How american civil war was irrepressible

How american civil war was irrepressible INTRODUCTION The American civil war was the largest ever armed conflict to occur on Americas soil and it occurred in between the years of 1861 to 1865. It was deadly and arguably the most important event in the nations history. Sections entrenched in the constitution of the united sates Catapulted tension between the northern and the southern states leading to a brutal war. Slavery was a root cause of the conflict. This war increased Americas economic dominance until it overtook all the other countries of the world. It also lead the country into having a strong constitution that made Americans to be part of a single nation instead of a corporate made up of different states with their own rules and institutions. The war indeed changed the way Americans viewed their own nation seeing it as one nation. After the war every part of Americas national fabric changed; from the role of the federal government to the status of African Americans. The war was triggered by the victory of Abraham Lincoln in the elections of 1860. FACTORS THAT MADE THE CIVIL WAR IRREPRESSIBLE In these elections. The Republican Party led by Lincoln won, beating three other candidates. The southerners did not vote for him so his victory was seen as a northern affair. His speech, given in 1858, stated that, a divided house cannot stand and visualized that America can not endure a â€Å"half-slave and half-free.† This clearly showed that he was a moderate and was therefore not up to task, in the views of the southerners, to be able to tackle the abolitionist they perceived as a threat. He countered this by stating he will uphold the doctrine of states right. Most southerners distrusted him.. His victory in the election led to the secession of eleven southern states from the union leading to the formation of the Confederate States of America with Jefferson Davis as its president. This was viewed by the US administrators as an act of treason. Hostilities were prompted in April of 1861 when the conferderationist attacked a US military installation at fort summer in South Carolina leading to Lincoln, who had been in office for only six weeks to call for each state to volunteer an army. He declared these acts of secession as illegal and asked Congress for 500,000 soldiers to crush what threatened to be an aggressive rebellion. This lead to declaration of secession by four other states. In 1862 lincolin emancipation declaration made ending slavery in the south the goal of the war. This was the principle of abolition. As a principle it was more than just the need to limit and abolish slavery. Slavery existed in the southern states and the federal government could not intervene as the constitution did not permit. Previously most northerners had favored a gradual and compensated scheme of slave emancipation but this was rejected by 1849 where they know demanded its immediate end every where. In 1807 external slave had been abolished making slave trade to be purely internal. The Dred Scott decision effectively limited the expansion of slavery in the US but the fugitive slave act that was subsequently passed declared slaves as properties. This lead to hostilities between the southern states and the northern ones. Politicians in a bid to stem the feuds brought the compromise of 1850 and negotiated the status of territories gained after the Mexican- American war (1846-1848). This compromise was also aimed at maintaining the balance of power in Congress between leaders of slave states and those of Free states. It designated land, boundaries and processes by which a country could be slave state or a free state. Still, these compromises did not prevent divisions from growing. Opposition to the abolition movement in the south was strong due to several factors. The coexistence of the slavery south with the free states of the north was a recipe for disaster. Abraham lincolin had not proposed any laws to curb slavery and most politicians were riding on the fence. Political feuds were a bout expanding slavery to the new territories of the west so as to enhance economic security of the south. These new territories were more likely to become Free states, a move that propelled southerners to embrace secessionism. Both leaders of the north and south used Thomas Jefferson ideas listed in his Kentucky resolutions to defend there hard line positions. Slavery indeed was the chief reason for secession. The southerners used state rights as a cover for defending slavery. They used this doctrine of a states right to base many of their grievances. The Constitution aimed at taking a middle ground by juggling the notion of a federal government with the freedom of individual states to govern them. This doctrine to which the United States was founded became the basis for the South in its quest to block northerners from imposing anti-slavery laws to it. The support of seccession was correlated to the number of plantations in the south and these were the regions that had more slave owners who had more than 100 slaves. To the southerners the notion of equality with blacks coupled with loss of economic prosperity was a worrisome matter. The north and south were different as the south had an agricultural economy based on slavery while the north had an industrial economy based on free labor and was an industrial power. The fear in the south was a bout the abolitionist movement in the north that was growing stronger each day and had the potential to putting down slavery and in effect putting an end to their way of life. The constitution of 1787 provided some legal protection to the institution of slavery and also prohibited the importation of slaves after 1808. By the first half of th e nineteenth century, states north of the Mason Dixon line that is the border between Maryland and Pennsylvania began to outlaw slave labor. This lead to temperament and brewing sectional conflict leading to the Missouri compromise of 1850 where the northern leaders accepted into the Union a new slave state of Missouri, on condition that Maine, another state be a free territory. These are the major primary factors that precipitated the American civil war. CONCLUSION. The southern states were agricultural in nature. Hence they relied heavily on slavery as the main means of labor provision. This is what underpinned the high economic growth experienced by these states prior to the crush of the 1850s. Hence when the abolitionist was campaigning for equal rights and equality, these were viewed as a direct threat to there means of survival and wealth creation. The implication of slavery vibrated through the political, social and economic dimension in the relationship between the northern states and the southern states. This was the primary reason for the civil war and these factors made the slide to the civil war inevitable. REFERENCE. Nash, G,et al, â€Å"The American People, Creating a Nation and a Society Vol 1 to 1877†, sixth edition, Pearson, New York, 2008. Finlay, J.L. â€Å"Pre-Confederation Canada: The Structure of Canadian History to 1867†, Prenice Hall, Scarborough,. 1990.

