HIS135 Final Paper

8/2/2019 HIS135 Final Paper

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/his135-final-paper 1/8

SIGNIFICANT EVENTS 1

Significant Events

Dale Bryant

HIS/135

July 3, 2011

Nicholas Foster




HIS/135 Final Paper

In this paper I will address an event, either social, political, or economic, in each decade from

the 1950‟s through the 1990‟s and explain as to why I believe it had the most powerful effect on

the United States compared to other events within the same decade.

The 1950‟s

In the 1950‟s, The 1956 Highway Act had an impact, both socially and economically. It

enabled suburban communities to grow and be joined to urban areas. Living in the suburbs

required the ownership of an automobile more than for those living in urban areas. Because of

this automobile sales grew substantially. The use of railways came to a grinding halt, as trucks,

brought goods straight to retail by way of the interstate system.

To actually get the approval to build an interstate system was an extremely difficult job for

President Eisenhower and the rest of his administration. There was skepticism from officials,

predicting that roads around downtown districts would shrink trade income. The one thing that

made the biggest difference in selling the idea was that these highways would allow for easy

evacuation routes should a major event such as war occur. This has proven to be true as

interstates are used in Florida and Louisiana in the present day to evacuate when the threat of

hurricanes exists.

Whereas the interstate system surely demonstrated itself to be an economic achievement, it

was costly. Many long-established places were blemished. Many Americans enjoy relaxing

drives down our old country roads, for example, a 4 day trip from Los Angeles to Seattle that I

found, portrayed by Scott Heidrick, which was taken each year in his early childhood years. “It




was an amazing journey, with excitement at every turn, breathtaking scenery, and countless

„tourist traps‟” (Drive, Spring 2007).” I, who have used the interstate most of my life, can only

imagine how this scene played out.

The 1960‟s

In the 1960‟s, the Immigration Act of was the beginning of an event that would have a huge

social impact on the future lives of the American people. Up into the 1920‟s, all immigrants

coming onto American soil were immigrants from Europe. From the 1920‟s up until the act came

about in 1965, an immigrant‟s country of origin determined their eligibility for immigration, and

for the most part, immigrants were primarily from England, Germany, and Ireland. Refugees

from countries under the tyranny of communism were allowed special entrance into our country

from the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952. Inspiration for the Immigration Act was tied

for the most part to the movement for civil rights. President Lyndon Johnson stated that,

“This system violates the basic principle of American democracy - the principle that values and

rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man (CIS, 1995).” Sensibly, many planners

expected immigration to stay pretty much the same, with maybe a few foreigners choosing to

take advantage. They didn‟t believe that it would change the flow of immigrants significantly.

However, what was anticipated was less than the actual outcome. “22.8 million immigrants

(Daniels)” have entered our country from 1966 until 2000 and” This created a new experience

for the history of American culture. Habitually, all of the entering immigrants have attempted to

learn the English language, if only to acquire work. The next generation was typically bilingual,

until English became the primary language in the next generation, with only a small bit of native

language remaining.




The 1970‟s

In 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment was enacted, section one stated that “Equality of rights

under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of

sex.” The objective of the act was to eliminate limits in promotions and accessible obstructions

to jobs. Many of the states have included terms of the act into their individual constitutions.

“Recent proposals have surfaced, calling revival of a national Equal Rights Amendment

(Chapman, 2007).”

Whether we agree or disagree, women and men can be quite different from one another.

Occasionally court systems have dealt with these issues. One such case in the 70‟s, Reed v.

Reed, the Supreme Court went against an Idaho statue electing a male family member, if

existing, as an administrator over an estate, should no one be designated in the will. In 1973, the

Supreme Court went against an Air Force directive which ascertained that male children of

female troops were allowed more financial protection than were their female counterparts. Other

cases raise more issues that they resolve. In Craig v. Boren the state of Oklahoma argued that

women were more mature at 18 than their male counterparts and therefore allowed to drink beer

at that age, while males were not.

The 1980‟s

In the 1980‟s during the Ronald Reagan presidency, the CIA investigated a covert operation

known as the Iran-Contra affair. This affair was being investigated in support of two different

foreign policies. The administration was providing monetary assistance to the Contras, who were

anticommunist adversaries of the communist Nicaraguan regime, also known as the Sandinistas.

This was done in spite of stipulations in the Boland Amendment of 1984 which prohibited




assistance. Simultaneously, the US was also occupied in an effort to get American hostages

released from Lebanon.

At the time war was raging between Iraq and Iran, and Iran was in need of weapons to

prolong their abilities in the war; planners in the CIA recommended selling weapons for Israel to

Iran at extravagant costs. The ensuing income was then to be loaned to the Contras, so that a

release of the American hostages could be protected, and everyone involved would come out on

the up side of things. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the Marines was the key administration

participant, as he was in charge of handling all of the secure information.

