In the name of the father Essay Example for Free

In the name of the father Essay Often a film conveys a message about a character through various film techniques. This is true in the film â€Å"In The Name of the Father†. This story is mainly about a young man who is arrested for a crime he did not commit and how a relationship between father and son deepens throughout the tragedy. The main character, Gerry Conlon, is first portrayed to the viewer as an unruly rebel but is later developed into a more docile and compliant character. The director, Jim Sheridon, uses film techniques such as costume design, dialogue and extended metaphors to convey the development of Gerry as a character. 1st paragraph: -1st time we see gerry, scruffy, uncut -costume design baggy jeans, long hair, dirty appearance -gives idea that gerry doesn’t care about his appearance or what people think of him -as film progresses he sharpens up appearance -combed pulled back hair 2nd: -change also shown through dialogue -lawyer asks him if he is scared of the court: -he replies â€Å"i just don’t want to be humiliated again† -this brief piece of dialogue shows that he has now changed and does care what others think of him -helps viewer understand how desperate an innocent man can be in the fight for justice 3rd: -use of extended metaphor -viewer sees lawyer gareth pierce driving through a long tunnel while listening to gerrys story -this could be viewed as an extended metaphor for the long dark road gerry has gone down while fighting the legal system -as the story draws to a conclusion she reaches the end of the tunnel, or the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ -could refer to the point in the story where gerry and the others are finally set free

We Must Enforce Title IX Essays -- Intercollegiate Athletics

The Civil right Acts of 1964 was originally written to end discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and along the way came Title IX. Title IX as we all know gave equal opportunity for women to participate in sports starting in Elementary schools to colleges or the universities level and almost all schools and colleges receive federal funding. The original intention was never focused on sports. It wasn’t until 1969 when an emerging activist by the name of Bernice Sandler complained to the University of Maryland and many more other universities that women are being treated unfairly, and the inequalities in pay, rank, admissions, and much more. In 1970, â€Å"Sandler joined Representative Edith Green’s Subcommittee on Higher Education and sat in on the congressional hearings where women’s rights were discussed†. It wasn’t in congressional hearing that Green and Sandler proposed Title IX and again, there was very limited mention of sports. The focal point was aiming toward equalities at employment and federally financed institutions. Although, Title IX was officially passed into law on June 23, 1972, many people didn’t fully understand what Title IX and that there were also other people who was against Title IX. President Nixon â€Å"President Nixon directed the now-defunct Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) to carry out this important task.† In wasn’t until 1972 when the HEW published their finalized copy of Title IX and that’s when people had a good understanding of what it truthfully means. This was the step that people have finally have a clear understanding of Title IX and that it would applies to college athletics. Universities were given three years to implements Title IX. Many universities weren’t too happy a... ...men are still being treated unfairly in the school system and are getting the dead end of the deal. Works Cited Priest, Laurie. "The Whole IX Yards: the impact of Title IX: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. " Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal. 12.2 (Fall 2003) Yiamouyiannis, Athena. "The future of Title IX: ensuring success through proactive approaches." Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 12.2 (Fall 2003) Claussen, Cathryn L. "Female sport participation in America: the effectiveness of Title IX after 35 years." The International Sports Law Journal 3-4 (July-Oct 2007) Reynolds, Gerald. "Further Clarification of Intercollegiate Athletics Policy Guidance Regarding Title IX Compliance." (2003) "FIFA/Coca-Cola Women's World Ranking." n. pag. Web. 28 Mar 2011. .

Business Law Essay

As courts decide cases involving the Internet and new kinds of issues not addressed previously, what role, if any, does precedent play? What role should it play? What difficulties could arise? A court would first look to see if any applicable statutes apply to the situation. Beyond that, the court would consider whether or not there are any earlier relevant court decisions applicable to the case. The court might find a similar case, though one not involving the Internet, and extend its application to the Internet. Through this process, existing law can be extended to apply to new situations. Difficulties can arise if courts extend the application of an existing law to a new area where there are crucial differences that make the application of the old law improper. The Jurisdiction of the Court% Steve often purchases office supplies from Supplymax. a company with stores in many states, but none in Steve home state of Missouri. Supplymax does, however, maintain a distribution center in Kansas City. Missouri. Supplymax does not advertise in Missouri except that it places a few advertisements in national magazines. Some of which are sold in Missouri. Steve has an agreement with their store in Chicago. and Steve will often contact the Chicago store and have them hold items for him to pick up when he is on one of his frequent business trips to Chicago. Last year. Steve purchased eight chairs from Supplymax to use with his Conference table at his business. At a recent meeting with his local sales staff. One of the chairs collapsed injuring Steve. Steve has sued Supplyimax in state court in his hometown of St Louis. Supplymax does not want to have this case heard in Si. Louis. Or anywhere in Missouri for that matter. But if it must be in Missouri. Supplymax demands that the case be heard in Kansas City. Discuss the issues and likely outcome of his situation. Supplymax probably meets the minimum contacts requirement with the state of Missouri. Given its distribution center and advertising in national publication that reaches Missouri. Thus Missouri would have personal jurisdiction. Because the lawsuit arises out of events in St. Louis and there are witnesses from St. Louis. Proper venue would be in St. Louis. If the amount in controversy were more than $75,000, Supplymax could transfer the case to federal court.

