The Constitutional Convention: the Forging of a Working Constitution.

In May, 1787, the doors of a small state house in Philadelphia closed and work toward creating a new government began.  It would take about four months of arguing and debating before the Constitution was something the delegates hoped would soon ratified and enacted. These delegated had been sent by their respective states with the intent of amending the current Articles of Confederation.  Instead, in September of that same year, what emerged from that small statehouse was probably one of the most famous documents in American history, the Constitution of the United States.  The goal of this historical analysis is to understand the stipulations that could cause such a dire need for change in the American government, the processes involved in forging this new government, and the impact that this change would have on future generations.

To better understand why the Confederacy of colonies needed a new unified political establishment, aspects such as the current political structure, economic instability, and internal unrest are all factors that must be considered.  After the colonies had won their freedom, individual states constructed their own independent constitutions.  Because the people were so afraid of tyrannical leadership, most of the states constitutions were weak and offered little to no real power and authority to the state governments.  To counter this blatant and obvious error, governmental administrators devised a system of checks and balances. This would consist of three branches – executive, judicial, and legislative – that would regulate each other and prohibit any one branch form gaining total political control.  This system would not, however, provide adequate authority.  The country still needed a unified national arrangement and that would first come in the form of the Articles of Confederation.  Considered to be more a league of friendship, this document dealt with international trade, interstate conflict, and regulating currency values (The Articles of Confederation).  The intention of the Articles of Confederation were to give all states fair say in national politics but required unanimous agreement among the states to pass a bill; this made the enacting of laws nearly impossible.  Without the ability to take decisive action, most major problems remained unsolved by the federal administration.

One of the greatest challenges that the country endured under the Articles of confederation was economic crisis.  The country still maintained a steep debt due to the Revolutionary War, and some soldiers had to be paid with land vouchers because the government had no money to pay them.  The Articles of Confederation did not grant to Congress the ability to tax the states, money could only be requested (Belkin 22).  Because most states still had debts of their own to pay after the war, theses requests were typically unanswered (Robertson 55).  To make matters worse, trade stability was quickly declining.  The inability for the federal government to pass laws and regulate trade deterred other countries from making any trade agreements with America because there was no way for these covenants to be enforced.  States also set up independent trade taxes and tariffs that made interstate trade hostile and unprofitable (Belkin 6).  In an attempt to cover the financial obligations of maintaining governmental duties, both Congress and state officials issued more and more money; this costly mistake diminished the value of Continental currency and caused a surge of inflation throughout the country (Robertson 53). 

Like all states, Massachusetts had amassed a financial deficit after the Revolutionary War.  To help pay for this debt, the state turned to taxation which infuriated many colonists.  These citizens had just fought a war over what they considered to be tyrannical taxation and now the newly established state government was trying to tax them as well.  People who could not pay their taxes were sent to debtor’s prison until the debt was paid.  Daniel Shays was among the indebted even though he had been employed as an officer in the Continental Army.  In an attempt to overthrow and dispose the state government, he amassed fifteen hundred soldiers and marched them to Springfield in January, 1787 (Robertson 54).  After an unsuccessful attack on the local federal armory, the majority of Shay’s combatants fled the state.  This attempted rebellion sent a shockwave of insecurity and fear throughout the other states and political leaders feared they would be overturned by a mob rule.  This unrest and the weakened economy served as a clear indication to state leaders that the current federal government was entirely too inefficient, and that a more powerful national arrangement must be devised.  Twelve of the thirteen states made certain that they would have delegates sent to attend the next Constitutional Convention.

The processes that produced the Constitution of the United States are defined by the people that took part in writing it; these people are credited for changing the course of and setting the standard for American politics.  Among the delegates sent to amend the Articles of Confederation are some of the most famous men in American history.  Benjamin Franklin had made a name for him-self worldwide in European affairs and General George Washington served his country yet again as the presiding officer.  James Madison is often credited for being the Father of the Constitution as he was one of the most influential designers (Robertson 245).  In preparation for the convention, Madison studied government extensively and even wrote a research paper titled “Vices of the Political System of the United States” (Robertson 80).  Having become fed up with the states unwillingness to cooperate with the federal government – as is indicated by the very first topic – and failure to acknowledge the rights of other states – as indicated by the fourth topic – much of this document is dedicated to pointing out the inadequacies of state constitutions and practices (Madison 35-36). 

