America, By Douglas Mcgray, And The Expansion Of Foreign...

Author Douglas McGray, in his article â€Å"Lost in America,† fights for the expansion of foreign language education in schools by focusing on the present and potential future effects the issue will have on the state of America’s world relations and world business market. To efficiently communicate his message for expansion, McGray publishes his article in Foreign Policy Magazine—a publication known for its political demographic. He publishes his article there with the intent to persuade his intended audience, lawmakers, to pass additional policies and laws expanding foreign language in schools. McGray compiles evidence from history, research, and some of his own thoughts on global education in America. He includes several rhetorical choices such as historical references, statistics, urgency in tone, and analogies which he utilizes to highlight his point to lawmakers that foreign language is fundamentally important in America’s school system. Throughout the article, McGray references historical evidence to substantiate and support his claims. These references he accompanies with persuasive word choices to veer his audience’s opinion. An instance where he applies this method is in his statement: â€Å"America was suddenly a republic, but a republic of foreigners—disparate, multi-lingual, barely connected†¦ Public education was designed to manufacture citizens† (McGray 353). This reference to history is used to target his primary audience, lawmakers, as he relates the issue to the

Monroe Doctrine - Definition and Background

The Monroe Doctrine was the declaration by President James Monroe, in December 1823, that the United States would not tolerate a European nation colonizing an independent nation in North or South America. The United States warned it would consider any such intervention in the Western Hemisphere to be a hostile act. Monroe’s statement, which was expressed in his annual address to Congress (the 19th century equivalent of the State of the Union Address) was prompted by a fear that Spain would try to take over its former colonies in South America, which had declared their independence. While the Monroe Doctrine was directed toward a specific and timely problem, its sweeping nature ensured it would have enduring consequences. Indeed, over the course of decades, it went from being a relatively obscure statement to becoming a cornerstone of American foreign policy. Though the statement would carry President Monroe’s name, the author of the Monroe Doctrine was actually John Quincy Adams, a future president who was serving as Monroe’s secretary of state. And it was Adams who forcefully pushed for the doctrine to be openly declared. The Reason For the Monroe Doctrine During the War of 1812, the United States had reaffirmed its independence. And at the war’s end, in 1815, there were only two independent nations in the Western Hemisphere, the United States, and Haiti, a former French colony. That situation had changed dramatically by the early 1820s. The Spanish colonies in Latin America began fighting for their independence, and Spain’s American empire essentially collapsed. Political leaders in the United States generally welcomed the independence of new nations in South America. But there was considerable skepticism that the new nations would remain independent and become democracies like the United States. John Quincy Adams, an experienced diplomat and the son of the second president, John Adams, was serving as President Monroe’s secretary of state. And Adams did not want to become too involved with the newly independent nations while he was negotiating the Adams-Onis Treaty to obtain Florida from Spain. A crisis developed in 1823 when France invaded Spain to prop up King Ferdinand VII, who had been forced to accept a liberal constitution. It was widely believed that France was also intending to assist Spain in retaking its colonies in South America. The British government was alarmed at the idea of France and Spain joining forces. And the British foreign office asked the American ambassador what his government intended to do to block any American overtures by France and Spain. John Quincy Adams and the Doctrine The American ambassador in London sent dispatches proposing that the United States government cooperate with Britain in issuing a statement declaring disapproval of Spain returning to Latin America. President Monroe, unsure of how to proceed, asked for the advice of two former presidents, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, who were living in retirement on their Virginia estates. Both former presidents advised that forming an alliance with Britain on the issue would be a good idea. Secretary of State Adams disagreed. At a cabinet meeting on November 7, 1823, he argued that the United States government should issue a unilateral statement. Adams reportedly said, â€Å"It would be more candid, as well as more dignified, to avow our principles explicitly to Great Britain and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.† Adams, who had spent years in Europe serving as a diplomat, was thinking in broader terms. He was not just concerned with Latin America but was also looking in the other direction, to the west coast of North America. The Russian government was claiming territory in the Pacific Northwest extending as far south as present-day Oregon. And by sending a forceful statement, Adams hoped to warn all nations that the United States would not stand for colonial powers encroaching on any part of North America. Reaction to Monroe's Message to Congress The Monroe Doctrine was expressed in several paragraphs deep within the message President Monroe delivered to Congress on December 2, 1823. And though buried within a long document heavy with details such as financial reports on various government departments, the statement on foreign policy was noticed. In December 1823, newspapers in America published the text of the entire message as well as articles focusing on the forceful statement about foreign affairs. The kernel of the doctrine — †we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.† — was discussed in the press. An article published on December 9, 1823, in a Massachusetts newspaper, the Salem Gazette, mocked Monroe’s statement as putting â€Å"the peace and prosperity of the nation at hazard.† Other newspapers, however, applauded the apparent sophistication of the foreign policy statement. Another Massachusetts newspaper, the Haverhill Gazette, published a lengthy article on December 27, 1823, which analyzed the president’s message, praised it and brushed aside criticisms. The Legacy of the Monroe Doctrine After the initial reaction to Monroe’s message to Congress, the Monroe Doctrine was essentially forgotten for a number of years. No intervention in South America by Europeans powers ever happened. And, in reality, the threat of Britain’s Royal Navy probably did more to ensure that than Monroe’s foreign policy statement. However, decades later, in December 1845, President James K. Polk affirmed the Monroe Doctrine in his annual message to Congress. Polk evoked the doctrine as a component of Manifest Destiny and the desire of the United States to extend from coast to coast. In the latter half of the 19th century, and well into the 20th century, the Monroe Doctrine was also cited by American political leaders as an expression of American dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The strategy of John Quincy Adams of crafting a statement that would send a message to the entire world proved to be effective for many decades.

