Gothic Style in Britain Essay Example for Free

Gothic Style in Britain Essay Gothic style has been enduring father of architectural design in Britain. Its development was complex and contradictive as it offers extraordinary vision of forms, shapes and angles. Nevertheless, the style has found its recognition. Usually, on distinguishes four major developmental stages of gothic style: Norman Gothic dated 1066-1200; Early English Gothic dated 1200-1275; Decorated Gothic dated 1275-1375; and, finally, Perpendicular Gothic dated 1375-1530. The term ‘gothic’ originated in France and was often referred to as the philosophy of architecture. Speaking about characteristics of gothic style, it is necessary to admit strong vertical lines, minimal wall spaces, high vaulted ceilings, buttressed walls and pointed door openings(Ross 2005). For the first time British architects became interested in gothic style during the Norman Gothic period or, in other words, during the Norman Conquest. That period brought Gothic style to life. Nevertheless, during that period British style was similar tot hat of the rest in the Europe and it hasn’t yet found distinguishing character. Designs of buildings were transitional as many of them were still provided with thick piers and rounded windows which were inherent to Romanesque style. Decoration and vaulting were simple and little sign of elaborate stonework was observed. Nevertheless, that period was the foundation of original British gothic style being so popular even today. Famous examples of that period are Wells Cathedral, Durham Cathedral and Ely Cathedral(Mahoney 1995). During the Early English period English architects had managed to truly adapt peculiarities of gothic style. Actually, that period was called ‘Lancet’ due to pointed lancet windows. Proportions were still magnificently simple, as well as the forms were still austere. The main points of early gothic style were lancet windows, slender towers, narrow shafts, and quadripartite ribbings in vaults. The best known example of early gothic style can be seen at Salisbury Cathedral(Frankl 1962). The third stage of gothic development was Decorated Gothic period being characterized by fanciful tracery and window ornamentation. New feature was that windows became wider than lancet ones. Invention of flying buttress contributed significantly development of gothic style as it became possible to provide widening or lessening in wall areas naturally. Furthermore, vaulting techniques improved and was much of help in supporting weight off the walls. The wall became little more than sells with decorated window openings. During that period architects became interested in stone decoration which was varied and rich. Moreover, window glass became more colorful and vivid. Designs were marked by stone carvings and paintings. One of the famous examples of Decorated Period is Exeter Cathedral(Harvey 1990). Finally, Perpendicular period was characterized by strong vertical lines in wall paneling and window tracery. The style became more functional. Flying buttress was provided with decorative features and vaults were elaborate fan shapes. British towers became decorated elaborately – they became massive and ‘traceried spider-webs of stone like lace’. Distinguishing features of that period were minimum wall space which entailed the viewer with the feeling of spaciousness and light. Kings College Chape and Henry VII’s chapel at Westminster Abbey were built in Perpendicular style(Ross 2005). It is necessary to underline that gothic style never really died in Britain after the medieval period. During 17th and 18th centuries gothic styles was still present despite popularity of classical themes which were ruled only by fashion. For example, gothic elements were added to Christopher Wren’s London churches to make them look older. In the end of the 18th century Batty Langley opened school of romanticized Gothic architecture which became popular design of domestic buildings. Finally, in the beginning of the 19th century gothic style was proclaimed to be more suitable to university buildings and churches: King’s College and Bridge of Sighs at John’s college(Frankl 1962). Bibliography Frankl, Paul. (1962) Gothic Architecture. Baltimore, Penquin Books. Harvey, John. (1950) The Gothic World, 1100-1600: A Survey of Architecture and Art. London, B. T. Batsford. Mahoney, Kathleen. (1995) Gothic Style. UK, Harry N. Abrams. Ross, David. (2005) Gothic Architecture in England [Internet]. Available from: http://www. britainexpress. com/History/Gothic-architecture. htm [Accessed 14 February 2008].