Is Claudius Presented by Shakespeare as a Tragic Villain Without Any Redeeming Features? Essay

As the King, Shakespeare presents Claudius as an able ruler who is trying to prove his worthiness to his court. This is apparent in Act 1, Scene 2 in Claudius’ opening speech. Claudius can be seen as being sincere in this speech as he mentions the death of his brother: ‘bear our hearts in grief’ (page 15) and he also states that the country is ‘contracted in one brow of woe’ (page 15). His language could be interpreted as heartfelt in his opening speech as he feels genuine sorrow over his brother’s death. This is a redeeming feature as he appears to feel love towards his brother for mentioning him as he takes his place as King. The language Shakespeare uses in Claudius’ opening speech is dismissive about the threat that Denmark may face from Norway due to Fortinbras: ‘So much for him’ (page 17). This is because he wants to display his confidence as a leader and to calm the listeners. This contributes to Claudius’ redeeming features as he appears to be considerate towards the feelings of those within the court. He does not wish to worry them and therefore comes across as an able leader. It may be interpreted that Claudius is inferior to his predecessor and is trying to provide the court with the reassurance that he can follow on from the previous King. Hamlet states that Claudius is ‘no more like my father/Than I to Hercules’ (page 25). This imagery that Shakespeare uses shows the previous King as a stern warrior in the mold of classical Greek heroes. In contrast, Claudius is a corrupt politician whose weapon is his ability to manipulate others through his skillful use of language. Shakespeare structures juxtaposition between the setting of Act one, Scene ne and Act one, Scene two in order to show a contrast in the reality and the dream in Claudius’ mind. Act one, Scene one takes place outside the castle at the dead of night. This pathetic fallacy creates a foreboding and intense atmosphere, almost predicting the appearance of the Ghost. The Ghost represents the harsh reality that Claudius has to face and the reason for his feelings of guilt. Act one, Scene two contrasts with the previous scene as it takes place inside the castle, with Claudius at the centre. This is Claudius’ dream situation, that he is King of Denmark with Gertrude as his Queen. The dramatic change in setting between scenes makes Claudius appear more oblivious to the consequences of his actions, as he is now centre of attention as King. This disillusion that Claudius appears to be in may deter the audience, as he cannot accept the effect of his actions. Unlike the majority of speeches throughout the play, Claudius’ opening speech deviates from iambic pentameter. This reflects the disorder that Claudius has created because of the murder. Court life would ordinarily have order and tranquillity and the structure of Claudius’ speech does not reflect this. However, it can be seen that Claudius is trying to restore order through his speech as he settles the court over the threat of Fortinbras: ‘So much for him’ (page 17). However, this is unlikely as Claudius’ actions led to the destruction of many other characters and does not restore order. The fact that the speech itself does not fit in with the typical Shakespearean structure of iambic pentameter, could reflect that Claudius himself does not fit in as the King of Denmark as he disrupts the divine hierarchy. Claudius disrupts the Chain of Being, a hierarchy derived from Aristotle and Plato; this would have been followed during the Elizabethan time period. At the top of the chain are God and the angels; whilst at the bottom are plants and rocks. Claudius disrupts the hierarchy as he takes the place of the previous King by marrying the Queen and not being next in line to the throne: ‘†¦for which I did the murder/My crown, mine own ambition, and my Queen’ (page 165). This can be interpreted as a villainous act that was committed purely for the gain of Claudius. Such an act would be typical of a tragic villain as his acts lead to the downfall of the other characters. For example, Claudius’ actions lead to Hamlet receiving a visit from the Ghost and therefore feigning his madness in order to, eventually, avenge his fathers’ death. However, it is possible that Claudius is not a typical tragic villain. Claudius appears to feel guilt for murdering his brother, which is clear from his soliloquy in Act three, Scene three: ‘My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent’ (page 163). His attempted prayer proves he cannot be wholly evil if he seeks forgiveness for his sins. He does this although he is not a religious man: ‘Bow stubborn knees’ (page 165), which suggests he feels deep guilt and resentment over his actions for him to turn to religion for forgiveness. This is not typical of tragic villains, who tend not to be religious or feel any resentment for their behaviour. This could show that Claudius wishes to be saved from going to hell after his death, which would not be a typical concern of a Shakespearean villain. Claudius also creates peace with the other characters. For example, in his opening speech in Act one, Scene two, he is trying not to worry the court about the potential threat of