After a few weeks of deliberation, the delegates realized the Articles of Confederation could not be amended and that they would need to draft an entirely new document.  Secrecy was believed to be paramount in this endeavor, so the delegates agreed to not discuss or divulge any information concerning their intent until the process was complete.  Through a hot and sultry summer in a cramped and poorly circulated room, these men toiled relentlessly to ensure the interests of all the states were met as adequately as possible.  Because the delegates knew that a stronger central government was necessary, a federalist approach was taken by many when selecting how the new constitution should be built.  The Virginia Plan was the product of many Virginians but was reorganized and proposed by James Madison (Belkin 31). This plan was centered upon a two house legislature.  There would be more National authority over state and larger states granted more representatives.  The Virginia plan was supported by larger states but opposed by smaller states for obvious reasons.  To countermand the idea of too much federal authority placed in the hands of the larger states, William Patterson advocated the New Jersey Plan.  Patterson’s goal was to grant equal representation to all states, and in the hopes of fixing the financial dilemma, was intent upon a Unicameral Congress with powers of taxation and trade regulation (Fiske 245).  The delegates were deadlocked in a stalemate and neither side wanted to cede their goals.

Not only was it vital that all the delegates could agree on the items to be included in the United States Constitution, but certain steps had to be taken to ensure that each state would agree to ratify the new constitution as well.  To break the tension between the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan and also encourage ratification, Roger Sherman proposed the Great Compromise.  Under this structure, the election of senators was granted to state legislatures and senate representation was equalized for all states.  It was decided that all new bills must be suggested by the lower house and house representation was to be determined by population; the compromise broke the stalemate but also led to the next great controversy.  This challenge would focus on slaves and whether their populous should be counted when determining the number of house representatives that a state would be granted.  The three-fifths formula – that had been instituted in the Confederation Congress – was employed to solve this dilemma (Robertson 56).  There was also a need for a third branch of government to meet the requirements of checks and balances.  This would become the presidential office, in charge of foreign affairs and appointed commander-in-chief (Berkin 10).  With these crucial elements in place and the majority of delegates satisfied with the outcome, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention hoped this bill would soon be ratified and upheld by at least nine of the states.

Although Madison is coined as the father of the Constitution and many other men toiled tirelessly to see it completed, the actual document was penned by Gouverneur Morris; he also made vital contributions as the skillful language and legal precision he employed made the United States Constitution both eloquent and concise (Berkin 149-150).  With the document written and signed by many of the key delegates the quest for ratification had begun.  Not all Americans were satisfied with the Constitution and some of the delegates that toiled and the Continental Congress were vehemently against it.  To the advantage of the federalist in support of the bill, according to Belkin, most opposition “had no collective critique, no agreed-upon set of objectives” (176).  This would weaken their arguments and fragment anti-federalists, opposed to the ratification of the Constitution, into smaller groups with separate agendas.  Also, many supporters of the Constitution were prepared for strong opposition and countered with the Federalist Papers.  This series of letters and news paper posts written by John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued for acceptance of the Constitution and explained any elements that critics found unclear (Berkin 175).  Anti-federalist claimed that the federal government would grow too powerful without a bill of rights to protect the rights of the states and citizens.  The delegates that drafted the Constitution had deemed it unnecessary as every state already had its own standing bill of rights; Madison had even suggested before the end of the Constitutional Convention that a bill of rights was essential for ratification but the notion was shot down by all states (Berkin 159).

Some states needed little convincing and were immediately ready to ratify the Constitution.   Delaware took little time coming to an agreement, according to Conley, “After only three hours of debate, the Delaware convention unanimously ratified the Constitution” (30).  Not all states, however, were ready to accept the new system.  Massachusetts was among the more skeptic states and showed evidence of an overwhelming anti-federalist majority; if Massachusetts rejected the proposal it would spell disaster for the Constitution and may have single handedly ruined any chance for nationwide ratification (Conley 30-31).  If the state committee was to be won over, the federalists would need the support of a powerful ally.  The federalist enlisted the aid of anti-federalist John Hancock – the president of the Massachusetts ratification committee – to propose that the Constitution be ratified unconditionally with the intent of passing amendments to it at a later time; as incentive, the federalists pledged to support Hancock in his campaign for Vice Presidency (Conley 31).   The plan worked and Massachusetts ratified bringing the constitution one state closer to national acceptance.

  Nine states had already accepted the Constitution when the Virginia deliberation committee was assembled, but the battle for ratification was not yet over.  Although, the minimum requirements had been met, Virginia was one of the most influential states due to its large population and the political sway of many Virginian residents (Fiske 339).  Yet again the need for a bill of rights seemed to be the top debate.  Anti-federalists, like Patrick Henry, were reluctant to agree to anything without first adding amendments, but federalists adamantly felt that if this Constitution was not passed the Union would collapse beyond repair (Conley 35-36).  The Virginia committee was a major lynch pin for the bill of rights movement and also crucial for the successful ratification of the Constitution in all states.  After drafting “recommendatory amendments,” the committee finally reached a vote for the Constitution to be ratified in Virginia (Conley 36). 