Acetaminophen :: essays research papers

Acetaminophen   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the late 1800’s it was discovered that papa-amino-phenol, could reduce fever, but the drug was too toxic to use. A less toxic extract called phenacetin was later found to be just as effective but also had pain-relieving properties. In 1949, it was learned that phenacetin was metabolized into an active but also less toxic drug, acetaminophen. Since then, acetaminophen has been sold under many over the counter brand names, most popular being Tylenol.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Acetaminophen serves one basic purpose, to relieve pain. It is the main ingredient in pain killers that relieve headaches. It also substitutes anesthesia in circumcision surgery because anesthesia often cannot be used on infants. Dr. Michael Weitzman and 2 other doctors performed an experiment on an infant to test the effectiveness of the drug. The results were not identical, but there were increases in heart rate respiratory rate and crying. But the drug did more good as a pain reliever after the surgery than before the surgery.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Acetaminophen is ingested orally and is rapidly and completely absorbed into the gastrointestinal tract. It works in about one hour. The liver detoxifies 90% of it by mixing it with sulfuric acid, and another 3-5% is catabolized by enzyme reactions to the acid. The metabolites are excreted in the urine. The dosage of the drug should be used according to the carton instructions. A 10 gram over dose in adults, 140 mg for kids, can cause permanent liver damage. Also if you had just taken some other drugs , The acetaminophen may become more toxic since the drugs are catabolized in the liver. To protect yourself from injury, you should take 1 gram of vitamin C and Cysteine -a bodily antioxidant.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The kidneys can be permanently damaged if you continuously take the drug over a long period of time. You can get all kinds of cancers such as heart, liver , kidney. 40 % increase !!There are no nutrient supplements known to protect against kidney damage, but some amino acids such as Taurine powder and lots of Vitamin E might help.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Some people alternate the use of other OTC such as Aspirin, which also has other dangerous effects , but hopefully will reduce acetaminophen toxicity.

Kashmir Issue

These claims are often reinforced with partisan interpretation of history and selective evidence. The real attitude and concrete policies towards the dispute, however, are often governed by perception of short term â€Å"national interests† as defined by dominant political elite of the two countries the interests that apparently are irreconcilable and non-negotiable. While each side sticks to its claims over Kashmir, the Kashmiri Muslims continue to pay a heavy price for their defiant struggle against overwhelming odds in order to exercise their right of self determination. For more than half a century the Kashmiris are oscillating between uncertainty and destitution. They continue to suffer misery and repression under illegal Indian occupation, and despite a stream of strong words and resolutions passed by the Security Council the Kashmir issue is still a bone o f contention between Pakistan and India. Rather the situation has taken a quantum leap for the worse. Indian has conceded the Security Council resolutions vindicating the right of self determination for the Kashmiris but has since reneged on its solemn commitment to the international community and the people of Kashmir. The brutal and blatant Indian repression and state sponsored terrorism against innocent Kashmiri men, women and children had few parallels in the annals of history. The valley has become a festering sore and the miseries of the oppressed people of this valley and the â€Å"terror let loose† by Indian forces is not less cataclysmic in nature than that of Jaliawala massacre ordered by infamous General Rex Dyer. In spite of facing all these hazards, the freedom fighters are exuberant. They have not only caused the military and political debacle to India but they have also done irreparable damage to Indian’s much touted and trumpeted secularism. Would it be too much to assume that Kashmir might well be the graveyard of Indian secularism. Unless sanity prevails to make the B.. P leadership realize the sheer folly o f their politico military aggression against the Kashmiris. In the name of freedom and self determination, the Kashmiris are being inured, mutilated and killed, their women raped, and their children robbed of hope for a better future. The dispute has shattered their economy polarized their society and festered a culture of violence among the people known for their non violent character. But the Kashmiris are not only the one’s who suffer from the adverse consequences of the dispute. Millions in Pakistan and India re paying a high cost form direct or indirect effects of this issue. Both counties spend huge and unaffordable resources on defence which could be spent more productively on improving the lot of their people. The Kashmir issue has also led both counties to use their limited scientific knowledge and skills to develop weapons of mass destruction exposing