Persuasive Writing Assignment Essay

Rebellion is when one refuses to accept authority. The transition of childhood into adulthood is most often represented by actions of rebellious nature. The average teen is always looking for away to escape conformity. Two pieces of work that express a common theme of rebellion and conformity are, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger and the movie Conspiracy Theory starting Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts. Both pieces express this common theme of rebellious and conformity in a society that simply won’t allow it. In the novel The Catcher in the Rye the main character, Holden Caulfield, goes through many hardships in trying to search for his place in society. Holden rebels throughout the whole book against rules, schools, and people that he encountered. An example of Holden’s external conflict with conformity was on his date with Sally. At the end of their date, Holden shares a dream of running away with her to escape the normalcy in everyday society, â€Å"I have about a hundred and eighty bucks in the bank. I can take it out when it opens in the morning, and then I could go down and get this guy’s car. No kidding. We’ll stay in these cabin camps and stuff like that till the dough runs out,† (Page 132). How the movie Conspiracy Theory is related to The Catcher in the Rye, is that the movie’s main character Jerry Fletcher is a New York City Taxi driver who is always telling people that a list events trigged in the world are done by Government conspiracies but he never seems to get anywhere with his theories. However one of the conspiracies comes true and the CIA is trying to shut Jerry up before he does anymore damage. Now the reason why these two are connected is because, in both cases each character are trying to achieve being different and don’t want to be tied down by what other people tell them to do. In Jerry’s case he is trying to tell the truth about these theories to the general public and try to raise awareness about it before it’s too late. In Holden’s case, he feels that he needs to escape this sort of normalcy that exists in his society. The example of running away and living in the country has everything to do with conformity. The external conflict that both characters face have to do with making sure they don’t fall into the trap that society has set out of them and to try and achieve the impossible in a impossible world. Both Jerry and Holden always fee that they are being alienated in society and both are trying to find a purpose in life.