New York was the last major state to ratify, but preparations for establishing the new government were already well underway when North Carolina and Rhode Island agreed to the Constitution (Fiske 345).  With the administration in place, discussions for amendments to the U.S. Constitution could take place, as it was a topic of much controversy during the ratification process.  Once the amendments were passed and accepted as the U.S. Bill of Rights, tensions over the Constitution had died down almost completely.  The plan had been set in motion and the participants in its construction were very busy taking part in it.  Many of the men that debated so heatedly about the constitution were now working together again, not to make a new government, but to maintain one. 

The direct and immediate implications of the Constitution were to limit certain jurisdictions of the states and grant power to congress enabling them to normalize trade both internationally and between the states (Hodder-Williams 25).  One of the most important byproducts of the Constitution was that federal regulations were enacted to make currency more consistent between the states.  With a more stable economy, the country could focus on increasing national productivity and expansion westward.  It also made it possible for the President to quickly muster troops when required for defense against a foreign power or an internal uprising (Hodder-Williams 25).  George Washington was unanimously elected as the first United States President and would serve many four year terms.    

The time and care that when into the construction of the Constitution has enabled this document to remain the standard by which America governs to this day.  The monumental impact that the Constitution has had on America is evidenced by the fact that it has been in place for over two hundred years.  By implementing brilliant ideas such as the systems of checks and balances, the tree-fifths agreement, and the great compromise, the founding fathers of America have provided a unique, fair, and democratic system of government.  By understanding the stipulations that brought about the need for change in the American government, the processes involved in forming this new government, and the impact that this change would have on future generations, this analysis has proven that America is the home of a government worth upholding.

Works Cited

Berkin, Carol. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. Orlando, FL: Harcourt,

2002. Print.

Conley, Patrick T. The Bill of Rights and the States: The Colonial and Revolutionary Origins of

American Liberties. Madison, WI: Madison House Publishers, Inc., 1992. Print.

Fiske, John. The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789. Cambridge, MA: The

Riverside Press, 1888. Print.

Hodder-Williams, Richard. “University of Bristol” Reflections of the Constitution: the American

Constitution after Two Hundred Years. Eds. Richard Maidment, and John Zvesper. New

York, NY: Manchester University Press, 1989. 25-50. Print.

Madison, James. Selected Writings of James Madison. Ed. Ralph Ketcham. Cambridge, MA:

Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2006. Print.

Robertson, David Brian. The Construction and America’s Destiny. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press, 2005. Print.

 “The Articles of Confederation” U.S. Constitutions Online. N.p. 18 Oct. 2010. Web. 31 Oct.

2010.

The Significance of Civil Disobedience

            It is clear, after reading Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, that Thoreau feels that the government should have as little power as possible.  That is not to say that Thoreau is an anarchist; the necessity of some form of government is made evident throughout the work.  He does, however, stress the idea that people should be willing and able to govern themselves without the need of an established political entity to dictate their lives.  The main focus of this work is that the American government, while necessary and somewhat democratic, is inadequate.  These inadequacies are sufficient, Thoreau feels, to warrant a full rebellion with the intention of replacing the current governmental system with one that is more effective and more democratic.  This essay will determine the author’s intent, the effectiveness of the document to facilitate the author’s intent, and the instrumental value that the document Civil Disobedience has provided for political theorists and concerned citizens.

It seems as though this essay was written with pre-Civil War issue of slavery and question of state’s rights in mind.  These issues and others are mentioned throughout the essay but, probably the greatest motivator was his disapproval of the Mexican War (Woodlief).  Thoreau considered the death of his brother to be due to the war effort and blamed the government for the traumatizing event in his life.  Thoreau thought him-self to be a “victim” of the system and recognized the victimization of others.  Under the assumption that the U.S. Constitution and all state constitutions were, in fact, social contracts between the government and the governed, Thoreau believed that it was within his rights to not pay state taxes if he felt that the government was not meeting his expectations and providing proper representation of his wishes as outlined in said contract.  If the government could declare war and carry it out without his approval, then he could refuse to pay for that war, by way of taxes, without the government’s approval.  In one paragraph he espouses, “I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually” (Thoreau).  Thoreau feels that this statement dissolves him from the contract, enabling for him the right to refuse to pay taxes.  The end goal of Civil Disobedience was not to make it okay for Thoreau to not pay taxes, but to prove that the relationship between state and citizen is – or should be – reciprocal; when one supports the other, all is in harmony, but when one does not support the other, the whole thing falls apart.  The beauty of this philosophy is that it makes things very black and white and decisions are simply determined.  The greatest flaw is that it does not allow for grey areas or exceptions to the rule.  A person living in America may refuse the rights of safety and protection, but a fire truck will still be sent  to their home if it is on fire; as long as this citizen is gaining lawful wages, they will still be taxed for this service whether they request it or not.