them the an unimaginable holocaust. The dispute and military activities related to it have strengthened the pre-existing culture of violence, promoted glorification of material values and intensified the desire to take revenge from the enemy for the past humiliations. The culture will be a breeding ground for future conflicts between the two countries. Even if the Kashmir problem itself is somehow solved. The Kashmiris have long history of sufferings and oppression, the worst chapter of which was written by the Dogra rule, particularly from 1931 onwards. Contrary to their hopes the partition of the sub-continent and the emergence of two new states, instead of ending the woes of Kashmiris, multiplied them. Since then they have suffered the consequences of three wars, well documented atrocities by the Indian army since 1989 and often violent activities of the militants, a umber of them religiously motivated non Kashmiris. Since the days of Muslim Mughal Empire, Kashmir has got a prominent Muslim majority population. There are more than eighty percent Muslims and the Hindu population is less than twenty percent. Unfortunately, on the fall of Mughal Empire, the State fell to the British East Company in 1840, which sold it to the Sikh traitor â€Å"Raja Gulab Singh† in 1846, as reward for his betrayal of the Sikhs at a very negligible price of Rs. 75 lac. Hence onward the Muslim population of Kashmir came under continuous torment of the cruel Sikh rulers. They tried to strengthened their hold on the State with the singular aim of shattering the will of their Muslim subjects, crushing their religious zeal. They cowed them down into accepting the slavery of the Hindu minority. The genesis of the Kashmir issue is that in August 1947, when partition of the sub-continent took place, Lord Mountbatten, the viceroy of undivided India, influenced Radcliff into awarding the predominantly Muslim district of Gurdaspur, situated in the East Punjab, to India. By this treacherous act, admitted by Lord Mountbatten himself on nation wide British television, the cruel Viceroy not only subjected a Muslim majority area to the cursed Hindu domination, it also sowed the seed from which could crop up the domination of India on another predominantly Muslim State Kashmir, because it is only through a narrow strap in the Gurdaspur district that India was linked with Kashmir. The canker in no time cropped up into the â€Å"Kashmir Problem† that has ever since proved to be a serious threat to the security of the South Asian region. Pakistan has made a lot of efforts to break the strangled hold of India on Kashmir, including third party’s mediations but the fate of Kashmiris is still trembling in the balance. The first effort was made when immediate after partition India airlifted its forces to Srinagar. When Quaid-e-Azam was informed he ordered Incharge of Pak Army General Gracy, to send forces to Srinagar but the General refused to do so. Mujahideen tried their level best to capture the valley but they were defeated by Indian army as they were not well equipped and trained. Then India took this dispute to the Security Council. The Security Council decided that a plebiscite must be held in Kashmir. At that time India agreed but after sometime she backed out of her promise. In 1962 Pakistan lost a golden opportunity to conquer Kashmir during Indo-china war. As India requested President Kennedy of America to influence Pakistan for not taking any step regarding Kashmir during Indo-China war. Kennedy pressurized Ayub Khan and he accepted the America influence on these conditions that after Indo-China war America would help in resolving the Kashmir issue through discussion. In this regard after the Indo-China war Sheikh Abdullah came to Pakistan to initiate some discussion on Kashmir. During his tour of Pakistan Jawahar Lal Nehru died and he had to rush back. Ayub Khan tried to atone for his mistake and he prepared five thousand gorillas form army to capture Kashmir. This operation was given the name of â€Å"operation Gibraltar† and it was done in 1965. All these gorillas caused a lot of destruction in the valley but at least they all were captured or killed by the Indian forces due to lack of planning. In revenge, India made heavy shelling on Awan Sharif, a village near border. In response to this incident Pakistani forces along with Azad Kashmir forces crossed the ceasefire line by making official announcement. During this war of 1965, at one stage the Pakistani forces advanced upto Akhnoor and they were in a position to capture Srinagar as well but under Soviet Union’s influence Ayub Khan declared ceasefire. In this way Pakistan also lost this opportunity to get Kashmir. The Indian areas occupied by the Pakistani forces were also given bank to India according to â€Å"Tashkent Accord†. After this war, tension mounted between the two countries upto this extent that they had another war in 1971. This war resulted in separation of East Pakistan as an independent State now known as Bangladesh. The Kashmiri freedom fighters took inspiration from brave freedom fighting display of Afghanis and an upgrade uprising began in the valley. But due to lack of planning and poor diplomatic approach, this brilliant tactical move ended in a terrible strategic blunder. Before Kargil episode, international opinion was focused on Indian army repression in