The History Behind Cobell Vs. Salazar

The History Behind Cobell Vs. Salazar Surviving multiple presidential administrations since its inception in 1996, the Cobell case has been known variously as Cobell v. Babbit, Cobell v. Norton, Cobell v. Kempthorne and its current name, Cobell v. Salazar (all defendants being Secretaries of the Interior under which the Bureau of Indian affairs is organized). With upwards of 500,000 plaintiffs, it has been called the largest class-action lawsuit against the United States in U.S. history. The suit is the result of over 100 years of abusive federal Indian policy and gross negligence in the management of Indian trust lands. Overview Eloise Cobell, a Blackfoot Indian from Montana and banker by profession, filed the lawsuit on behalf of hundreds of thousands of individual Indians in 1996 after finding many discrepancies in the management of funds for lands held in trust by the United States in her job as treasurer for the Blackfoot tribe. According to U.S. law, Indian lands are technically not owned by tribes or individual Indians themselves but are held in trust by the U.S. government. Under U.S. management, Indian trust lands Indian reservations are often leased to non-Indian individuals or companies for resource extraction or other uses. The revenue generated from the leases is to be paid to the tribes and individual Indian land owners. The United States has a fiduciary responsibility to manage the lands to the best benefit of tribes and individual Indians, but as the lawsuit revealed, for over 100 years the government failed in its duties to accurately account for the income generated by the leases, let alone pay the revenues to the Indians. History of Indian Land Policy and Law The foundation of federal Indian law begins with the principles based on the doctrine of discovery, originally defined in Johnson v. MacIntosh (1823) which maintains that Indians only have a right to occupancy and not the title to their own lands. This led to the legal principle of the trust doctrine to which the United States is held on behalf of Native American tribes. In its mission to civilize and assimilate Indians into mainstream American culture, the Dawes Act of 1887 broke up the communal landholdings of tribes into individual allotments which were held in trust for a period of 25 years. After the 25-year period, a patent in fee simple would be issued, enabling an individual to sell their land if they chose to and ultimately breaking up the reservations. The goal of the assimilation policy would have resulted in all Indian trust lands in private ownership, but a new generation of lawmakers in the early 20th century reversed the assimilation policy based on the landmark Merria m Report which detailed the deleterious effects of the previous policy. Fractionation Throughout the decades as the original allottees died the allotments passed to their heirs in subsequent generations. The result has been that an allotment of 40, 60, 80, or 160 acres, which was originally owned by one person is now owned by hundreds or sometimes even thousands of people. These fractionated allotments are usually vacant parcels of land that are still managed under resource leases by the U.S. and have been rendered useless for any other purposes because they can only be developed with the approval 51% of all other owners, an unlikely scenario. Each of those people is assigned Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts which are credited with any revenue generated by the leases (or would have been had there been appropriate accounting and crediting maintained). With hundreds of thousands of IIM accounts now in existence, accounting has become a bureaucratic nightmare and highly costly. The Settlement The Cobell case hinged in large part on whether or not an accurate accounting of the IIM accounts could be determined. After over 15 years of litigation, the defendant and the plaintiffs both agreed that an accurate accounting was not possible and in 2010 a settlement was finally reached for a total of $3.4 billion. The settlement, known as the Claims Settlement Act of 2010, was divided into three sections: $1.5 billion was created for an Accounting/Trust Administration fund (to be distributed to IIM account holders), $60 million is set aside for Indian access to higher education, and the remaining $1.9 billion sets up the Trust Land Consolidation Fund, which provides funds for tribal governments to purchase individual fractionated interests, consolidating the allotments into once again communally held land. However, the settlement has yet to be paid due to legal challenges by four Indian plaintiffs.

