Recent orders
History Of The United States Politics And Policies
History Of The United States Politics And Policies
Question Two
President Andrew Johnson was the 17th U.S president who took over office after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in April of 1865. First, Republican Radicals wanted to transform southern social and economic status by terminating the old system, which discriminated the slaves by denying them full citizenship rights including voting rights. Radicals did not give up and were more willing to voice their views during the U.S congress held on December the 4, 1865. Disappointingly, there was denial of seat for all of the representatives. This issue gained a lot of support and hence the congress passed a Civil Rights Act in favor of the southern black codes. Consequently, this granted new rights such as right to testify in court, buy property, and to sue but President Johnson rejected the Act claiming it was a violation of the states’ rights. The congress intervened and suspended the veto.
In the year 1867, there was approval of Military Reconstruction Act, Tenure of Office Act, and Command of the Army Act despite the President’s veto. This limited the power of the president hence he could not interfere with the Congressional Reconstruction. In addition, he was required to subject military orders to General of the Army instead of handling this directly. In the congress, majority in the congress wanted to maintain Secretary of War and a radical follower, Edwin M. Stanton, in cabinet but the president suspended him. However, the Senate failed to conform to this thus he attained his position back, this was in August 12, 1867. Johnson again replaced Stanton with General Lorenzo Thomas and maintained that the military governors to report to him directly as from February 21, 1868. Finally, after three days the House of Representatives voted for an impeachment of the president. This led to his official impeachment.
Open Door Policy is a notion in foreign affairs stating that all nations are required to have equivalent commercial and industrial trade powers in China with none of them in authority of the country. This principle realized in Berlin Conference in 1885 maintained that no authority could tax privileged duties in the Congo basin. It originates from the British commercial performance as witnessed in treaties, which ended with the Qing Dynasty China following the first Opium War during 1839-1842. Then it was first highly developed in the Open Door Notes of September and November in 1899 by the United States in regards to china. With achievements of the Philippine Islands, the U.S felt that its business interests in China were threatened given that most of the country’s prospects were under Japan and European powers.
The events unfolding in China led U.S Secretary of State, John Hay, to act on behalf of his country. As such, he requested the major powers such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, and Japan to confirm that they will defend Chinese territorial, administrative integrity. In addition, that they would not interfere with the free usage of the accord ports. In response to this, all nations eluded Hay’s request since they felt that unless other nations conform, they would not commit themselves. Tension grew during the time but in July 1900, Hay declared that each of the powers had settled consent in principle. However, competitions rose among a variety of powers for exceptional allowances on railroad rights, loans, mining rights, and foreign trade ports after the making of the treaties. In the modern China, after the emergence of the Communist Party of China, the policy was rejected earlier and reinstated in 1978. After Deng Xiaoping devoted china in accepting laws that encourage economic investments and foreign trade.
Ulysses S. Grant served in the military, as General Ulysses S. Grant during the reign of President Andrew Johnson. However, became the president of the United States in1869 after the impeachment of Johnson. The society also saw him as the hero of the civil war with many citizens hoping that after electing him they would end the turmoil that was existed in the country during that time. However, majority of historians determined that he did little in developing the country and claiming that he seemed confused. After the elections, he won and took half of his military stuff to White house and continued leading the nation the same way he did in the military. Though he continued the congress policy of Radical Reconstruction, many citizens felt that he had no actual authority for Reconstruction.
As Grant continued to station troops in the south, many people saw this as militarism including the Republicans. This caused disappointment with the Republican Party. In 1872 during his campaigns on the re-election, Grant assaulted by the reformers of the Liberal Republican gained him popularity during the campaigns. With the help of the supporters in the Republican which was later known as’ the Old Guard’ he achieved Presidency for a second term in the office. He did not interfere with the south activities but instead he let the Radical Reconstruction take charge in the south and he also strengthened the south by administering it with military force
Ethics and values
Ethics and values 1
Name
Institution
Course
Tutor
Date
Introduction
Where mostly the word ethics is used and accompanied with values one firstly rushes into conclusion that it infers to behavior or ones conduct towards his practice, and to some extent some generalizes it with the in born character.Neverthe less, ethics as defined in Meta-ethics as the, field that seeks to un ravel the judgments, ethical statements, and attitudes and nature of ethical properties,. Meta-ethics as a subject, firstly gained an overwhelming approach with G.E. Moore’s famous work Principia Ethica from early 19th century.Todate many authors have written on various circles of ethics and their conflict field of practice. While values on the other hand as defined by DR John Johns in the article titled: The Ethical Dimensions of National Security. Are the qualities of honesty and loyalty that puts integrity, professionalism, caring, teamwork, and stewardship to an organizations vision statement.