Alas, this information soon leaked into the public eye and fell apart. Shortly after in 1986 the

United States Congress performed an extremely publicized investigation. The whole

investigation turned into a debacle. Congressional Democrats had an objective which was to

involve President Reagan, thus trying to get the people to call for an impeachment and, in so

doing, taking vengeance against the defeat of Michael Dukakis, by President Reagan, Dukakis

was the unfortunate presidential nominee who ran against Reagan in 1984. The other issue that

existed was the connection with the Israelis. Democrats did not want to estrange the pro-Israel

Jewish voters by implicating Israel as the main international catalyst. Participants within the

administration broke several laws, notably the Arms Export Control Act.

Colonel North, with the advice of his lawyer, decided to address the congressional hearing,

though he declined to offer committee counsels a briefing. The way things turned out was that

several employees of the White House were charged and found guilty, together with North,

however their sentences were overturned on petition. President Ronald Reagan issued

presidential pardons for the remainder of the employees as he was leaving office. The Iran-

Contra investigation, I believe, played an important role as to the handing out of justice, even




though it is definitely debatable that Lawrence Walsh, the independent counselor, would not

have proceeded any differently should the hearings have not been televised. The hearings

themselves, made the witnesses look like heroes to the bulk of Americans that watched the

events unfold on television. Also, the hearings made members of staff and the committees

emerge as rivals to those in uniform, and blundering ones at that. It has been over 20 years since

the hearings; yet no committee has shown any aspiration to place a uniformed officer on the

stand as a witness in any formal proceedings.

The 1990‟s

In the 90‟s, specifically 1996, the members of Congress passed a Welfare Reform measure. It

was greatly desired as it was designed to keep the public from getting assistance from the

government their entire lives without some attempt at working. These reform measures put a

limit on the time a person could receive cash assistance, which made a tough declaration that

cash assistance was no longer considered a privilege (Blank, 5). The general impact that the

reform measures have had has been a decrease in the amount of citizens receiving assistance, but

not a associated rise in jobs. According to Blank (2004), in the seven years prior to 2002, female

head of household welfare cases was cut in half.

The reform of the welfare system had goals surpassing the reduction of government

expenditures. With the intentions of the Clinton Administration in mind, it may be rationally

agreed that the reform of the welfare system not only accomplished a major share of its

economic objectives, but that it also made headway with the fundamental social objectives as

well.




It is my belief that the prospect for our country isn‟t the gr eatest it could be for the American

citizens. Each of these events made a huge footprint in the history of our country, some excellent

and some awful. People working in this day and age face the likelihood of losing their retirement

benefits because of a lack in the funds available for Social Security as well as the rise in the cost

of living. Also, the future generation, our children may be facing a lengthy and tough road ahead.

References

Heidbank, S. (2007). The interstate highway system: road to the future or innocence lost?.

Retrieved June 30, 2011, from http://www.drive.subary.com/Spring07_Feature.htm

Blank, R. M. (March, 2004). What did the 1990s welfare reform accomplish?. Retrieved June 29,

2011, from http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/pdf/Ch2/Blank04

Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) (September 1995). Three decades of mass immigration: the

legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from www.cis.org

Chapman, S. (April 8, 2007). The return of the Equal Rights Amendment, real clear politics.

Retrieved June 28, 2011, from www.nationalledger.com/cgi-

bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=11&num=12603

Cumming, A. (January 28, 2008). Covert Action: legislation background and possible policy

questions.. Retrieved June 29, 2011, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R733715.pdf

Daniels, R. (n.d.). The Immigration Act of 1965: intended and unintended consequences.

Retrieved June 27, 2011, from

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/historians/chapter11.htm




George Washington University/National Security Archives (n.d.). The Iran-Contra affair (1983-

1988). Retrieved July 2, 2011, from

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/irancontra/irancon.html

Graham, O. L. (2004). A vast social experiment: the Immigration Act of 1965. Retrieved July 3,

2011, from http://www.npg.org/forum_series/socialexp.html

Rector, R. E. (2001, March 15). The effects of welfare reform. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test031501b.cfm

Rockwell, K. A. (2005, March 10). A tale of three countries: the Iran-Contra Affair.

Retrieved July 1, 2011, from

http://www.answerpoint.org/columns2.asp?column_id=1165&column_type=feature

University of Missouri, Kansas City, school of law (1978). The proposed Equal Rights

Admendment. Retrieved July 1, 2011, from

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrails/conlaw/era.htm

Weingroff, R. F. (2006, April). Essential to the national interest. Retrieved June 30, 2011, from

http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/06mar/07.htm

HIS135 Final Paper

Documents

Transcript of HIS135 Final Paper