SAMPLE ANALYSIS

The Declaration of Independence, adopted July 4, 1776 - not only announced the birth of a new nation, it also set forth a philosophy of human freedom thenceforth to be a dynamic force in the entire western world. It rested, not upon particular grievances, but upon a broad base of individual liberty that could command general support throughout America. Its political philosophy is explicit:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed: that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The Declaration of Independence served a purpose far beyond that of a public notice of separation. Its ideas inspired mass fervor for the American cause, for it instilled among ordinary folk a sense of their own importance, inspiring them to struggle for personal freedom, self-government, and a dignified place in society.

The Revolutionary War lasted more than six years, with fighting in every colony. Even before the Declaration of Independence, there were military operations that had an important influence on he outcome of the war - for instance, the crushing of the North Carolina loyalists in February of 1776, and in March the forced evacuation of British forces from Boston.

For many months after independence was declared, the Americans suffered severe setbacks. The first of these was in New York. In the battle of Long Island, Washington’s position became ununtenable, and he executed a masterly retreat in small boats from Brooklyn to the Manhattan shore. The wind held north and the British warships could not come up the East River. Thus British General William Howe lost a chance to deal the American cause a crushing blow, perhaps to end the war.

Washington, though constantly driven back, was able to keep his forces fairly intact until the end of the year. Important victories at Trenton and Princeton revived colonial hopes, then once more calamity struck. In September 1777, Howe captured Philadelphia, drove the Congress into flight, and left Washington to winter with his men at Valley Forge.

Nevertheless, 1777 also saw the greatest American victory of the war, the military turning point of the Revolution. British General John Burgoyne moved down from Canada with a force designed to gain control of the Lake Champlain-Hudson River line and thus isolate New England from the other colonies. Burgoyne reached the upper Hudson River but, before he could proceed southward, was compelled to wait for supplies until the middle of September.

Ignorance of American geography led him to suppose it would be easy for a raiding force to march across the Hampshire Grants (Vermont) down along the Connecticut River and back, collecting horses, cattle, and wagons along the way for the use of his army-all in a matter of two weeks. For this exploit he chose 375 dismounted Hessian dragoons and about 300 Canadians and Indians. They did not even reach the Vermont line. The Vermont militia met them near Bennington. Few of the Hessians ever returned.

The Battle of Bennington rallied New England militiamen, and Washington sent reinforcements from the lower Hudson. By the time Burgoyne again put his force in motion, the army of General Horatio Gates was waiting for him. Led by Benedict Arnold, the Americans twice repulsed the British. Burgoyne fell back to Saratoga, and on October 17, 1777, he surrendered. This decisive blow of the war brought France to the American side.

Conclusion: the final victory of the colonies

From the time the Declaration of Independence was signed, France had not been neutral. The government had been eager for reprisal against England ever since the defeat of France in 1763. Moreover, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. Still, though France had welcomed Benjamin Franklin to the French court and had given the United States aid in the form of munitions and supplies, it had been reluctant to risk direct intervention and open war with England.

After Burgoyne's surrender, however, Franklin was able to secure treaties of commerce and alliance. Even before this, many French volunteers had sailed to America. The most prominent among them was the Marquis de La Fayette, a young army officer, who, in the winter of 1779-80, went to Versailles and persuaded his government to make a real effort to bring the war to an end. Soon afterward, Louis XVI sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet aggravated the difficulties the British were having in supplying and reinforcing their forces, and Frenchmen joined with American blockade runners in inflicting severe losses on British commerce.

In 1778, the British were forced to evacuate Philadelphia because of threatened action by the French fleet. During the same year, in the Ohio Valley, they suffered a series of setbacks which assured American domination of the northwest. Nevertheless, the British continued to press the war in the south. Early in 1780 they captured Charleston, the principal southern seaport, and overran the Carolina country. The following year they made an effort to conquer Virginia. But the French fleet, which temporarily gained control of American coastal waters that summer, ferried Washington's and Rochambeau's troops in boats down Chesapeake Bay. Their combined armies, totaling 15,000 men, penned in Lord Cornwallis’ army of 8,000 at Yorktown on the Virginia coast. On October 19, 1781, Cornwallis surrendered.

