Throughout known history the system of democracy seems to be the most just, the most logical and the fairest of all ruling systems. Its ability to adjust to changing times is only one reason for its perseverance. In John Steinbeck’s The Moon is Down, this durability is displayed through the townspeople led by Mayor Orden, under the oppressive heels of their conquerors. One of the most obvious examples of democracy’s endurance is the resistance displayed by the townspeople against their invaders. The oppression and invasion of the conquerors arouse, instead of crush, the desire in the defeated for freedom. These people, who have lived with the idea of a free rule of democracy, refuse to be chained down under the oppressive rule of the conquerors. It is for this reason that they strike back at their invaders. As said by Mayor Orden to Colonel Lanser of the aggressors, “ ‘The people don’t like to be conquered, sir, and so they will not be. Free men cannot start a war, but once it is started, they can fight on in defeat. Herd men, followers of a leader, cannot do that, and so it is always the herd men who win battles and the free men who win wars.’ ” [pp. 185-186] Thus, it is because of their freedom that people believing in the free rule of democracy do not let down and die when conquered, do not accept their being robbed of their rights, and fight against what is unjustly done to them. The townspeople fight on again, perhaps with even more resolve, after the execution of Alex Morden, instead of their spirits being crushed, as was the intent. The entire purpose of Alex Morden’s public execution was to dissuade potential upstarts, but the result was the exact opposite of what was desired. The public display only empowered the townspeople’s resolve to fight back. To put it in Mayor Orden’s words, “ ‘Our people are invaded, but I don’t think they’re conquered.’ ” [p 139] Consequently, these people refuse to be put down, and, when faced with situations like Alex’s death, are not deterred but continue on with strengthened resolve. While resistance is one aspect of democracy’s endurance, determination is another powerful ability it has, as it is shown in the Anders boys’ escape to Britain for help. Because of their overwhelming desire for freedom, the townspeople were willing to, and did, try anything possible to rebel against their invaders.
Arthur Miller's portrayal of Salem, Massachusetts can be juxtaposed with Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany. While the motivations differ, societal similarities exist and both teach us that when a whole society of people have a fear so great that it can be used against them, the society will try to do anything and everything in their power to prevent this from happening. Even when the means of prevention involves innocent people dieing and the judiciary system becoming corrupt, the society will act upon this fear of wickedness and the devil.
In this paper I will explain and discuss the historical events that took place in a small rural town in early Massachusetts. The setting for which is Irene Quenzler Brown's and Richard D. Brown's, The Hanging of Ephraim Wheeler. I will explain the actions and motives of Hannah and Betsy Wheeler in seeking legal retribution of husband and father Ephraim Wheeler. I will also discuss the large scope of patriarchal power allowed by the law and that given to husbands and masters of households. Of course, this will also lead to discussions of what was considered abuse of these powers by society and the motivation for upholding the Supreme Court's decision to hang Ephraim Wheeler.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
War affects everyone involved - the conquerors and those being conquered. War is a struggle that is internal and external. Man can be a dedicated and loyal soldier for only so much at a time. He then longs for laughter, music, girls, a good meal and more. In The Moon is Down, the soldiers feel the need to return home. They begin to doubt what they are doing and if they are being told the truth. They become uneasy when the enemy doesn't talk to them. The townspeople's hatred is growing. They remained indoors and stared from behind curtains while the patrol walked through the town.
...w. Ultimately all order is lost and cannot be redeemed by the high court because Danforth “cannot pardon when twelve are already hanged for the same crime” (4.129) Chaos wins the battle against order and thus breaking the power of theocracy in Salem.