Fortinbras, and in Act four, Scene five, Claudius tries to calm Laertes’ rage rather than encourage him to kill Hamlet. Such actions would not be typical of Shakespearean tragic villains, such as Iago from ‘Othello’. Iago feels no guilt for his actions against Cassio, Othello and Desdemona and is aware of the pain he is inflicting onto others. His actions against Othello also appear purposeless as it is never revealed why he dislikes him and wants him to suffer so much. Claudius is unlike Iago as he does feel guilt and his actions are indeed purposeful. Whereas most of the other important men in ‘Hamlet’ are preoccupied with ideas of justice, revenge, and moral balance, Claudius’ actions are focused on maintaining his power. Although Claudius is Hamlet’s antagonist, he does have a number of redeeming features. He appears to have genuine affection for Gertrude, as one of the reasons for the murder of the King was to marry her: ‘My crown†¦and my Queen’ (page 165). This also comes across in Act five, Scene two, as when Gertrude is about to drink the poisoned wine, he tells her ‘do not drink’ (page 281). Claudius is aware of the affection Gertrude feels for Hamlet and when trying to be rid of him, considers her feelings: ‘That as the star moves not but in his sphere/I could not but by her. ’ (page 223). The imagery that Shakespeare uses is very unlike Claudius’ character and more similar to Gertrude’s. The imagery of spheres, that at the time where believed to revolve around the Earth containing heavenly bodies, shows that Claudius has love for Gertrude and could not live without her. Claudius also appears to care for Hamlet to some extent. He appears to be concerned for Hamlet’s well-being, as he brings in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in order to work out the cause of his ‘transformation’ (page 77). However, some may argue this is just an excuse for Claudius to discover whether or not Hamlet may know the truth of his father’s death. He thinks Hamlet’s madness is ‘More than his father’s death’ (page 77) and therefore wants to uncover the reason behind it. It can be seen that Hamlet’s madness is feigned and he does this purposely to see if Claudius is becoming suspicious of his actions. For example, in Act three, Scene two after witnessing Claudius’ outburst when the Player King is killed, Claudius demands for the lights: ‘Give me some light – away! ’ (page 153). This could be seen as an expression of emotion as Claudius feels tremendous guilt over his brother’s death or as a way of not allowing anyone else to gain suspicion in him through the play. Other interpretations of Claudius that the audience receive are from the other characters. Shakespeare presents grotesque and vile imagery used by Hamlet and the Ghost to describe Claudius. When Hamlet sees the Ghost in Act one, Scene five, the Ghost uses imagery of disease and corruption to describe Claudius and his actions: ‘Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast’ (page 51). Shakespeare uses the word ‘beast’ in reference to a cuckold. In Elizabethan times, if a woman were to have an affair, the husband would be known as a cuckold with horns to represent their foolishness in â€Å"losing† their wives. This imagery contrasts with the audience’s first interpretation of Claudius where Shakespeare presents him as a competent leader. This is the only alternate view that the reader receives in the play as both Hamlet and the Ghost have reason for hating Claudius. The view that Shakespeare gives them will have been fogged by their hatred of him and not give a fair representation of Claudius’ character. To conclude, Claudius is not a typical tragic villain due to his feelings of guilt and his consideration of others. The representation the reader receives from other characters is not a fair interpretation due to their abhorrence of him. Bibliography Heinemann Advanced Shakespeare – ‘Hamlet’ sparknotes. com sirbacon. org – F. C. Hunt interpretation

American National Government

What a piece of writing must that be, one inevitably thinks, the story which contributes to and precedes by two months the scandalous fall of a President. All the President’s Men is the real account of Washington Post’s two young reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward who conducted two years of investigations to untie the Gordian knot and eventually expose of a very complicated political conspiracy mounting up to the Chief of State.The actual report starts one sunny Saturday in the Capital in 1974, when the two authors have started working on the topic of the Watergate break-in and develops into a broad inquiry through the political fraud and crimes that lead to the resignation of the then president Richard Nixon and his administration. Even though narrated in a simple and succinct manner, almost telegraphic, the story astonished me because of the huge bid of the search and the courage of taking it to its end, the chain-reaction it provoked, which obviously disrupte d the political life of the US and fired up the world’s public opinion.Placing it in real-time, we see that President Nixon resigned two months after the story was published. Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward’s investigation was altogether a great factor which contributed to the disclosure of a dirty business including money laundering, fraudulent electoral campaign, illegal wiretapping and other crimes that contravene to the very principles of the American Constitution and the Governmental establishment, and to the values of democracy in total.Undoubtedly, the sum of notes, papers and inquiries that the two reporters have gathered for the two-year coverage in The Washington Post has given birth to a book full of suspense, easy to read for the less initiated, full of insight into the political machinations and hierarchies at the White House and other organisms like CIA and FBI. The true story was awarded the Pulitzer price and inspired a very faithful cinematographic adapt ation in 1976, which in my opinion respects exactly the long and thorough problem-solving demarche of the two reporters through a net of hundreds and hundreds of leads.What I liked is the rhythm of the story and the perfume of the time. It is astounding to read the original chronicles of a journalistic investigation that made so much difference in the political and administrative life of the United States. At first, I found it a good, fast-paced detective story that appeals to the adventurer hidden in any of us, featuring a burglary intrigue and two â€Å"ordinary† heroes describing their obstinate effort to penetrate a very scary wall of silence that lead higher that either of them had imagined.Until then, it was like all good detectives normally do. But some dozen pages later, the heavy responsibility of the whole account struck me. I mean, as foreigner, this gave me a very crude and abrupt insight into the ramifications of the American administration seen through the eyes of professional journalists at that time, without much of introduction or decryption. This could account for a negative point, the rapidity of the narration, if the book had been meant to be didactic, not informational: a snapshot of the event.And because it was written at a time when this scandal grew to be central to the daily life of Americans, it achieves a role that I find essential for a very good documentary: the pulse of the time, the organisms of decision, the power structures and pressure games, the small hassles at the Post’s headquarters etc. Even though I had some notion about the affair before, the book launched me into a roller-coaster ride into the world of politics, newspaper journalism and communications.Before reading it as a sensational story, for me it was a manual of journalistic methodology and intuition. I particularly liked considering the ethical issues of such a public-related endeavor and the responsibility towards the audience, sources and actors, the dedicated meticulousness in working their way through this spider web of secret connections and political protocols. But overall, I found particularly inspiring the unequal buildup of the whole scheme up to the final takeover.There are several stages where Woodward and Bernstein’s findings give butterflies in the stomach, like discovering that one of the Watergate intruders was a CIA security agent, or when the two reporters meet the secretive agent â€Å"Deep-Throat†, and then when they publish the findings of the FBI regarding the greater scope of the burglary, which was in fact a huge misappropriation of funds, sabotage meant to create funds for Nixon’s reelection. And even though this book is not written in a pedagogical manner, the facts speak for themselves beyond any morals or heavy conclusions.As their echo proves, the articles, book and then the movie they inspired created a completely new approach to America’s institutions and, most probabl y, raised a great questioning mark over the political regimes worldwide. Taking up by the traces it left, I believe â€Å"All the President’s Men† managed to prove that any earthly institution is deeply questionable and may be biased or fraudulent despite its ideology. However, from a historical point of view, the book further shows that these regimes are savable provided the freedom of speech and research is allowed.The very principle of democracy is that each individual has the privilege and the duty to contribute for the collective well-being, and so they can become agents of change, when irregularities happen. I deeply believe this book stimulates such awareness and, why not, the reflex to keep one’s eye open and act with abnegation when needed. In consequence, the papers make an excellent material for our American National Government course because it provides a very strong case study of the American federal scheme of government and its potential breaches.I t underlines how the 4th state power, the mass media, can contribute to the regulation of an eventually corrupted system by rendering it transparent. We also have a very intricate access to very confidential information and behind the scene leads in the governmental hive. Because I come from a different culture, I esteemed the way this story, written with modesty, reveals the power of the press within American political process, as well as the power of the individual(s) within the hierarchies of power.The determination, perseverance of the two reporters, even after hitting apparent dead-ends lead to a huge mobilization of forces and a substantial change. In accordance, I