To become a Great American Novel, a book must represent the lifestyle of the United States in the best way possible. In the novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, I believe the American life is portrayed well enough to allow the book to be called a Great American Novel. The most apparent aspect of this novel that makes it American is the main characters’ quest to achieve the American Dream.

In the early plot development of the novel, the setting is displayed as a time where the ethics of the people were declining. People were becoming greedy and were losing their moral values. They did not follow the true American Dream that was to be followed by all Americans for a successful life. Instead of using their abilities to the fullest and working hard to support themselves and their families, they went to the weekly parties hosted by Jay Gatsby. They did not think much of the parties as having a degrading impact in their lives. Instead, they thought the parties were just something that was normal and something that everybody went to. Showing the thoughtless actions of Americans: “Sometimes they came and went without having met Gatsby at all, came for the party and a simplicity of heart that was its own ticket of admission.”

This novel takes place in the time shortly after World War I. This was the time when stock market prices soared and anybody could make an easy fortune just by going to the stock market and trading stocks. This greatly reduced the Americans’ motivation to work for their money, as they could easily make millions by trading stocks. There were many people that had riches running in their family, and these wealth people had a higher and a better quality form of education: “’I am the son of some wealthy people …. I was brought up in America but educated at Oxford, because all my ancestors have been educated there for many years. It is a family tradition.’” People getting into high quality colleges with very little or no effort worked against the American Dream.

Working more against the American Dream, because of the Eighteenth Amendment, alcohol was banned from being sold. This resulted in many people illegally selling alcohol to others, which brought illegal bars. This lack of ethical behavior is displayed during some of Gatsby’s parties. There are people who appear to be random that come to Gatsby’s parties, and may be up to behavior that may not comply with the law. Even when asked who comes to the parties, there can only be a few people that are recalled by name, and the rest’s names, “if I ever knew it, I have forgotten. All these people came to Gatsby’s house in the summer.”

Within the story, there are many different characters that portray the different types of people that lived during America in the 1920s. For example, Nick and Gatsby both fought in World War I, and they have the cynical stereotype of people who have fought in wars in the past. Due to their experiences during the war, they have lost trust in other people and believe others are dishonest towards them. They believe other humans are not to be trusted, as Nick Carraway and Jay Gatsby depict in their characteristic.

Further portraying the ways of American life, the main setting of the story is divided up into two different portions: East Egg and West Egg. The differences between the two eggs show the differences in the classes of America and how the country developed with its differences.

East Egg displays the established aristocracy. The people who live there are well developed and organized in their society and have ethical and orderly ways of living. This wealth has been passed down for generations, and ancestry brought along the riches and intelligence the people of East Egg have now. It displays the traditional portion of America, and the proper ways its older people have lived up by.

West Egg displays the people who made themselves rich. The people who traded stocks, for example, had an effortless way of making money. With a very low amount of experience, they were able to make small fortunes with almost no hard work. These people were the modern day people who had the lazy characteristic. They did not comply with the traditional rules of ethical behavior, and brought in their own ideas of what was right and what was wrong.

A symbol in the novel that displayed improvement in the way people followed the American Dream was Doctor T.J. Eckleburg. In the mind of Nick Carraway, Eckleburg was always watching for things that were right and things that were wrong. He was always looking over the people of America, and he was always watching if they were doing something wrong, and he was similar to the supervisor that prevented people from committing crimes or doing illegal activity.

In conclusion, I believe The Great Gatsby should be considered a Great American Novel due to its dedication to describe the ways of Americans in the 1920s. Although it portrays how Americans did not follow the American Dream more than it did, it gives a depiction of America in the time period that it was written in.

In a cottage in Dunfermline, Scotland on November 25, 1835

William Carnegie: Keep it strong, Margaret. Hang in there; we’re almost done. Don’t give up now.

Margaret Morrison: Groans and screams in pain.

William Carnegie: We’re done, Margaret! It’s a boy! What should we name him?

Margaret Morrison: We’ll name him… Andrew. Andrew Carnegie.

In the family room of the cottage in 1837

Margaret Morrison: William, are you sure that we can continue like this? We aren’t doing well financially, and I’m too tired with all the jobs I’m doing. I know that I’m trying my best at this, and I know that you’re trying your best too. I just can’t see a bright future for either of us.

William Carnegie: Margaret, you can’t give up now. You’re already doing an excellent job taking care of the family. Imagine what will happen if you just give up on life now. Little Andrew is only two years old right now. Don’t you want him to see a comfortable future? Don’t you want the best for our son?