Rhetorical Analysis, Global Warming the Great Delusion Essays

Rhetorical Analysis, Global Warming the Great Delusion Essays Rhetorical Analysis, Global Warming the Great Delusion Paper Rhetorical Analysis, Global Warming the Great Delusion Paper Patterson contends that In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species history, and that the beliefs Of global warming proponents are the result of their own delusional imaginations and a subconscious apocalyptic yearning toward which masses of people tend to subject themselves. While Patterson worries that what he perceives to be the delusions of global warming proponents run amok could prove to be a legitimate threat to the progress of Man, he argues that there is a growing trend of dissenters to the theory among the scientific community that will break the supposed fever of global warming hysteria. The author begins the piece by drawing a parallel between the actions of global warming supporters and the erratic behaviors of witch hunters and alchemists prior to the 20th century. He claims that Charles McKay, 19th century journalist and author of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, would draw the same conclusions today concerning global warming proponents that he did when observing popular susceptibility towards belief in with hunts and alchemy. In doing so, he attempts to illustrate his point that the proponents of global warming are simply falling prey to the madness fueled by those around them, rather than basing their actions and beliefs on facts or evidence. To support this assertion, Patterson employs a bevy of Devil terms to describe the commonality between the ignorance observed by McKay toward witch hunters and the ignorance observed by Patterson toward global warming activists. Terms like superstition, guilt, hatred, and apocalyptic yearning all seek to paint global warming believers as a reactionary group acting on impulse over evidence. A rebuttal might point out that Patterson has yet to provide evidence against global warming or discredit the available evidence that supports the theory, and Mackey point about humans self-inflicting worries upon themselves eight not hold any water if the worry in question was indeed valid and supported by evidence. Patterson continues this assertion into the next paragraph, adding more emotional emphasis by claiming that In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species history'. By framing the argument so dramatically, Patterson draws a visible distinction to whom his intended audience may be: those who already agree with his position and are looking for solidarity in their own opinions, as well as those on the fence or who have a neutral opinion on the validity of global warming. By emphasizing the extent of the error of global warming believers to such a degree, Patterson may be attempting to pique the interest of those who have paid little attention to the global warming debate before. Additionally, global warming proponents are grouped into the term Waveforms in this paragraph, and later referred to as climate cultists. These terms carry a belittling connotation that implies that global warming proponents are members of an extremist fringe group, rather than the majority. A rebuttal of this point might simply note that the majority f climatologists still subscribe to global warming as a viable theory, and Patterson is still yet to present any evidence to support his assertions. The authors argument continues on to present this perceived hysteria of global warming as not only a potentially viable threat to humankind and the institutions that have enabled it to thrive, but one that is evidently on the decline. Patterson expresses a fear that Man will be convinced by these climate cultists to turn his back on the very political, economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so wealthy, so healthy. By framing is argument in a way that transitions from highlighting the scientific ignorance of global warming to the policies that such a worldview could impact, Patterson attempts to establish a chain of logic that justifies his concern for global warming as an influence on government. The language used in the sentence (climate cultists tying to convince Man, turning their back on beneficial institutions) also implies to the reader that the proponents of global warming are actively attempting to undermine the institutions that have allowed humankind to thrive in the modern world. This opinion is underlined later in the article, when Patterson contemplates why many hope for climate change catastrophe. At this point, Patterson approaches the core of his argument, wherein he provides what he believes to be sufficient evidence that the idea global warming will soon cease to be a threat to the progress. He argues that the fever is breaking, as more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm. The use of a fever as a metaphor suggests that the hysteria that surrounds global warming acts as an ailment on society, and as more and more scientists challenge the theory, TTS credibility and ultimately its power is diminished. To support this statement, he cites quotes from scientists expressing reluctance and doubt toward the theory of global warming. Patterson makes sure to mention the alleged prominence of the dissenting scientists and to identify IVR Giver as a Nobel prize winner, in an attempt to bolster the credibility Of his sources through the use of God terms. A rebuttal of this point might argue that this is not evidence against global warming, but rather an argument from authority. By citing two examples of scientists dissenting from popular scientific nonsense on global warming and asserting them as proof of the untruth of the theory, Patterson ultimately says nothing persuasive in opposition to global warming. Were he able to provide evidence of an increasing trend of scientists rejecting the theory, his argument might gain credibility, but by citing only two singular examples, he gives the reader no reason to believe that this information is indicative of the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps anticipating the counterargument that the majority of scientists still accept global warming as a viable theory, Patterson posits another quote room the group of dissenting scientists, who claim that Alarmist over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. While Patterson doesnt expound on this claim, its presence in his article strongly implies that he identifies with the point made by these scientists. He then goes on to dismiss federal mandates related to carbon emissions as schemes meant to undermine the individual liberty of the voters. A rebuttal might argue that these points contradict the primary argument Patterson add at the opening of the article; by heavily implying that global warming proponents cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe mainly as an effort to profit from government funding and to further bureaucratic control, he nullifies his argument based on the quote from Charles McKay that global warming fear is borne from superstition, Western guilt, and apocalyptic yearning. Overall, Matt Patterson article proved to be an unconvincing piece of rhetoric against global warming. He provided astonishingly little evidence to support his argument that global warming was a ridiculous superstition, and elided on two singular examples to demonstrate that scientists were flocking away from the theory.