Scots Law of Contract Free Essays

All of the case studies are concerned with the Law of Contract, specifically the formation of a contract and the differences between an invitation to treat and a contract. We will investigate each consumers’s specific contract or lack thereof individually and advise Bruce on his legal position. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties which in Scotland does not need to take a specific form, as a spoken agreement is still equally as enforceable as a written contract in certain circumstances such as in most social and domestic arrangements. We will write a custom essay sample on Scots Law of Contract or any similar topic only for you Order Now A contract creates a legally binding bond between the parties involved. Contracts are made everyday sometimes without even realising it from buying a coffee to buying a house. A contract is formed bilaterally when an offer has been unconditionally accepted by all parties involved leading to consensus in idem and is not to be confused with a promise which is a unilateral agreement requiring only one party to make the promise. In Bruce’s case some of the customer’s mentioned have not actually entered into a contract but rather have either received an offer or an invitation to treat. An offer unlike a contract is not legally enforceable but rather an invitation to enter into a contract and an invitation to treat is not an offer but rather an invitation to make an offer. In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company released an advertisement stating that a ? 100 reward would be paid to any person who contracted influenza, colds or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. Despite the claims one of the companies customers Mrs Carlill caught the flu and sued the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company for the ? 100 they refused to pay her stating that their advert was in fact a legally binding contract which she had accepted by purchasing the product. The above case could be applied to Bruce as his failure to properly state the conditions in his advertisement will result in him having to honor his original promise of selling the â€Å"Slow Patrol† CD to as many customers as ave a flyer at the price stated on the advert. Although most modern adverts are treated as an invitation to treat this particular advert would be considered a unilateral promise as Bruce has promised to sell the CD to anyone who produces the flyer at the price of ? 1. 99. Unlike an offer a promise is the product of one persons intention and no acceptance is needed to create a binding contract where as an offer can be revoked until agreed upon. If Bruce had not put such specific terms in the advert simply offering the product at the wrong price he could have claimed it was an invitation to treat but as it stands Bruce is legally obligated to follow through with his unilateral promise. To quote the court in regards to Hunter v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation (1909) â€Å"†¦ when a general offer addressed to the public is appropriated to himself by a distinct acceptance by one person, then it is to be read in exactly the same was as if it had been addressed to the individual originally. In the case of Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Forfar sent a telefax to Wolf Wolf offering to sell potatoes at a specific price but the offer was only valid until 5pm the next day Wolf Wolf replied accepting the offer but with extra conditions to which Forfar did not accept and when Wolf Wolf later tried to accept the original offer there was no reply by Forfar and the potatoes were not sent. Wolf Wol f sued arguing that Forfar were in breach of contract. The court held that Wolf Wolf’s first â€Å"acceptance† was a counter offer and due to the law in Scotland this had rejected Forfar’s offer and put in