Margaret Morrison: Yes, of course I do. I want Andrew to be the most successful man in the world. But this just isn’t going to work. There are people that were meant to be successful, and there are some that weren’t. We just ended up being the unlucky ones. I run too many jobs for my own good, and this new grocery shop I set up in our cottage isn’t bringing in the money I expected. I think we’re losing more money than we’re getting.

William Carnegie: Just hang in there. You already know that I educated myself . I already survived through all of my hardships. There was a way, and I found it. Do you realize how hard teaching yourself is? When you try to learn something that you don’t have a clue about, it’s one of the most difficult things to do. If I can live through this, you can too.

Margaret Morrison: William, teaching yourself and working is different. What I’m doing is just plain labor. You’re a smart man. Teaching yourself is easy for you. I’m getting relatively old already, and this is not bringing anything positive to my body. We need to think things through before we do them now.

William Carnegie: I agree. I haven’t been feeling well lately, and things aren’t coming to me as easily as they have before. The longer I live, the more my body will break down. Unfortunately, I do not see a long future for myself.

Cottage, when William Carnegie dies at age 51

Margaret Morrison: Your father has died, children. He was an honorable man with an honorable past and an honorable future. We will remember him for years and decades to come. As a respected, intelligent chartist , the results of his work will live on forever. He helped the ones in need using his clever mind, as only a Good Samaritan would do.

Thomas Carnegie: Does that mean that he’s gone forever?

Margaret Morrison: Yes, it does. Unfortunately, you will never be seeing your father again.

In the cottage bedroom, 1848

Andrew Carnegie: Mom, I’ve been having nightmares about the textile factory again.

Margaret Morrison: Andrew, are you sure that you want to work at the textile factory? Most thirteen-year-old boys don’t have jobs in textile factories stoking boilers. Even above that, most thirteen-year-old boys don’t work twelve hours a day . Boys like you are supposed to be going to school, studying hard, and playing with your friends.

Andrew Carnegie: Mom, I can’t quit my job. You’re working as much as you can, almost all day! You’re a tanner and shoemaker , and you still set up your own business, a grocery store in our cottage! I wouldn’t feel like a proper son if I didn’t help you work. I can’t see my mom suffer like this and not help her bring in money for the family.

Margaret Morrison: Andrew, I’m not saying that what you’re doing is wrong. I’m just saying that it shouldn’t be what boys your age should be doing at this time. Even then, you know that I greatly appreciate what you’re doing for the family. Your work is helping me support myself, your two siblings, and of course, you. Even if you only earn two dollars a week , rest assured, it makes a big difference in our lives. I’m not sure what I would do without you. Hug Andrew Carnegie.

As Andrew returns to the cottage in 1851

Andrew Carnegie: Run into cottage in excitement. Mom! I have incredible news!

Margaret Morrison: What’s going on now?

Andrew Carnegie: I got a new job! I was hired by the Ohio Telegraph Company in the Pittsburgh Office! That’s right, I’m a telegraph messenger boy now! This is the best thing that has ever happened my life so far. I’m only sixteen years old, and I have a job good enough to help my mom support the family. The best part is, I get more money than before. I used to get about two dollars a week, but now I get fifty cents more!

Margaret Morrison: That’s wonderful news, Andrew! Now you won’t get any nightmares about the textile factory that you used to work at! Being a telegraph messenger is a lot less damaging to your body, and I’m sure that your health will improve rapidly.

Andrew Carnegie: That’s right, and there’s more. You probably know how much I like Shakespeare. His works are the most beautiful out of all in existence in history. I get to see the theater up close and personal, and I get to talk to the actors performing on stage. In addition, I can see some of the Shakespeare plays on the theater for free . This is the best job I’ve had, and I get to support the family while doing something that I enjoy.

Margaret Morrison: Well I’m glad that you can do something that you like. It was very kind of the telegraph company’s owner to hire you for the job.

One year later, 1852

Andrew Carnegie: Boss, I’m here to proudly announce that I have finally mastered the skill of telegraphing. I can distinguish and decipher all of the incoming signals by ear without writing them down . All the incoming signals sound like English to me now.

Another year later, early 1853

Thomas Scott: Andrew Carnegie, I would like to proudly invite you to work as the telegraph operator in the Pennsylvania Railroad . I see you as a young man with lots of potential, and I believe you can do well as a telegraph operator. You have had experience being a telegraph messenger, so I believe you will be well-fit for this job.