History of the US Congressional Gag Rule

History of the US Congressional Gag Rule The gag rule was a legislative tactic employed by southern members of Congress beginning in the 1830s to prevent any discussion of slavery in the House of Representatives. The silencing of slavery opponents was accomplished by a resolution first passed in 1836 and renewed repeatedly for eight years. The suppression of free speech in the House was naturally deemed offensive to northern members of Congress and their constituents. What came to be widely known as the gag rule faced opposition for years, most notably from former president John Quincy Adams. Adams, who had been elected to Congress following one frustrating and unpleasant presidential term in the 1820s, became the champion of anti-slavery sentiment on Capitol Hill. And his stubborn opposition to the gag rule became a rallying point for the growing abolitionist movement in America. The gag rule was finally rescinded in December 1844. The tactic had been successful in its immediate goal, the silencing of any debate about slavery in Congress. But in the long term, the gag rule was counterproductive... The tactic came to be viewed as patently unfair and undemocratic Attacks upon Adams, which ranged from attempts to censure him in Congress to a constant stream of death threats, eventually made his opposition to slavery a more popular cause. The heavy-handed suppression of debate over slavery heightened  the deepening divide in the country in the decades before the Civil War. And the battles against the gag rule worked to bring abolitionist sentiment, which had been considered a fringe belief, closer to the mainstream of American public opinion. Background to the Gag Rule Compromises over slavery had made the ratification of the United States Constitution possible. And in the early years of the country, the issue of slavery was generally absent in Congressional debates. One time it arose was in 1820 when the Missouri Compromise set a precedent about the addition of new states. Slavery was being made illegal in the northern states in the early 1800s. In the South, thanks to the growth of the cotton industry, the institution of slavery were only getting stronger. And there seemed to be no hope of abolishing it through legislative means.   The U.S. Congress, including nearly all members from the North, accepted that slavery was legal under the Constitution, and it was an issue for the individual states. However, in one particular instance, Congress did have a role to play in slavery, and that was in the District of Columbia. The district was ruled by Congress, and slavery was legal in the district. That would become an occasional point of debate, as congressmen from the North would periodically urge that slavery in the District of Columbia be outlawed. Until the 1830s, slavery, as abhorrent as it may have been to many Americans, was simply not discussed much in the government. A provocation by abolitionists in the 1830s, the pamphlet campaign, in which anti-slavery pamphlets were mailed to the South, changed that for a time. The issue of what could be sent through the federal mails suddenly made anti-slavery literature a highly controversial federal issue. But the pamphlet campaign fizzled out, as mailing pamphlets which would be seized and burned in southern streets were seen as simply impractical. And anti-slavery campaigners began to rely more on a new tactic, petitions sent to Congress. The right of petition was enshrined in the First Amendment. Though often overlooked in the modern world, the right to petition the government was held in very high regard in the early 1800s. When citizens began sending anti-slavery petitions to Congress, the House of Representatives would be confronted with the increasingly contentious debate about slavery. And, on Capitol Hill, it meant pro-slavery legislators began to seek a way to avoid dealing with the anti-slavery petitions entirely. John Quincy Adams in Congress The issue of petitions against slavery, and the efforts by southern legislators to suppress them did not begin with John Quincy Adams. But it was the former president who brought great attention to the issue and who persistently kept the matter controversial. Adams occupied a unique place in early America. His father, John Adams, had been a founder of the nation, the first vice president, and the country’s second president. His mother, Abigail Adams, was, like her husband, a dedicated opponent of slavery. In November 1800 John and Abigail Adams became the original inhabitants of the White House, which was still unfinished. They had previously lived in places where slavery was legal, though waning in actual practice. But they found it particularly offensive to look from the windows of the president’s mansion and see groups of slaves working to build the new federal city. Their son, John Quincy Adams, inherited their abhorrence of slavery. But during his public career, as a senator, diplomat, secretary of state, and president, there hadn’t been much he could do about it. The position of the federal government was that slavery was legal under the Constitution. And even an anti-slavery president, in the early 1800s, was essentially forced to accept it. Adams lost his bid for a second presidential term when he lost the very bitter election of 1828 to Andrew Jackson. And he returned to Massachusetts in 1829, finding himself, for the first time in decades, with no public duty to perform. Some local citizens where he lived encouraged him to run for Congress. In the style of the time, he professed to have little interest in the job but said if the voters chose him, he would serve. Adams was overwhelmingly elected to represent his district in the U.S. House of Representatives. For the first and only time, an American president would serve in Congress after leaving the White House. After moving back to Washington, in 1831, Adams spent time becoming familiar with the rules of Congress. And when the Congress went into session, Adams began what would turn into a lengthy battle against southern pro-slavery politicians. A newspaper, the New York Mercury, published, in the issue of December 21, 1831, a dispatch about events in Congress on December 12, 1831: Numerous petitions and memorials were presented in the House of Representatives. Among them were 15 from the citizens of the Society of Friends in Pennsylvania, praying