would like to mention the patriotism of the veteran â€Å"Deep Throat†, revealed after more than 30 years of confidentiality as â€Å"FBI ‘s No. 2† official, W. Mark Felt† . This is an example of a personal belief initiative taken despite the great threats, without which the whole story cou ld have passed unproven.Wondering about the real contribution of Felt, I came about the statement of the two reporters in a 2005 Washington Post article. According to article’s author David Von Drehle’s, â€Å"Woodward and Bernstein expressed a concern that the Deep Throat story has, over the years, come to obscure the many other elements that went into exposing the Watergate story: other sources, other investigators, high-impact Senate hearings, a shocking trove of secret White House tape recordings and the decisive intervention of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. † To my understanding, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have been very aware of the boom their investigation would consequently incite. There followed a great chain-reaction by which the juridical power, the intelligence services and other institutions have equally contributed to the making of the complete case against the President and his administration, through extensive legal procedures. For me, thi s is in a sense a revolution.It is a revolution because the corruption and the anti-constitutional deeds are denounced to the public opinion and, even though this mounts up to the head of the state, the guilty part finishes exposed, with reprimands in accordance. Even though this book has been written in a short and snappy manner, without personal elaboration or explanations, it surely reconstructs the pulse of the time and the dramatic beat of the ascending inquiry. Personally, I feel I had been dragged also in the â€Å"present tense† of the best politics& detective story of the passed century.Even though the authors do not make any deep analysis either about the power structures they touch, or about the consequences of their investigation, it remains a grand dissertation-scenario of the changing nature of political actions and the particular framework of the state powers during the time of Nixon and beyond. References: Bernstein, Carl; Woodward, Bob. â€Å"All the Preside nt`s Men†. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006. Von Drehle, David. â€Å"FBI's No. 2 Was ‘Deep Throat'†. June 1, 2005; Page A01. Washington Post. 8 Sept. 2007 < http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/31/AR2005053100655. html >

Essay On The Things They Carried - 1058 Words

â€Å"The Things They Carried† provides a personal view into the minds of soldiers, and tells us the emotional and psychological costs of war. First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross is stationed in Vietnam in the middle of the war. He seems to be a man in love, or more like a man in love with the idea of a lady named Martha. He ends up changing from a love struck, blind man into a firm, leading soldier. In this story, the characters do the things they do because of desires and motivations. In â€Å"The Things They Carry,† Tim O’Brien underlines the setting, items that characters â€Å"humped† (O’Brien, 2009, pg. 3) or carried, and the characters themselves to set the theme. The story takes place during the Vietnam War, during what was supposed to be a†¦show more content†¦(O’Brien, 1990) In addition, all the men had steel helmets that weighed five pounds each. Tim O’Brien also includes the items and weight that each of the other soldie rs in Jimmy Cross’s platoon carries. Rat Kiley’s â€Å"canvas satchel filled with morphine and plasma and malaria tablets and surgical tape and comic books and all the things a medic must carry, including MM’s for especially bad wounds for a total weight of nearly eighteen pounds.† (O’Brien, 2009, pg. 5) Henry Dobbins carries a twenty-three-pound unloaded M-60 with approximately fifteen pounds of ammunition draped on his body. Henry Dobbins also carried â€Å"his girlfriend’s pantyhose wrapped around his neck as a comforter.† (O’Brien, 1990) Mitchell Sanders carried the Kiowa, an illustrated New Testament and condoms. Norman Bowker carried a diary. Ted Lavender carried six or seven ounces of top-notch dope. Ted Lavender also carried tranquilizers and extra ammunition because â€Å"he was scared†. (O’Brien, 1990) All men have â€Å"to carry a steel-centered, nylon-covered flak jacket, which weighed 6.7 pounds, but which on hot days seemed much heavier†. (O’Brien, 2009, pg. 3) Psychological burdens of war were just as real as the physical burdens of the soldiers. Those who were blessed enough to survive the war, struggle with confusion, anger, guilt, and lack of resolution. â€Å"They all carry ghosts†, (O’Brien, 1990) created by the fickleness of war including the â€Å"burden ofShow MoreRelated Things They Carried Essay: Strength in The Things They Carried980 Words   |  4 PagesStrength in The Things They Carried  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Everybody has to deal with adversity at some point in their lives. The adversity that they go through varies from person to person. For First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, he had to make it through the Vietnam War alive. In the short