Andrew Carnegie: I accept your offer! I would be more than honored to work for your company as the telegraph operator. Although my goals for my life are above being a telegraph operator , I will start at this rank and improve in ranking. I will make you proud, Mr. Scott, and I will work to the best of my ability. I will try my best to move up in the company and have many more responsibilities than I do right now.

Thomas Scott: I like your attitude. I’m sure you would be a good addition to the Pennsylvania Railroad, and if you do, in fact, move up in the company, I will help you along the way.

In the cottage, later in 1853 when Carnegie is 18 years old

Andrew Carnegie: Mother, I have more good news.

Margaret Morrison: This is wonderful, Andrew. In the past few years, you’ve been coming home almost every day with good news. What happened this time, Andrew?

Andrew Carnegie: You already know that Mr. Thomas Scott has been helping me make my initial investments . He is a great man that does great things for me, and I believe that he should receive a lot of credit for what good has come to me. He has used his wealth to help me make my own. Your work has been relieved by a lot, and my income has been enough to keep the family going. I have already made a small fortune from his investment tips. From how my status is going in the company, it won’t be long until I am the superintendent of the Pittsburgh Division of the Pennsylvania Railroad .

Margaret Morrison: This is wonderful, Andrew! Years before, we had trouble even getting enough money to buy food to eat. Now, you’re bringing in huge paychecks and earnings from investing your money! This is a dream come true! Before your father passed away, he told me never to give up. He asked me what would happen in the future if I gave up. I kept that in mind, and I didn’t give up. I continued all of my jobs, keeping all three of my children in my heart. I am truly grateful that I keep my soul strong and worked for a good future.

Andrew Carnegie: I’m just proud that I could be this successful in life to be able to make you and my employer proud.

In the year 1955 during a conference

Andrew Carnegie: Through my successes in the past few years and with the assistance with Thomas Scott, I was able to make lots of money. Mr. Scott was one of the most successful men that I know, and he used his own wealth to help me build my own. I believe that this is how all wealthy men should live their lives. I recently invested $600 successfully in a firm called Adams Express . I was very successful with this investment, which was one of the sources of one of my small fortunes.

Andrew Carnegie: Furthermore, I am here today at this conference to make a very important announcement. I have invested money in the sleeping cars for the Pennsylvania Railroad Company , and I will be purchasing a portion of the company to make as my own. I believe that this is going to be a very profitable investment for me. My future plans include investing in similar things to what I am investing in right now, such as iron, bridges, and rails.

A few weeks later, in another conference

Andrew Carnegie: In our last conference, I announced that I would purchase a portion of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. That deal has been completed, and I now own the portion of the company that constructs and produces the wagons . This has been a very profitable investment for me, and I am very glad I made this decision. I promise to you all that I will return everything you have done for me.

Before the Civil War

Theodore Woodruff : Hello, Mr. Carnegie. I am contacting you today to see if we can work something out with being partners in our work. Ever since you became the superintendent and invested money in sleeping cars, I had a desire to work with you in your sales. I knew that this would provide to me a good improvement in sales and profit.

Andrew Carnegie: I would be honored to work with the inventor of the sleeping car. The concept of sleeping cars being used for travel over five hundred miles itself was an excellent idea . I also believe that our partnership will be a positive addition to both of our business lives.

In a discussion conference room

Adam Smith: I have had many past experiences with wealth-related issues, and I believe that I would be able to help you, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in improving your successes. Through the many years I have been alive, I have made different philosophies, documentaries, and novels regarding the wealth of nations .

John Winthrop: As a former governor, I also believe I have some useful advice that I can offer to you, Mr. Carnegie. I have written documentaries regarding the society and how people live. I have analyzed the way money is spread out within the communities across the world, and what the best way to maintain your own money is. I am offering to give you this advice.

Andrew Carnegie: I believe I can put this information into good use. Seeing from how the government has been treating the citizens, there is probably going to be some bad events in the future. The struggles between human equality and justice have risen in the past few years. The north is slowly separating with the south, and a civil war appears to be in the near future .

Adam Smith: With the experiences that I have had in the past, there are a few large conclusions that I have come up with. Wealth comes from little things, and it builds up more and more. By doing repetitive work with a lot of people, things can be completed very quickly and efficiently. In addition, if you have each person doing only one piece of the job, the repetition will make the work more quick and efficient. By analyzing the time spend on making one pin, they could make a total of 48,000 pins per day .

