production methods. His position on the topic was made clear at the UN Leadership Forum on Climate Change where he said, "Change will require the commitment and actions of all levels of society, governments, industry, civil society and individuals. A committed global effort at COP15 is essential to secure both environmental sustainability and economic development..." (“Ericsson CEO”). This statement makes it clear that Svanberg’s role as Chairman of BP is not to purposely deteriorate the environment for profit, it is to supply society’s demand for oil while developing the best possible manufacturing processes for the world. Because of Svanberg's undeniable interest in environmental sustainability, I agree with the jury’s decision to declare him not guilty of intentionally producing greenhouse gases.
Along with every other person on the planet, I personally play a role in climate change. Although like many others, I may not feel a large sense of personal responsibility to take action, the problem is realistically within all of our hands. At this point, the importance of positive change is paramount. Unfortunately, society isn’t quite prepared for such a radical lifestyle shift. Although everyone is equally responsible for climate change, society has made it very easy to pin the blame on those in power. This has led people to overlook the fact that it’s the general population who is to blame. Society creates an ever increasing demand for consumeristic products, and makes up majority of the people on earth. If society was to make an effort to reduce or eliminate this demand, the supply chain would cease to exist. Significant changes can’t be made by executives, only collective effort will produce large scale change. Although many people have become aware of the effects of climate change, they either don’t feel enough personal responsibility to fix the problem, or deny the problem out of fear of the consequences. This is because “surviving” in modern society requires the use of the world’s natural resources. However, this doesn’t mean that with technological advances and dedication to positive chance that we can adopt a renewable and clean lifestyle.
Those who take advantage of the commons for profit should not be blamed for growing climate change. Although they may be “knowing” of their actions, majority of these people are simply doing their job. If their job was unnecessary, then it would cease to exist. Some people feel as though they can blame the large corporations for using unsustainable methods and non-renewable sources, however those corporations are providing an essential commodity to the lives of everyone. It may be easier to blame people in power in order to feel “off the hook”, but the blame ultimately comes down to the demand portion of the supply chain. This effect has taken America by storm, as in such a consumeristic society individuals continue to blame the deteriorating environment on large corporations while continuing their normal lifestyles. Some people may ease their consciousness by buying “earth saving” commodities such as electric cars, however they fail to look at the big picture situation and realize that they are continuing to create waste, buy unnecessary products, and increase demand. This personal inaction to make change has led to a continuing reliance on powerful individuals rather than the majority to make the changes needed.
“Ericsson CEO advocates technology-driven climate agenda at UN Leadership Forum on Climate Change.” Ericsson. 26 April 2015.
<http://www.ericsson.com/news/1343089>
Back to Top
Climate Change (Svanberg):
I agree with the jury’s verdict of not guilty of intentionally producing greenhouse gases. This is because Svanberg is currently playing an active role in moving BP towards a cleaner future. In fact, Svanberg supports the climate change cause, identifies it as a pressing issue, and is working to lead BP towards low-carbon production methods. His position on the topic was made clear at the UN Leadership Forum on Climate Change where he said, "Change will require the commitment and actions of all levels of society, governments, industry, civil society and individuals. A committed global effort at COP15 is essential to secure both environmental sustainability and economic development..." (“Ericsson CEO”). This statement makes it clear that Svanberg’s role as Chairman of BP is not to purposely deteriorate the environment for profit, it is to supply society’s demand for oil while developing the best possible manufacturing processes for the world. Because of Svanberg's undeniable interest in environmental sustainability, I agree with the jury’s decision to declare him not guilty of intentionally producing greenhouse gases.
Along with every other person on the planet, I personally play a role in climate change. Although like many others, I may not feel a large sense of personal responsibility to take action, the problem is realistically within all of our hands. At this point, the importance of positive change is paramount. Unfortunately, society isn’t quite prepared for such a radical lifestyle shift. Although everyone is equally responsible for climate change, society has made it very easy to pin the blame on those in power. This has led people to overlook the fact that it’s the general population who is to blame. Society creates an ever increasing demand for consumeristic products, and makes up majority of the people on earth. If society was to make an effort to reduce or eliminate this demand, the supply chain would cease to exist. Significant changes can’t be made by executives, only collective effort will produce large scale change. Although many people have become aware of the effects of climate change, they either don’t feel enough personal responsibility to fix the problem, or deny the problem out of fear of the consequences. This is because “surviving” in modern society requires the use of the world’s natural resources. However, this doesn’t mean that with technological advances and dedication to positive chance that we can adopt a renewable and clean lifestyle.
Those who take advantage of the commons for profit should not be blamed for growing climate change. Although they may be “knowing” of their actions, majority of these people are simply doing their job. If their job was unnecessary, then it would cease to exist. Some people feel as though they can blame the large corporations for using unsustainable methods and non-renewable sources, however those corporations are providing an essential commodity to the lives of everyone. It may be easier to blame people in power in order to feel “off the hook”, but the blame ultimately comes down to the demand portion of the supply chain. This effect has taken America by storm, as in such a consumeristic society individuals continue to blame the deteriorating environment on large corporations while continuing their normal lifestyles. Some people may ease their consciousness by buying “earth saving” commodities such as electric cars, however they fail to look at the big picture situation and realize that they are continuing to create waste, buy unnecessary products, and increase demand. This personal inaction to make change has led to a continuing reliance on powerful individuals rather than the majority to make the changes needed.
“Ericsson CEO advocates technology-driven climate agenda at UN Leadership Forum on Climate Change.” Ericsson. 26 April 2015.
<http://www.ericsson.com/news/1343089>
Back to Top