In a nut shell, values depict what is wrong and right hence doing what is wrong or right is what is meant by ethics. Behaving ethically is behaving in a manner that is consistent with what is moral or right (Cooper, 2006).
Types of conflict in ethics and values
Different conflicts a rise in the course of practice in particular field, as depicted by cooper these conflict seems much inclined in the public domain where by he classifies them according to responsibilities expended by different persons and towards what. For instance when he writes on basic honesty and conformity to law where by a public servant is bound morally, just as other persons are, not to lie, to respect the person, to keep promises, and to respect the property of others, and to uphold the requirements of the law (Willbern, 2004). In many cases, this level solely describes the fundamental adherence to moral codes that is anticipated of all members of a group. There are some requirements of behavior that the society expects as the function for the collective good.
In addition, cooper also brings out the conflict of interest whereby he relates it to public officials whom the conflict between advancing one’s self-interest and advancing the public interest he is entrusted to do. At this juncture the core duty is to ensure that the public servantship comes first, reason being that one does not hold his own personal interest at the sufferance of the public. To mount on this Willbern uses misappropriation of public funds, contract kickbacks and bribery, as examples of fore tracking personal interests at the expense of commons. The underlying issue here is that, officials must divest themselves of the ventures that might be brought about by the performance of their duties and put themselves in scenarios which are designed to aid public officials evade conflicts of interest. Ultimately, it still rolls down to the individual mandate towards an ethical decision.Moreover, on the conflict of the ethics of democratic responsibility Cooper relates it to public officials operating within some systems of democracy, either elected or appointed. This demand of them to carry out the will of the people and some balance they must uphold and make moral choices that are consistent with their own public service. Also Willbern feels satisfied that the public official acts as per to his or her own resolution, at this point it would be the will of the general public, if they were well versed on the issue. He further supports this with one analogy of this level of public morality, considering whether or not the congressional representative is morally bound to support legislation and policies which his constituents highly value and support but personally he opposes.
Cooper also to service orientation and procedural fairness as one of the ethical conflicts touching on the mandate of public officers is to be vigilant on their making sure that their powers do not overcome their real purpose work. He further states that it is within reach for some officials to take advantage of power to enhance them. This habit can easily be tamed only if public officials to protect established procedures, and not to circumvent those procedures for the convenience and benefit of their own. At this point one can rethink the examples of public officers who have gone against this moral charge by using their position and power for their own good or for the good of special interest groups, or who have violated established procedures for their own appraisal and convenience. One of the most frequently approached examples is the use of government utilities non official business.
Last but not least, coopers contentment that also the ethic of public policy determination is in its own right a frequently violated ethic in the course of service. Cooper agrees that this level entrenches the most untold ethical choices, since it concerns making moral decisions about public policies. The duty here is to animate framework for moral policies and the difficulty is in determining and asserting how moral a policy is. Ideally, Public policies always deal with complex matters, where ethical choices are seldomly clear, and it is always difficult to determine which policy is wrong or right.
Finally, with the ethic of compromise and social integration, the conflict here is not much pronounced like with the already discussed ethics. This is because it deals with an area not as salient as compared with others. It deals with the need for compromise in a society characterized with irreconcilable differences over basic issues. Hence, it becomes a moral duty of public officers to participate in give and take. Cooper argues that one oftenly see the law makers in our political havens crying foul where they have no hand in benefiting from certain policies, but will confer to those that benefits them. Willbern feels satisfied, that it is moral to compromise, instead of gunning down on principles, for the lack of compromise will instigate conflict and discord, and the aftermath will be plunge the society into hubris. Inclusion, in as much as we support either school of thought, one must understand that values and ethics have sufficiently tamed un sound practices in work places and helped put unworthy behaviors at bay. Hence for any office to boast of success and competitiveness all office workers must embrace ethics and avoid weak points of backsliding.
References
Cooper, T.L. (2006). The Responsible Administrator: An Approach to Ethics for the Administrative Role, Newyork; JohnWily and sons, Inc.
Willbern, D. K. (2004).A complete guide to ethics in management: An ethics toolkit for managers, Newyork; Thrift publishers