There is considerable evidence for the praise of democracy in the Histories. An example of praise for democracy is Herodotus’s disregard for tyranny as a political system . Through the description of Peisistratos’s rule, Herodotus acknowledges the limitations and faults with having a tyrannical government. Herodotus describes Peisistratos rule as period of Athenians being oppressed, held down form being truly free, unable to reach its potential. According to Herodotus, even the best of all men, if they are presented with the power that comes with being a tyrant, that moral man will inevitably fall to power and corruption. Herodotus gives the impression that the Athenians under Peisistratos were oppressed and divided, because of this Herodotus, through evidence of Peisistratos’s rule, suggests that tyranny leaves the state in a weakened condition. However, Herodotus believed that in a democracy no one man can have absolute rule or power, so there can be no corruption of the law.
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
In “Democracy” by E.B. White, White describes what Democracy is, and he uses metaphors throughout his response to show both the positive and negative characteristics of Democracy. White supports Democracy, because overall, Democracy emboldens equality among all in the sense that one person should not have a biased advantage over the other. Equality stimulates privacy, which then gives people a sense of significance. In addition, White stresses the idea that Democracy is very heavy on citizens: not only do the government officials have influence in the system, but citizens have a say in the system as well. This allows pompous people to not have too much egotism in themselves because Democracy opposes that. Despite the fact that White has pride in Democracy due to many positive aspects, White also metaphorically points out a few
In the beginning of the late seventeenth century a sense of fear and panic was sweeping throughout the colonies of North America this fear began in a small town in Massachusetts called Salem and would lead to the death of nineteen people. This fear was caused by young Puritan girls who started randomly convulsing and accusing people of being witches many of the accused were women many single or widowed who owned land and this event was titled The Salem Witch Trails, but another smaller very significant event also took place during this period of time that event is the attempted hanging of Mary Webster. Both of these events are very significant in the fact that they would become a basis of American literature and would bring about a very big theme even in today`s literature that theme being “A majority does not always make the right decision.” Both of these events would lead to the writing of two significant pieces
...f those who submit authority to have a voice in their own government.” To the rest of the world, the US was the best place for democracy, yet they were not instilling the ideas they fought for. (Greenberg & Page, pg. 235)
"Democracy" means, to many Americans, a system in which they choose their own leaders, voice their opinions to representatives in government, and human rights and freedoms are respected by the state. But in practice, "democracy," when applied abroad by the United States, means subjugating native peoples to the will of American corporations, and in the process, the destruction...
In comparing the average citizen in a democratic nation, say the United States, to that of a non-democratic nation, for instance Egypt, it will be found that the citizen in the democratic nation is generally better off – free of persecution, free from fear of the authorities, and free to express his opinions on governmental matters. And while national conflicts occur everywhere, incidents like violent revolts have shown to be more prevalent in nations where citizens are not allowed to choose who governs them. It is slightly paradoxical that democracy, so inherently flawed in theory, can lead to such successful outcomes in practice. The question, then, becomes: “If democracy has so many weaknesses, why does it work?”
America has long been recognized as a democratic nation, a nation operating under the will of the people. The forefathers of America fought incessantly against British tyranny to start anew in a land of freedom and opportunity. Because America revived the ancient Greek ideology of democracy, the nation was set apart from the rest of the world and was revered for the freedom and justice it provided its people. However, not everyone thinks that American democracy means freedom and liberty. On the contrary, writers such as Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" and "Slavery in Massachusetts," along with Herman Melville in "Benito Cereno" and "Bartleby the Scrivener," suggest that democracy can actually oppress and restrict the individual.
Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.
Throughout history different types of instrumental regimes have been in tact so civilizations remained structured and cohesive. As humanity advanced, governments obligingly followed. Although there have been hiccups from the ancient times to modern day, one type of government, democracy, has proven to be the most effective and adaptive. As quoted by Winston Churchill, democracy is the best form of government that has existed. This is true because the heart of democracy is reliant, dependent, and thrives on the populaces desires; which gives them the ability for maintaining the right to choose, over time it adjusts and fixes itself to engulf the prominent troubling issues, and people have the right of electing the person they deem appropriate and can denounce them once they no longer appease them. In this paper, the benefits of democracy are outlined, compared to autocratic communism, and finally the flaws of democracy are illustrated.