John Winthrop: I agree with Mr. Smith. God has made different types of people to do different types of things. Some people are better with doing one type of thing, and some people are better with doing a different type of thing. Some people would be good at one part of the assembly line, when different people are good with a different part. This is the most efficient way to make money.

John Winthrop: I also have some good advice on how to maintain your money when you get it. Although you should share your wealth with others, it is important to preserve your wealth. Firstly, when you are lending your wealth to others, you must be sure that they will pay you back. If they say they will pay you back but never do, you must find out what is going on. Finally, if they are not able to pay you back, you should not continue to ask them to repay you .

During Andrew Carnegie’s final speech in 1901

Andrew Carnegie: Through the years, I have had many differing experiences. When I was a small child, I had many hard times. Our family was short of money, and we had to work constantly. Our income wasn’t enough to support our family. However, we tried our best and lived through our hardships. How that I became one of the wealthiest men in the world, I have seen that wealth is not distributed equally. Money became power, and the poor people had no say on what the government did. These people cause the poorer people to become more greedy and make them want more money. My best motto is to give back to the society that you gained your money to. If you become rich like this, you must return the money to improve the entire society and community as a whole. With those words, my advice to you, the community, is over .

Andrew Carnegie: The reason I am sharing this information with you is because I am currently planning retirement. I am 66 years old right now , and I have had my famous times. I have become the legend of steel. I am a beneficiary of over three thousand libraries, and I have had my good times. I am passing this opportunity to all of you, my society, to take the chances that you are given and use them. Build your life to become better. We must all remember that all Americans are kings .

Classic novels are more than just average books found on library shelves. To become a classic, a novel must hold value within its literature. The Sea Wolf landed itself on the American reading list because it complied with what a worthy book has to become well-known. I believe that because The Sea Wolf got on the American reading list, it should not be removed to make space for other books. The quality of a book does not descend as time moves on; modern books may become classics, but an older book should never be stripped the title of being a valued book.

The Sea Wolf in particular makes many external connections with peripheral topics. By reading just this one novel, one will get a broad perspective of many other themes associated with the concepts conversed in the book. For example, the main character, Humphrey Van Weyden, is a literary critic. From this point of view, one will learn about literature in the early 1900s when this book was published. In addition, another main character that comes in shortly after the beginning of the book named Wolf Larsen is a powerful, fierce, unsympathetic person who owns a seal hunting boat. This gives insight to how people made a living during the times of this novel.

Further developed, the protagonist Humphrey Van Weyden’s adventures interlace with Wolf Larsen’s, showing the results of two very different people crossing paths in their journey of life. Humphrey Van Weyden complies with Wolf Larsen’s orders out of fear; this is shown immediately when Hump is assumed as a worker in a part of Wolf Larsen’s crew. When Wolf Larsen gives an order to Humphrey Van Weyden, he obeys from fear: “And thus it was that I passed into a state of involuntary servitude to Wolf Larsen. He was stronger than I, that was all. But it was very unreal at the time. It is no less unreal now that I look back upon it. It will always be to me a monstrous, inconceivable thing, a horrible nightmare.” Humphrey Van Weyden’s words make it seem like he had no choice but to abide by Wolf Larsen’s words. Thus, it gives insight to the social connections between a literary critic and a seal hunter.

In the philosophical aspect, Humphrey Van Weyden believes that life should be looked at as a sacred object that should be looked at with great importance. When he boards the Ghost, he realizes that these men have no thoughts for the great value of life. When a human’s life is thought of as a miniscule entity, Humphrey Van Weyden begins a debate with Wolf Larsen regarding philosophical matters. Wolf Larsen refuses to change his ways aboard his ship; he refuses to change the way he treats his crew members. Wolf Larsen, being a materialist, slowly makes himself sick by repetitively arguing with crew members.

On the other hand, Humphrey Van Weyden learns from Wolf Larsen’s bullying. As Wolf Larsen incapacitates himself, Humphrey Van Weyden develops courage from Wolf Larsen’s terror. Almost immediately after boarding the seal hunting ship, Hump experiences Wolf Larsen’s behavior towards his crew members: “… stirring of Wolf Larsen’s tremendous strength. It was utterly unexpected, and it was over and done with between the ticks of two seconds. He had sprung fully six feet across the deck and driven his fist into the other’s stomach. At the same moment, as though I had been struck myself, I felt a sickening shock in the pit of my stomach.” During the process of seeing others get hurt, Hump becomes more courageous himself.