When the news of the American victory at Yorktown reached Europe, the House of Commons voted to end the war. Peace negotiations began in April 1782 and continued through November, when preliminary treaties were signed. These were not to take effect until France concluded peace with Great Britain. In 1783, they were signed as final and definitive. The peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom, and sovereignty of the 13 states, to which it granted the much coveted territory west to the Mississippi, and set the northern boundary of the nation nearly as it runs now. The Congress was to recommend to the states that they restore the confiscated property of the loyalists.

Bibliography

1. Billias, George Athan, ed. The American Revolution: How Revolutionary Was It? New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1990.

2. Beard, Charles A. and Mary. Basic History of the United States. New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Company, 1944.

3. Eliot, George Fielding. American Revolution. Microsoft Encarta CD-ROM 1997

Hafstadter. The United States. 4th Ed. 74, 76-77, 80.

4. Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolution. Vintage Books: New York, 1965

5. Greene, Jack P. The American Revolution, Its Character and Limits. New York University Press: New York, 1987.

6. Miller, John C. Origins of the American Revolution. Stanford University Press: Stanford, 1959.

7. Thomas, Peter D.G. Tea Party to Independence: The Third Phase of the American Revolution, 1773-1776. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1991.

8. Olsen, Keith W., et al. An Outline of American History. As reprinted on the Internet http://www.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/.

SAMPLE ANALYSIS

The headline of the article is Hussein Divides Iraq, Even in Death. The article is published on December 31, 2006 in the newspaper the International Herald Tribune by Sabrina Tavernise. The topic of the given article is Iraq after Hussein’s death. The main idea can be formulated in the following way: after Hussein’s death the country still remains divided due to different responses made by Sunnis and Shiites about his execution.

The summary. The article provides information on Saddam Hussein execution. At the very beginning of the article the author points out that Saddam Hussein is dead, but his legacy is more alive than ever. Though the former dictator has been hanged, the responses to the execution are different. For Shiites, long oppressed, it was a moment of intense release. Sunni Arabs were skeptical. Their different reactions show how far Iraqis have drifted apart in the three years since Mr. Hussein’s capture.

Then the author emphasizes that the new Iraq appears capable of inflicting only more of the abuse it suffered for so long, perpetuating it with overwhelming brutality. As vicious as he was, Mr. Hussein held the country firmly together. Beyond military control, there was a subtle social glue: Iraqis of all sects loved to hate Saddam together. Now that he is gone, Shiites are afraid to joke with Sunnis about him, and Sunnis feel they are being blamed for his crimes. Mr. Hussein spared almost no one in his murderous ways, but Shiites were particularly abused as a group. That systematic mistreatment seems to have left lasting scars that carry through to the current day. For some Iraqis, previous humiliations were enough to feel justice had been done.

Next the author presents different attitudes to the execution: if Shiites saw the hanging as a gift, most Sunnis revolted that, in what appeared to be a violation of Iraqi law, the execution was scheduled on a holiday of forgiveness. Others, namely Kurds, opposed the quick hanging. Now, Mr. Hussein will not testify in other important genocide cases, especially the trial over the Anfal military campaign against the Kurds, in which he is accused of unleashing mass killings and chemical attacks that killed tens of thousands of villagers.

In the final paragraphs the author stresses that still car bombs regularly intercede, shattering the calm. In response, Iraqis of both sects attempt to draw circles around the chaos in their own minds. As a result, they tend to generalize about the other, coming up with conspiracy theories, to make the violence easier to explain and accept.

The author concludes the article using the quotation: as Mr. Jasim said: "If we got rid of the terrorists, there would be no country better than Iraq, it’s the non-Iraqis that are against the Shiites." It is a common conclusion of the articles of this type.

The inferences. The genre of the article is news analysis. In my opinion the author managed to convey in the analyzed article the atmosphere created in the country after Hussein execution. The author gives different views made by ordinary people who live in Iraq and belong to different sects. The text contains some statistics as well. All these things contribute to the information presented in the article. The article is up-to-date since it was published a couple of days after Hussein execution.

The criteria for news selection that are of key importance for the given article are prominence as far as Iraq problem is widely discussed in the world not only by the politicians of great states but ordinary people as well, timeliness due to the fact that this article was published soon after the execution of Hussein, human interest that is caused by the nature of the execution itself (this event arose different attitudes of people in the world).

The target audience of the article is rather broad. The text will be interesting, first of all, for the Iraqis, secondly, for the international audience, for people who are not indifferent to the matters taking place in the world around them.

The language of the article is formal. It is full of different words and word combinations taken from the political sphere. It is not always easy for understanding.

Date: 2014-12-29; view: 1014