for the consideration of the question of slavery, with a view to its abolition, and for the abolition of the traffic of slaves within the District of Columbia. The petitions were presented by John Quincy Adams, and referred to the Committee on the District. By introducing the anti-slavery petitions from Pennsylvania Quakers, Adams had acted audaciously. However, the petitions, once they were sent to the House committee which administered the District of Columbia, were tabled and forgotten. For the next few years, Adams periodically presented similar petitions. And the anti-slavery petitions were always sent into procedural oblivion. In late 1835 southern members of Congress began to get more aggressive about the issue of anti-slavery petitions. Debates about how to suppress them occurred in Congress and Adams became energized to fight the efforts to stifle free speech. On January 4, 1836, a day on which members could present petitions to the House, John Quincy Adams introduced an innocuous petition related to foreign affairs. He then introduced another petition, sent to him by citizens of Massachusetts, calling for the abolition of slavery. That created a stir in the House chamber. The speaker of the house, future president and Tennessee congressman James K. Polk, invoked complicated parliamentary rules to prevent Adams from presenting the petition. Throughout January 1836 Adams continued to try to introduce anti-slavery petitions, which were met with an endless invocation of various rules to ensure they wouldn’t be considered. The House of Representatives bogged down completely. And a committee was formed to come up with procedures to handle the petition situation. Introduction of the Gag Rule The committee met for several months to come up with a way to suppress the petitions. In May 1836 the committee produced the following resolution, which served to completely silence any discussion of slavery: â€Å"All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon.† On May 25, 1836, during a heated Congressional debate on the proposal to silence any talk of slavery, Congressman John Quincy Adams tried to take the floor. Speaker James K. Polk refused to recognize him and called on other members instead. Adams eventually got a chance to speak but was quickly challenged and told the points he wished to make were not debatable. As Adams tried to speak, he was interrupted by Speaker Polk. A newspaper in Amherst, Massachusetts, The Farmer’s Cabinet, on June 3, 1836 issue, reported on the anger shown by Adams in the May 25, 1836 debate: â€Å"At another stage of the debate, he appealed again from a decision of the Speaker, and cried out, ‘I am aware there is a slave-holding Speaker in the Chair.’ The confusion which ensued was immense.â€Å"Affairs having gone against Mr. Adams, he exclaimed Mr. Speaker, am I gagged or not? â€Å" That question posed by Adams would become famous. And when the resolution to suppress talk of slavery passed the House, Adams received his answer. He was indeed gagged. And no talk of slavery would be allowed on the floor of the House of Representatives. Continuous Battles Under the rules of the House of Representatives, the gag rule had to be renewed at the outset of each new session of Congress. So over the course of four Congresses, a span of eight years, the southern members of Congress, along with willing northerners, were able to pass the rule anew. Opponents of the gag rule, most notably John Quincy Adams, continued to battle against it whenever they could. Adams, who had acquired the nickname â€Å"Old Man Eloquent,† frequently sparred with southern congressmen as he would try to bring the subject of slavery into House debates. As Adams became the face of opposition to the gag rule, and to slavery itself, he began to receive death threats. And at times resolutions were introduced in Congress to censure him. In early 1842, a debate over whether to censure Adams essentially amounted to a trial. Accusations against Adams and his fiery defenses appeared in newspapers for weeks. The controversy served to make Adams, at least in the North, a heroic figure battling for the principle of free speech and open debate. Adams was never formally censured, as his reputation probably prevented his opponents from ever gathering the necessary votes. And in his old age, he continued to engage in blistering rhetoric. At times he baited southern congressmen, taunting them over their ownership of slaves. The End of the Gag Rule The gag rule persisted  for eight years. But over time the measure was seen by more and more Americans as essentially anti-democratic. Northern members of Congress who had gone along with it in the late 1830s, in the interest of compromise, or simply as a surrender to the power of the slave states, began to turn against it. In the nation at large, the abolitionist movement had been seen, in the early decades of the 19th century, as a small band on the outer fringe of society. Abolitionist editor  William Lloyd Garrison had even been attacked on the streets of Boston. And the Tappan Brothers, New York merchants who often financed abolitionist activities, were routinely threatened. Yet, if the abolitionists were widely viewed as a fanatical fringe, tactics like the gag rule made the pro-slavery factions appear just as extreme. The suppression of free speech in the halls of Congress became untenable to northern members of Congress. On December 3, 1844, John Quincy Adams put forth a motion to rescind the gag rule. The motion passed,  by a vote in the House of Representatives of 108 to 80. And the rule which had prevented debate over slavery was no longer in force. Slavery, of course, was not ended in America until the Civil War. So being able to debate the issue in Congress did not bring an end to slavery. Yet, by opening up a debate, changes in thinking were made possible. And the national attitude toward slavery was no doubt affected. John Quincy Adams served in Congress for four years after the gag rule was rescinded. His opposition to slavery inspired younger politicians who could carry on his fight. Adams collapsed at his desk in the House chamber on February 21, 1848. He was carried to the speakers office and died there the following day. A young Whig congressman who had been present when Adams collapsed, Abraham Lincoln, was a member of the delegation which traveled to Massachusetts for the funeral of Adams.