Moments later, with courage developed in Humphrey Van Weyden’s mind, he attempted to save himself from the Ghost. “I had seen the frightful treatment of the cabin-boy, and knew that I should be very probably receive the same, if not worse. As I say, I debated with myself, and then I did what I considered the bravest act of my life. I ran to the side, waving my arms and shouting: ‘Lady Mine ahoy! Take me ashore! A thousand dollars if you take me ashore!’” This is only the start of his valorous actions, a result of his philosophical views clashing with a different person’s varied perspectives.

Another significant topic discussed within the novel that would save the novel from removal from the American reading list is Social Darwinism. This philosophical aspect is Wolf Larsen’s justification for being dominant and condescending towards others. Although Darwin himself did not approve of his own Social Darwinism, Wolf Larsen supports it by using it as his sole justification for capitalism and racism. On the other hand, Humphrey Van Weyden debates that Darwin is not, in fact, a valid justification for Wolf Larsen’s actions: “’You have read Darwin,’ I said. ‘But you read him misunderstandingly when you conclude that the struggle for existence sanctions your wanton destruction of life.’”

In addition, the point of view of the novel is a well-displayed and well-progressing aspect. The novel is a first-person narration by Humphrey Van Weyden. The book starts out as him being displayed as an overly-educated individual that seems like he knows too much for his own good. However, as the plot progresses, the viewpoint and intelligence of Humphrey Van Weyden changes into one that is experienced of many things and capable of doing more than he did previously. The plotline displays the maturation of thirty-five-year-old Humphrey Van Weyden, through his experiences on the seal hunting boat, Ghost.

In summary, I believe that The Sea Wolf should remain one of the classics on the American reading list. Through its integration of an extensive range of topics, it brings together a masterpiece of literature. Along with its advanced literary perspective to the connections with famous philosophers, to the entertaining plot line and the historical insights of the early 1900s, this novel is one like no other.

The novel Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain has stirred many endless arguments throughout the entire country, continent, and planet, due to its racist views against African-Americans. This book was criticized up to the point where district administrators were on the verge of removing it from their schools. When the opportunity comes to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy, I would object removing this novel from our curriculum. Although I agree that the book contains harsh aspects of racism, I believe it is a classic novel that should not be removed from our modern learning environment.

When reviewing expert analyses of this book, one will come across a broad range of opinions regarding the different topics covered in this book. Some believe that Huckleberry Finn is like one of many books in the bookstore today. Although there is an attempt to remove racism from modern-day works of art, Fredrick Woodard and Donnarae MacCann say “even the most sophisticated reading today does not remove the shackles of the white supremacy presumption” (141). Although Woodard and MacCann wish to prosecute the novel, evidence for keeping the novel can be found even in their analysis. In essence, these two experts are saying that Huckleberry Finn itself should not be removed for the sole purpose of racism. Some of our modern-day books contain racism, so why should a priceless classic be removed from our high school education? These racist views give us an insight to the treatment of African-Americans in the time setting of the novel. I agree that the vision of the past was not done in the most subtle way; on the other hand, the sight was communicated in a way that sends the message clearly to the reader.

David L. Smith’s expert analysis says that Mark Twain constantly targets and brings down the African-American race and “systematically dramatizes their inadequacy” (105). After reading Huckleberry Finn, anybody would be able to see this in the novel. African-Americans are always referred to as unimportant and insignificant in their lifestyle. However, what does this have to do with removing the novel from education? Just because Huckleberry Finn is taken off the shelves does not mean African-Americans, or any minority race, will receive justice with everybody else. By repeatedly portraying African-Americans as unimportant, Mark Twain creates the image of how life was like during the time period this novel was written.

The influence that Mark Twain’s living environment had is proven by Charles H. Nilon when he states that “After 1876 the Supreme Court most often interpreted the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments in ways that weakened the protection of black people” (65). With all this going on, it’s quite difficult to say that Mark Twain put only his own racist thoughts in Huckleberry Finn. With all these external influences, it must have been difficult to maintain a fair novel with justice among all races. Although it could be argued that Mark Twain was a racist himself, nobody can prove that he was truly anti-African-American at heart. The government’s poor treatment in African-Americans also played a role in the views expressed in the novel. Thus, if one chooses to criticize Mark Twain for his chauvinism shown in the book, they must also take into consideration the authority behind it.