place a new offer which Forfar had rejected as Forfar’s offer had lapsed upon rejection Wolf Wolf’s second attempt at accepting the original offer could not result in a contract being made as it was a new offer which Forfar had chosen not to accept therefore no contract existed between the parties. The area of Law concerned in this case is The Law of Contract specifically relating to the revocation of an offer and counter offers. The case Wolf and Wolf vs Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) directly links to the case between Bruce and Ken. As Bruce is once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically the non-acceptance of an offer, he is under no legal obligation to sell Ken the rare vinyl at the original price of ? 40. When Ken rejected he original offer he created a counter offer which in Scots law is a completely new offer and caused Bruce’s original offer to lapse and was up to Bruce to decide wether or not to accept the new terms, after Bruce rejected the counter offer all offers between Bruce and Ken had lapsed. When Ken came back insisting that there was a contract between them and he was entitled to the album Bruce was in fact under no legal requirement to give Ken the vinyl as all offers had lapsed and no contract existed between then. In the case of Fisher v Bell (1961) a shopkeeper had displayed a flick-knife in his window with a price tag next to it but under the restriction of Offensive Weapons Accontents Restriction of Offensive Act (1959) it was illegal to sell hire or offer to sell or hire any knife which had a blade that opened automatically, on December 12 1959 the shopkeeper was brought to trial alleging that the defendant had broken the law by offering to sell the knife in his shop. The shopkeeper was acquitted on the basis that by displaying the knife it was an invitation to treat and not an offer to sell. In regard to Stella we are once again dealing with the Law of Contract specifically relating to an invitation to treat rather than an offer. When Stella was trying to purchase the CD for the advertised price of ? 1. 39 instead of ? 13. 99 she in fact had no legal authority to do so as the price offered was an invitation to treat and not a contract but rather an invitation to enter into one. The contract is not created until a price is agreed and the item has been paid for. Stella is basically making Bruce and offer to pay ? 1. 39 for the CD as that is what it has been advertised as and by Bruce not accepting the offer due to a mislabeling issue a contract has not been formed. As in the case of Fisher v Bell (1961) just because there is a price tag next to an item or on an item the establishment is under no obligation to sell at said price. In conclusion in regard to the first legal question Bruce is legally bound to sell the Album at the price stated in the advert as it was a unilateral promise which is legally binding contract and not able to be revoked like a offer. In regards to Ken after he counter offered Bruce’s original offer to buy the rare vinyl Bruce was no longer under any legal obligation to sell the rare album to Ken as the offer had lapsed meaning no contract was in place. Finally Stella is unable to take legal action against Bruce and Bruce does not have to sell the CD to Stella at the advertised price and it was an invitation to treat and not an offer and although the two are similar when dealing with an invitation to treat rather than an offer there is no liability to accept. CITATIONS Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company (1893) Wolf and Wolf v Forfar Potato Co Ltd (1984) Hunter v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation (1909) Fisher v Bell (1961) BIBLIOGRAPHY Black, G (Editor) – Business Law in Scotland 2nd edition Crossan Wylie – Introductory Scots Law 2nd edition How to cite Scots Law of Contract, Essay examples