Kashmir. What a pity that Kargil changed this focus completely. India achieved the world’s sympathies through its excellent diplomatic policies and quickly made propaganda against Pakistan mainly through its electronic media. On the other hand Pakistan became isolated in international politics and even China the most reliable friend of Pakistan gave a cold shoulder in these circumstances. The ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan had to call off the whole operation due to huge international pressure. The most unfortunate aspect of the whole Kargil operation was tht although jawans, officers and Mujahideen won the war at Kargil hills, yet they had to descend as Pakistani government lost this war on the diplomatic front. The great uprising is still going on in the valley. Pakistan tried to internationalize the Kashmiri freedom fighting and inhuman behavior of Indian forces through Kargil operation in 1999. Under this scenario of events, it is clear that a change in policy direction is necessary. New objectives have to be formed. Almost certainly the wings of our hawks have to clipped. For this purpose the following steps can be taken: One, the line of control can be transformed into the international border between Pakistan and India . India itself has been moving in this direction for a while now- in the event of its inability to stamp out the freedom struggle in Kashmir. This option is, from the Indian perspective, the least disturbing and the most aligned to its prevailing Kashmir stance. However, despite this option having support amongst some Western analysts, it is unworkable. This is because the line of control has never been accepted by the Kashmiris. Rather, it is simply a temporary cease fire line which marks a cessation of military hostilities between two antagonists and is expected to remain in place until the dispute is resolved. Two, the valley of Kashmir along with some Northern areas, must be given independence. This option although sounds very well, yet from India’s point of view it is not beneficial because an independent Kashmir bordering China will become a permanent thereat to India. Three, Northern areas in control of Pakistan whereas Jammu and Laddakh should be given under trusteeship of United Nations for twenty years in order to eliminate the Pakistan and Indian influence and than after twenty years it should be asked from the people of Kashmir whether they want to become independent or they want to become a part of Pakistan or India. In the light of above mentioned options for the solution of Kashmir issue, the third option is very much applicable as it looks neutral in all respects. So, conceived in this way, it is a reality that Kashmir continues to define parameters of the Pak-India relationship. And unless it is resolved there is a detente between these two states, there con not be meaningful stability in South Asia, which would allow India the power status is seeks. But as a matter of fact, India has ignored the realities of history its own leaders commitments to a plebiscite in Kashmir, India has denied itself a role commensurate with its power indicators. This is the time now that India must act with the confidence of a great power and more beyond its unacceptable status quo stance in Kashmir. It is clear that India can not maintain status quo in Kashmir indefinitely that is untenable. Even if Kargil had not happen in 1999, India would have had to accept that it has failed to make Kashmir an integral part of Indian Union through a bizarre mix of the use of military force and elections. Despite the horrible facts of Indian repression in the valley and the failure of lot of efforts mentioned above one may hope that according to the concrete stance taken by Pakistan the things will be changed for Kashmiris and that day is not far away when the Kashmiris will get the reward of their sacrifices and hey would also be able to get the palm. Kashmir Issue These claims are often reinforced with partisan interpretation of history and selective evidence. The real attitude and concrete policies towards the dispute, however, are often governed by perception of short term â€Å"national interests† as defined by dominant political elite of the two countries the interests that apparently are irreconcilable and non-negotiable. While each side sticks to its claims over Kashmir, the Kashmiri Muslims continue to pay a heavy price for their defiant struggle against overwhelming odds in order to exercise their right of self determination. For more than half a century the Kashmiris are oscillating between uncertainty and destitution. They continue to suffer misery and repression under illegal Indian occupation, and despite a stream of strong words and resolutions passed by the Security Council the Kashmir issue is still a bone o f contention between Pakistan and India. Rather the situation has taken a quantum leap for the worse. Indian has conceded the Security Council resolutions vindicating the right of self determination for the Kashmiris but has since reneged on its solemn commitment to the international community and the people of Kashmir. The brutal and blatant Indian repression and state sponsored terrorism against innocent Kashmiri men, women and children had few parallels in the annals of history. The valley has become a festering sore and the miseries of the oppressed people