In conclusion, I believe that removing Huckleberry Finn from our school would do more bad than good. It would create more arguments and controversy among the administrators, staff, and students. To negotiate with the people that believe Huckleberry Finn should be banished from our education, I would propose the following: the novel would be restricted from the students, and only those who would not follow in the novel’s footsteps in their treatment towards African-Americans should be permitted to read it for educational purposes. Basically, only those ethical and mature enough to consume only the positive knowledge out of the book would gain access to it. Thus, when a student becomes old enough to realize that this is not how to treat African-Americans in modern-day society, they would be permitted to analyze and be educated on the novel. With a high-quality instructor, students can work together and receive the correct guidance to extract the most they can get out of the book.

Land is power. Argued by historians for years in the past and to be argued for years to come, the representation of power and wealth is still vague in the sense of tangible objects. When money was not available, Americans in the 1860s did whatever they could to gain as much property as they could. Because of their fear of failing, these Americans looked beyond their poverty and current issues troubling their lives. They did whatever was necessary to obtain this property. This desire escalated into constant fighting, and eventually the American Civil War.

When people have land, they feel more powerful. With the ownership of this property, they feel as if they have more rights than others with less land. When using a Greyhound bus as an example, “Landless people, with few exceptions, are relegated to the back of the bus .” With this idea set down in the society, even people of the modern day aim to own more property to feel more powerful in the society.

In the past Civil War, the fight for land caused 600,000 deaths throughout the country, affecting many families in tragic, negative ways. Are the lives of over half a million people worth fighting for ownership of land? Had the solution of land ownership came earlier, this massive slaughter would not have occurred in the first place, but why was it not established beforehand?

The Civil War being a result of land struggles is obvious; during the Civil War, the Homestead Act was established when President Abraham Lincoln signed it into law on May 20, 1862. However, why was it necessary to wait until thousands of people had already died before bringing this new law into perspective? The importance of the equality of people should have been emphasized before hand, but it hadn’t. Instead, only incomplete plans were made: “… support for the idea began decades later .”

To end the fighting between Americans for land ownership, the Homestead Act stated that “any adult citizen, or intended citizen, who had never borne arms against the U.S. Government, could claim 160 acres of surveyed government land .” This was a clever way to award prizes to the citizens of the United States that did not fight against the government. As a generalization, all Americans had a desire to own land, but only those that did not harm the government would get rewarded.

There was a lot of additional thought behind the Homestead Act; the government had formed many plans before implementing this idea to the public. There were some catches and requirements to acquiring this land. “Claimants were required to ‘improve’ the plot by building a dwelling and cultivating the land .” In essence, people could not maintain possession of this land without doing anything with the land. This could only be done by people with a moderately average level of wealth: “Comparatively few laborers and farmers could afford to build a farm or acquire the necessary tools, seed, and livestock .”

As a result, this condition gave a safeguard to the government providing them with a guarantee that there will be a significant number of people not claiming any land due to their current social status. The poor remained poor: “The act, however, proved to be no panacea for poverty .”

Similar to everything established in the real world, there were also some serious flaws with the Homestead Act in addition to its successes. In many cases, there were fraudulent or corporate uses of this land. Companies took advantage of the Homestead Act and turned it into an unlawful business: “They would pay people to buy the top-of-the-line property which contained an abundance of resources such as timber, minerals, and oil .” When the government inquired the companies if there were any improvements to the land, they responded with a positive answer when improvements were minimal to none.

Because of these serious flaws that the Homestead Act was causing, the government was forced to end homesteading to halt the crimes of corporate businesses using the land for their own personal, illegal purposes. In 1976, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act ended homesteading. The government concluded that the citizens of the United States owning this property was not the best and productive way to use it, “the government believed that the best use of public lands was for them to remain under government control .”

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act is now a United States federal law that governs the way the public lands of the United States are managed. Instead of giving land to anyone who would claim it, the land would remain public property and owned by the citizens of America: “management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of American people .”

As stated before, the poor or lower-class people did not play a massively significant role in the Civil War. Even when they were offered land, they were not able to use the provided land productively; thus, they were not a part of homesteading. Instead, it is the higher powers that are fighting, as said by Marxist historians: “… imperialist rulers battling each other for greater power, and using tools such as nationalism and religion to delude people into joining them …” These higher powers fighting for more power leads to the original question, which is if land has a direct connection between power.