story, The Things They Carried, where Cross draws his strength from is somewhat unclear. He seems strong at the beginning of the story, but then again, he also seems to be gaining strength towards the end of the story. ThisRead More the things they carried Essay1091 Words   |  5 Pages The things they carried,by Tim Obrien nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;quot;Oh man, you fuckin trashed the fucker. You scrambled his sorry self, look at that, you did, you laid him out like fuckin Shredded Wheat.quot; I chose to start off my essay with this particular exert from the book because I think that it very much represents the story in itself. Azar said this, after Tim (supposedly) killed a Vietnamese soldier with a hand grenade. It shows that in times of war, how callous men can becomeRead MoreEssay on The Things They Carried515 Words   |  3 PagesThe Things They Carried The Things They Carried, by Tim OBrien, is a generalization of his own experiences in Vietnam although the story itself is a work of fiction there is still much to be learned from it. Through the actions of soldiers in The Things They Carried we can begin to explore the effect war has on the human condition and the toll it plays on their minds. Some of the themes in the book, The Things They Carried, are bravery and what true bravery is, truth and how the manipulationRead MoreThe Things They Carried Essay1015 Words   |  5 PagesThe text, ‘The Things They Carried, is an excellent example which reveals how individuals are changed for the worse through their first hand experience of war. Following the lives of the men both during and after the war in a series of short stories, the impact of the war is accurately portrayed, and provides a rare insight into the guilt stricken minds of soldiers. ‘The Things They Carried shows the impact of the war in its many forms: the suicide of an ex-soldier upon his return home; the lesseningRead MoreEssay On The Things They Carried1624 Words   |  7 PagesFor the seventeen Soldiers portrayed in â€Å"The Things We Carried† by Tim O’Brien, the physical pain was very minimal weight to carry compared to the emotional scars that they will carry throughout their entire life. This story does an amazing job portraying full human emotion that anyone put into a situation would feel, such as heavy guilt, sadness, anger, lack of motivation, perseverance, horror, and false security. All of these are notorious feelings that every soldier back in history, and now stillRead More The Things They Carried Essay2450 Words   |  10 Pagesand extremely prosperous. The 90’s were fraught with media propaganda about the economy and international relations. This media coverage made many Americans feel that they were invincible. The media never really covered the Middle East where things were about to boil over and hatred for the U.S. was about to get primetime attention. On the morning of September 11, 2001 the United States got a rude awakening to this hate that is held for our â€Å"invincible† country. This awakening came asRead More The Things They Carried Essay1107 Words   |  5 Pagesstory an example of this is Tim O’Brien’s â€Å"The Things They Carried†. As the story goes on it shows not only the literal meaning of what they carried but also symbolically the burdens that they had mentally. In the literal sense O’Brien talks about what different members of a platoon in Vietnam carried. This helps him to move to a more symbolic sense at the end of the story. He starts by talking about necessities and slowly moves on to what they carried to remind them that there was a world out sideRead MoreThe Things They Carried Essay1603 Words   |  7 PagesThe Things They Carried, every soldier carried something different; different equipment, different memories, and different guilt. Their equipment would change as they travelled through the book, but one common thing that the soldiers would all be forced to carry is the weight of losing one of their own. Though it might weight differently from man to man, changing depending on how well they knew the soldier, it is a weight they all felt. Though several soldiers died in The Things They Carried, theRead MoreThe Things They Carried Essay2626 Words   |  11 PagesAmerican History. During this time a lot of young people were a nti-war, they were sick of losing people they loved to violence. Though the war still needed to be fought so men became soldiers freely or because they were drafted. In the story â€Å"Things They Carried†, soldiers are faced head on with the Vietnam War. Tim O’Brien shows how the men carry the weight of physical objects through out the war. The men bog themselves down with physical objects that they do not necessarily need yet, they can dropRead MoreThe Things They Carried Essay1838 Words   |  8 PagesChristian Hernandez Professor Sarah Cantrell English 1102 â€Å"The Things They Carried†: Emotional side The story of The Things They Carried written by Tim O’Brien gives a good outlook on how the Soldiers feel and think during the war . The story describes the different things that the soldiers carry with them while at war. O’Brien talks about the different items in great detail such as weight, color, shape and size but he also gives extraordinary details about not only their personalities