of this valley and the â€Å"terror let loose† by Indian forces is not less cataclysmic in nature than that of Jaliawala massacre ordered by infamous General Rex Dyer. In spite of facing all these hazards, the freedom fighters are exuberant. They have not only caused the military and political debacle to India but they have also done irreparable damage to Indian’s much touted and trumpeted secularism. Would it be too much to assume that Kashmir might well be the graveyard of Indian secularism. Unless sanity prevails to make the B.. P leadership realize the sheer folly o f their politico military aggression against the Kashmiris. In the name of freedom and self determination, the Kashmiris are being inured, mutilated and killed, their women raped, and their children robbed of hope for a better future. The dispute has shattered their economy polarized their society and festered a culture of violence among the people known for their non violent character. But the Kashmiris are not only the one’s who suffer from the adverse consequences of the dispute. Millions in Pakistan and India re paying a high cost form direct or indirect effects of this issue. Both counties spend huge and unaffordable resources on defence which could be spent more productively on improving the lot of their people. The Kashmir issue has also led both counties to use their limited scientific knowledge and skills to develop weapons of mass destruction exposing them the an unimaginable holocaust. The dispute and military activities related to it have strengthened the pre-existing culture of violence, promoted glorification of material values and intensified the desire to take revenge from the enemy for the past humiliations. The culture will be a breeding ground for future conflicts between the two countries. Even if the Kashmir problem itself is somehow solved. The Kashmiris have long history of sufferings and oppression, the worst chapter of which was written by the Dogra rule, particularly from 1931 onwards. Contrary to their hopes the partition of the sub-continent and the emergence of two new states, instead of ending the woes of Kashmiris, multiplied them. Since then they have suffered the consequences of three wars, well documented atrocities by the Indian army since 1989 and often violent activities of the militants, a umber of them religiously motivated non Kashmiris. Since the days of Muslim Mughal Empire, Kashmir has got a prominent Muslim majority population. There are more than eighty percent Muslims and the Hindu population is less than twenty percent. Unfortunately, on the fall of Mughal Empire, the State fell to the British East Company in 1840, which sold it to the Sikh traitor â€Å"Raja Gulab Singh† in 1846, as reward for his betrayal of the Sikhs at a very negligible price of Rs. 75 lac. Hence onward the Muslim population of Kashmir came under continuous torment of the cruel Sikh rulers. They tried to strengthened their hold on the State with the singular aim of shattering the will of their Muslim subjects, crushing their religious zeal. They cowed them down into accepting the slavery of the Hindu minority. The genesis of the Kashmir issue is that in August 1947, when partition of the sub-continent took place, Lord Mountbatten, the viceroy of undivided India, influenced Radcliff into awarding the predominantly Muslim district of Gurdaspur, situated in the East Punjab, to India. By this treacherous act, admitted by Lord Mountbatten himself on nation wide British television, the cruel Viceroy not only subjected a Muslim majority area to the cursed Hindu domination, it also sowed the seed from which could crop up the domination of India on another predominantly Muslim State Kashmir, because it is only through a narrow strap in the Gurdaspur district that India was linked with Kashmir. The canker in no time cropped up into the â€Å"Kashmir Problem† that has ever since proved to be a serious threat to the security of the South Asian region. Pakistan has made a lot of efforts to break the strangled hold of India on Kashmir, including third party’s mediations but the fate of Kashmiris is still trembling in the balance. The first effort was made when immediate after partition India airlifted its forces to Srinagar. When Quaid-e-Azam was informed he ordered Incharge of Pak Army General Gracy, to send forces to Srinagar but the General refused to do so. Mujahideen tried their level best to capture the valley but they were defeated by Indian army as they were not well equipped and trained. Then India took this dispute to the Security Council. The Security Council decided that a plebiscite must be held in Kashmir. At that time India agreed but after sometime she backed out of her promise. In 1962 Pakistan lost a golden opportunity to conquer Kashmir during Indo-china war. As India requested President Kennedy of America to influence Pakistan for not taking any step regarding Kashmir during Indo-China war. Kennedy pressurized Ayub Khan and he accepted the America influence on these conditions that after Indo-China war America would help in resolving the Kashmir issue through discussion. In this regard after the Indo-China war Sheikh Abdullah came to Pakistan to initiate some discussion on Kashmir. During his tour of Pakistan Jawahar Lal Nehru died and he had to rush back. Ayub Khan tried to atone for his mistake and he prepared