In the southern part of the United States, the people with more wealth had possession of slaves. One of the key conflicts of the Civil War fought about slavery and if it should continue on: “Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories .” The higher powers that had more land needed slaves to maintain the land that they owned; otherwise their production and work efficiency would decrease dramatically. From these higher powers fighting for what they want, the war began: “Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s .”

Slavery was an important part in the South’s lives, especially because they were the key maintenance providers of the land that they owned. These land-owning powers possessed these slaves because of the power and wealth they had. The power and wealth came from the land they owned, which was maintained by slaves. This causes a chain reaction that does not end. The production repeats over and over, and the only people benefiting from this are the land-owners who also own the slaves. If a major component in this chain were to be taken away, the entire chain would fall apart and the owners would not be able to maintain the land.

To maintain this power, the powers in the South had to fight for what was best for them. The North had different views, but they did not have slaves running their land-owning power system. As a result, “fears of eventual emancipation were much greater in the South than in the North .”

As slavery being the leading cause and fought-about concept of the American Civil War, the roots once again lead to land struggles. As the African Americans started to end their slave lives and run away, severe punishment was placed on them. There was no purpose of running away either: “… they will be returned if they escape .”

Another argument about the land owning is the equality between races: “Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality .” The African Americans did not have a chance to own land and become powerful like the whites. They were never given the chance to own land, so they did not have the same power. Because the African Americans also wanted this power, they fought back against the whites to potentially gain some land of their own. The whites that already owned land did not like this especially because there would then be a lot of other people wanting the land that they already owned. Thus, they considered the African race “rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race .”

During the English Industrial Revolution, the middle class was also fighting for as much property as they could. While stating that property is power, they worked as hard as they could to gain as much as they could in little time. They revolutionized the way goods were made, and introduced machines into the production process .

From these struggles that the entire population had, starting from low-class slaves to the middle-class workers made during the English Industrial Revolution to the high-class land-owners that had slaves, the fight for power continued endlessly, even throughout the mass slaughter of men during war.

Even when using Colonel David Crockett as an example, the life he lived and the way he died had direct involvement with the acquiring of land. Davy Crockett was elected to the Committee of Propositions and Grievances and the United States House of Representatives multiple times. Upon defeat during reelection, he went to Texas to explore the area . During this key time period in his life, he was asked to explore the River Grande for a few days. The request was made by Judge John Forbes, and he stated that Davy Crockett would receive 4,600 acres of land as payment. With this motivation in mind, Crockett went for exploration, seeing land and power in the near future. However, when he fought at the Alamo, he died .

As clearly displayed, even heroes of the time have risked and lost their lives fighting for potential land of their own. When this is viewed from an amplified perspective, a war breaks out between giant masses of people fighting for power. However, as stated by the Articles of Confederation established in 1777, “only the central government is allowed … to declare war. No states may have navies or standing armies, or engage in war, without permission of Congress .” However, with conflicts arising in all locations, and the South forming their own alliances, nothing else could be done.

When the war breaks out, there are more losses than just the lives of the soldiers. As stated in Article VIII of the Articles of Confederation: “All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare …” Not only are the participants of the war losing soldiers, but they are also losing funds. These funds could be put into promoting the condition of the land that these higher powers own. Or, more land could be purchased with these extra funds by the higher powers. However, they choose to go to war and risk these funds instead.

Referring back to the equality of slaves with whites, there are many cases where the African Americans are treated unfairly from their owners. Ken Burns describes this situation as negatively as possible, bringing in all the bad situations that arise when this happens. He informs viewers of slaves that would rather be dead than be a slave.

He brings in all the worst case scenarios and displays the slavery as a bad thing that could potentially have prevented the war. If the whites had not had the greed to own land, they would not have purchased slaves in the first place, and none of this would have happened in the first place . “The effect is to add misery to moral wrong as a reason for emancipation …”

During the war, slavery was still an active part in the South, and the Union was hesitant to do something with the slaves. However, when the war extended on while appearing to have no end, “the question of what to do about slavery became more general .” As the war progressed, the North realized that the power of the South depended on the slaves. Without the slaves, the land could not be supported and the power of the Confederacy would decline. The North made a plan to eliminate the South of their slaves.

Making the slaves of the Confederacy their allies, the Union went on to eliminate the power of the South, draining them of their necessary labor done by their slaves. The Union worked efficiently to eliminate the South at the end of the Civil War.

