The General Ulysses Grants Union Research Paper

The General Ulysses Grants Union - Research Paper Example Further, the African Americans’ contributions made a huge impact on the lives of all African Americans starting from 1861 until today’s 21st century. The war focused on the possibility of forcing the Southern states’ white Americans to free their slaves. Many African American soldiers received their share of the Medal of Honor. The African Americans were granted freedom after the war. The African American slaves were happily discharged from their Southern White masters. The present-day beneficiaries include Singer Mariah Carrey, President Obama, and L.A Lakers’ basketball star Kobe Bryant. Â  Furthermore, there are many unanswered queries to be researched. One of the questions is: what would have happened if the Confederate leaders had won the Civil War? Second, do the current African American residents of the United States feel they are on equal status as the White Americans? Third, another research should answer the question: Do the African Americans have better fighting abilities compared to the White Americans during the American Civil War compared to the white Americans? Â  The slavery issued triggered the American Civil war. The Republican Party’s President Abraham Lincoln spearheaded the political party’s ideology that all men should be treated equally, espousing the emancipation of the African American slaves. The Northern states espoused freeing the slaves. The Southern States opposed the freeing of the slaves. Both sides of the war used African Americans to help their causes. The General Ulysses Grant led the northern states’ Union army. General Robert Lee led the Southern states’ Confederate army. Both sides of the war experimented using African American soldiers and civilians in their war campaign.

Public international law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Public international law - Essay Example This paper shall discuss such circumstances. Relevant case law shall be used in order to support this discussion. The first part of this paper shall discuss the circumstances by which a state can be excluded from responsibility for its wrong actions. Next, a specific discussion on each of the circumstances shall be carried out with supporting case studies for each circumstance. Lastly, concluding remarks shall end this discussion, summarizing the cases and establishing a clear and comprehensive answer to the issue raised. This paper is being carried out in order to assist politicians and academicians in establishing a better understanding of state actions, state responsibility, and exceptions to such responsibility. Body The International Law Commission established circumstances by which wrongful acts can be excluded from state responsibility. These circumstances include: consent, self-defence, counter-measures, force majeure, and state of necessity1. Article 26 of the UN Charter nev ertheless, supports a rule which does not allow the use of the circumstances indicated above in instances where international legal norms are violated. The commission is however also firm in declaring that the above causes may only be used if the state contradicts international law, regardless of the obligation violated, which may involve international laws, treaties, and unilateral acts2. Defending these circumstances does not seek to eliminate the obligation of states to comply with the provisions of international law; nevertheless, these circumstances provide an excuse and a justification for wrongful acts3. It is also important to consider the distinction which must be established between the impact of the circumstances which do not include the wrongful act and the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken. The first circumstance which can justify wrongful acts of states is consent. International law specialists declare that if a state consents to another state acting in a certai n way which is actually against their legal obligations to the former, the consent would establish an agreement which supports the elimination of the effects of the obligations between the parties4. The crucial element in this circumstance is on the existence of an obligation, and such obligation is on an international scale5. In instances where one state would ask the existing obligation to be disregarded, it is clear that a valid consent has been issued6. Whether or not the act is valid is based on state institutions and internal legal provisions. The consent must also be given freely before the act is carried out, moreover, the act must be protected by the limitations indicated in the consent agreement. Tacit and express consent can cover such act, however, presumed consent is not included in the purview of the discussion7. Article 20 of the draft articles on state responsibility for internationally wrongful act indicates that valid consent indicated by the invoking state regardi ng a certain act eliminates the wrongful quality of the act committed for as long as the act remains within the limitations imposed by the consent8. Aside from consent, self-defence is also another means of justifying a wrongful act by a state. Based on Article 2 of the UN Charter, relations among states must be founded on the commitment not to use force or threat of force against any other state9. Nevertheless, Article 51 indicates that all states have the inherent right to self-defence during armed attacks