five thousand gorillas form army to capture Kashmir. This operation was given the name of â€Å"operation Gibraltar† and it was done in 1965. All these gorillas caused a lot of destruction in the valley but at least they all were captured or killed by the Indian forces due to lack of planning. In revenge, India made heavy shelling on Awan Sharif, a village near border. In response to this incident Pakistani forces along with Azad Kashmir forces crossed the ceasefire line by making official announcement. During this war of 1965, at one stage the Pakistani forces advanced upto Akhnoor and they were in a position to capture Srinagar as well but under Soviet Union’s influence Ayub Khan declared ceasefire. In this way Pakistan also lost this opportunity to get Kashmir. The Indian areas occupied by the Pakistani forces were also given bank to India according to â€Å"Tashkent Accord†. After this war, tension mounted between the two countries upto this extent that they had another war in 1971. This war resulted in separation of East Pakistan as an independent State now known as Bangladesh. The Kashmiri freedom fighters took inspiration from brave freedom fighting display of Afghanis and an upgrade uprising began in the valley. But due to lack of planning and poor diplomatic approach, this brilliant tactical move ended in a terrible strategic blunder. Before Kargil episode, international opinion was focused on Indian army repression in Kashmir. What a pity that Kargil changed this focus completely. India achieved the world’s sympathies through its excellent diplomatic policies and quickly made propaganda against Pakistan mainly through its electronic media. On the other hand Pakistan became isolated in international politics and even China the most reliable friend of Pakistan gave a cold shoulder in these circumstances. The ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan had to call off the whole operation due to huge international pressure. The most unfortunate aspect of the whole Kargil operation was tht although jawans, officers and Mujahideen won the war at Kargil hills, yet they had to descend as Pakistani government lost this war on the diplomatic front. The great uprising is still going on in the valley. Pakistan tried to internationalize the Kashmiri freedom fighting and inhuman behavior of Indian forces through Kargil operation in 1999. Under this scenario of events, it is clear that a change in policy direction is necessary. New objectives have to be formed. Almost certainly the wings of our hawks have to clipped. For this purpose the following steps can be taken: One, the line of control can be transformed into the international border between Pakistan and India . India itself has been moving in this direction for a while now- in the event of its inability to stamp out the freedom struggle in Kashmir. This option is, from the Indian perspective, the least disturbing and the most aligned to its prevailing Kashmir stance. However, despite this option having support amongst some Western analysts, it is unworkable. This is because the line of control has never been accepted by the Kashmiris. Rather, it is simply a temporary cease fire line which marks a cessation of military hostilities between two antagonists and is expected to remain in place until the dispute is resolved. Two, the valley of Kashmir along with some Northern areas, must be given independence. This option although sounds very well, yet from India’s point of view it is not beneficial because an independent Kashmir bordering China will become a permanent thereat to India. Three, Northern areas in control of Pakistan whereas Jammu and Laddakh should be given under trusteeship of United Nations for twenty years in order to eliminate the Pakistan and Indian influence and than after twenty years it should be asked from the people of Kashmir whether they want to become independent or they want to become a part of Pakistan or India. In the light of above mentioned options for the solution of Kashmir issue, the third option is very much applicable as it looks neutral in all respects. So, conceived in this way, it is a reality that Kashmir continues to define parameters of the Pak-India relationship. And unless it is resolved there is a detente between these two states, there con not be meaningful stability in South Asia, which would allow India the power status is seeks. But as a matter of fact, India has ignored the realities of history its own leaders commitments to a plebiscite in Kashmir, India has denied itself a role commensurate with its power indicators. This is the time now that India must act with the confidence of a great power and more beyond its unacceptable status quo stance in Kashmir. It is clear that India can not maintain status quo in Kashmir indefinitely that is untenable. Even if Kargil had not happen in 1999, India would have had to accept that it has failed to make Kashmir an integral part of Indian Union through a bizarre mix of the use of military force and elections. Despite the horrible facts of Indian repression in the valley and the failure of lot of efforts mentioned above one may hope that according to the concrete stance taken by Pakistan the things will be changed for Kashmiris and that day is not far away when the Kashmiris will get the reward of their sacrifices and hey would also be able to get the palm.