The quieter leaders of the South did formidable damage as well. Similar to the passage stated in Rip Van Winkle: “’… Alas! Gentlemen,” cried Rip, some-what dismayed, ‘I am a poor quiet man, a native of the place, and a loyal subject of the king, God bless him!’ Here a general shout burst from the bystanders …” People like this drove the Confederacy to failure, resulting in the loss of the power-supplying land. The fight for land declined, and the war was over; the representation of power by land had ended. The slaves were set free, and the struggle for undeserving power had ceased.

When we were to select our project, we selected to experiment with Daphnia magna. Daphnia are crustaceans better known as water fleas. They are aquatic animals that live anywhere water is found. Daphnia are filter-feeders that reproduce parthenogenetically.

The purpose of this experiment was to find out if exposing Daphnia magna to a salt concentration altered their average heartbeat rate. The null hypothesis to our experiment was that the average heartbeat rate of the daphnia will not change when it is exposed to a salt concentrate; that is, the heartbeat rate of daphnia will remain identical even when the environment changes.

Before we started the experiment, we concocted our solution for our experiment. First we acquired and measured out five grams of salt. We then mixed it with 500mL of tap water. When thoroughly shaken, we let the solution sit while we did our first portion of our experiment.

To acquire data for our control, we captured three daphnia from their original habitat. Then, one-by-one, we placed the daphnia on a microscope slide containing enough water so the daphnia would be fully submerged. Then, using a compound light microscope, we observed the heartbeat of the daphnia. Using a finger clicker, we counted the heartbeat rate of the daphnia for fifteen seconds, multiplied that value by four, and recorded that number in Microsoft Excel. When the daphnia was used for five trials, we returned the daphnia to its original habitat and got a new daphnia. We repeated this process using three different daphnia, doing five trials for each daphnia which resulted in fifteen data points.

Next, for testing our salt concentration, we acquired a daphnia from its original habitat and submerged it in the one-percent salt concentration. After allowing the daphnia to swim around in the solution for five minutes, we took them out of the solution and placed them under a compound light microscope. Like before, we counted the heartbeat rate using the finger clicker and recorded five trials for each daphnia, recording the data in Microsoft Excel as we went along. When we completed five trials for three different daphnia, we had a total of fifteen data points for the one-percent salt concentrate.

Finally, after we completed our data-collection process, we combined and organized all the information in one spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel and ran some descriptive statistics on them. Furthermore, we performed a two-sample f-Test for variances. Upon receiving the results, we conducted a t-Test assuming unequal variances.

The results for the descriptive statistical analysis shown in Table 2 gave us background information on the data points for the control and salt solution groups shown in Table 1. The results of the two-sample f-Test for variances (F = 0.248, df = 14, P = 0.0135) lead us to our t-Test assuming unequal variances (T = -4.017, df = 21, P = 0.0006). Because the probability was less than 0.05, we rejected our null hypothesis, concluding that the average heartbeat rate of the Daphnia in both solutions were not equal. Results show that the heartbeat rate increases in salt concentrations when compared to the control, as shown in Figure 1.

The evidence concluded states that the heartbeat rate of Daphnia increases when exposed to a salt solution. A similar experiment was conducted at the Natural Science Department at Edgewood College. They concluded that the survival rate of Daphnia decreases as the salt solution increases, and this was predicted. However, this was predicted; they wanted to know what level was safe enough for Daphnia to survive before they start dying. If the salt concentration increases up to a specific level, the Daphnia survive fine; no Daphnia died when 2.5 grams of salt was added per liter of water. However, as the concentration increased beyond that, the Daphnia started to die at a rapidly increasing rate, potentially because of over excessive heartbeat rate. This provided a point where the students knew their watershed was no longer safe (Daphnia Bioassay for Salt Toxicity).

Another experiment on the condition of Daphnia upon the exposure of salt was conducted and concluded that salt up to a specific level will strengthen the Daphnia that is exposed. However, similar to the previous experiment mentioned, this also concluded that over exposure to salt is bad for the survival of the Daphnia. When Daphnia were exposed to a specified salt solution for a period of twenty-two hours, they either died rapidly or got stronger, depending on the previous condition of the Daphnia. This is linked to the increasing heartbeat rate either being too much for the Daphnia and causing it to die, or strengthening its cardiovascular system and providing a longer life for it (Reaction of Daphnia magna).