The American Colonization Society

The American Colonization Society was an organization formed in 1816 with the purpose of transporting free blacks from the United States to settle on the west coast of Africa. During the decades the society operated more than 12,000 people were transported to Africa and the African nation of Liberia was founded. The idea of moving blacks from America to Africa was always controversial. Among some supporters of the society it was considered a benevolent gesture. But some advocates of sending blacks to Africa did so with obviously racist motives, as they believed that blacks, even if freed from slavery, were inferior to whites and incapable of living in American society. And many free blacks living in the United States were deeply offended by the encouragement to move to Africa. Having been born in America, they wanted to live in freedom and enjoy the benefits of life in their own homeland. The Founding of the American Colonization Society The idea of returning blacks to Africa had developed in the late 1700s, as some Americans came to believe that the black and white races could never live together peacefully. But the practical idea for transporting blacks to a colony in Africa originated with a New England sea captain, Paul Cuffee, who was of Native American and African descent. Sailing from Philadelphia in 1811, Cuffee investigated the possibility of transporting American blacks to the west coast of African. And in 1815 he did take 38 colonists from America to Sierra Leone, a British colony on the west coast of Africa. Cuffees voyage seems to have been an inspiration for the American Colonization Society, which was officially launched at a meeting at the Davis Hotel in Washington, D.C. on December 21, 1816. Among the founders were Henry Clay, a prominent political figure, and John Randolph, a senator from Virginia. The organization gained prominent members. Its first president was Bushrod Washington, a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court who owned slaves and had inherited a Virginia estate, Mount Vernon, from his uncle, George Washington. Most members of the organization were not actually slave owners. And the organization never had much support in the lower South, the cotton-growing states where slavery was essential to the economy. Recruitment for Colonization Was Controversial The society solicited funds to buy the freedom of slaves who could then emigrate to Africa. So part of the organizations work could be viewed as benign, a well-meaning attempt to end slavery. However, some supporters of the organization had other motivations. They were not concerned about the issue of slavery so much as the issue of free blacks living in American society. Many people at the time, including prominent political figures, felt blacks were inferior and could not live with white people. Some American Colonization Society members advocated that freed slaves, or free-born blacks, should settle in Africa. Free black people  were often encouraged to leave the United States, and by some accounts they were essentially threatened to leave. There were even some supporters of colonization who saw the organizing as essentially protecting slavery. They believed that free blacks in America would encourage slaves to revolt. That belief became more widespread when former slaves, such as  Frederick Douglass, became eloquent speakers in the growing abolitionist movement. Prominent abolitionists, including William Lloyd Garrison, opposed colonization for several reasons. Besides feeling that blacks had every right to live freely in America, the abolitionists recognized that former slaves speaking and writing in America were forceful advocates for the ending of slavery. And abolitionists also wanted to make the point that free African Americans living peacefully and productively in society were a good argument against the inferiority of blacks and the institution of slavery. Settlement in Africa Began in the 1820s The first ship sponsored by the American Colonization Society sailed to Africa carrying 88 African Americans in 1820. A second group sailed in 1821, and in 1822 a permanent settlement was founded which would become the African nation of Liberia. Between the 1820s and the end of the Civil War, approximately 12,000 black Americans  sailed to Africa and settled in Liberia. As the slave population by the time of the Civil War was approximately four million, the number of free blacks transported to Africa was a relatively tiny number. A common goal of the American Colonization Society was for the federal government to become involved in the effort of transporting free African Americans to the colony in Liberia. At meetings of the group the idea would be proposed, but it never gained traction in the Congress despite the organization having some powerful advocates. One of the most influential senators in American history, Daniel Webster, addressed the organization at a meeting in Washington on January 21, 1852. As reported in the New York Times days later, Webster gave a typically stirring oration in which he asserted that colonization would be best for the North, best for the South, and would say to the black man, you will be happier in the land of your fathers. The Concept of Colonization Endured Though the work of the American Colonization Society never became widespread, the idea of colonization as a solution to the issue of slavery persisted. Even Abraham Lincoln, while serving as president, entertained the idea of creating a colony in Central America for freed American slaves. Lincoln abandoned the idea of colonization by the middle of the Civil War. And before his assassination he created the Freedmens Bureau, which would help former slaves become free members of American society following the war. The true legacy of the American Colonization Society would be the nation of Liberia, which has endured despite a troubled and sometimes violent history.