            When Thoreau first published this essay, it was titled Resistance to Civil Government.  The intention, as previously stated, was to openly oppose the Mexican War.  While Thoreau may not have played a vital role in ending this war (President Polk would accomplish exactly what he had set out to do anyway), the document’s failure to end the war does not outweigh the incredible controversy and intellectual stimulation that was generated over its publication.  Thoreau points out many injustices that are inflicted upon Americans by their government and calls for a correction of these violations.  This work was especially influential as he was among the very few white Americans if the time that argued for the rights and freedom of African-Americans.  Many Americans were inspired by this document and would become more politically aware, but governmental institutions and practices remained unchanged in the wake of Civil Disobedience.

            The value of Civil Disobedience is unquestionable.  The writing style is eloquent and convincing, and the subject matter is incredibly relevant regardless of when or under what government it is considered.  Thoreau made sure to establish a solid philosophy that would apply to any situation in which a society is governed by any entity.  Thoreau relies heavily upon the fundamental ideas expressed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.  These philosophers claimed that the only power a government possesses is granted and awarded by the people ruled by it; at any time the people feel that the government has abused this power, the people have a right, and a responsibility, to overthrow that government and establish a new one.  Thoreau’s writings would inspire some of the greatest humanitarians of all time; both Gandhi and M. L. King Jr. gave inspirational credit to Thoreau (Scholastic).

            Thoreau’s works are considered to be American classics as they depicted the cultural and social structures present in America during his life.  His political and philosophical views tend to go against the grain and he really did seem to march to the beat of his own drum; he was not content to let his moral beliefs be compromised by the majority.  Though the intention of Civil Disobedience was to directly oppose the Mexican War and was ineffective in doing so, the thoughts and words contained therein have proven to be moving and inspirational; the value of this document is not intrinsic, but is determined by the reader and will continue to inspire political theorists and concerned citizens.

                                                                    Works Cited

 “The Life and Words of Martin Luther King, Jr.” Scholastic. 1999. Web. 19 February 2011.

Woodlief, Ann. “Henry David Thoreau.” American Transcendentalism Web. Virginia

Commonwealth University. Web. 19 February 2011.

Utility and Duty

            Before young children can think and reason for themselves, they will typically be taught by parents, guardians and advisors on right and wrong behavior.  Because this behavior is not self-evident and varies from culture to culture, it may be more apropos to call this education a passing of socially acceptable etiquette within the said culture.  For nearly 2000 years attempts to understand and explain this phenomenon remained at a stand-still.  Nichomachean Ethics, written by Aristotle, would prove a static mainstay until ethical philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill would begin to question the paradigm established by Aristotle.  The purpose of this essay is to examine and compare the strikingly dissimilar philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.

            Kant’s writings and ethical philosophies are strongly absolutist in nature. Absolutism, in an ethical sense, is the idea that the unbreakable rules of physics apply to human interaction and their moral implications.  Such thinking leads Kant to believe that for someone to consider a choice to be the correct course of action, it must first be universalized or applicable to anyone, anywhere, at any time.  For Mill, however, the choice of action was not nearly as important as the end result.  From a teleological standpoint such as this, one might argue that the decision made by a person only has significant ethical implications if it caused harm to someone else. According to Mill, if I were to cause harm to myself, it is ethically okay as long as no one else was harmed.

            Mill’s Harm Principle flies directly in the face of the first of Four Duties outlined by Kant; this perfect duty to self is centered on self preservation.  The second duty is more related to being honest and keeping promises to others.  This deontological standpoint claims that a person has certain duties to themselves and others and that these duties are universal.  I was told as a child that to lie is universally and morally wrong, however as I have gotten older, I find that sometimes a lie can bring about the most pleasure/happiness for more people.  This is the focal point of Mill’s Utilitarianism; as long as the majority of people involved will not be harmed and/ or will be made happy, it is an ethically sound decision.  Again this is a teleological or “ends justify the means” approach.  Kant however espouses that it is a person’s duty to make the most universally acceptable decision without regard to the outcome.  In other words, that I should not lie even thought it may make people upset because to tell a lie is always wrong.

            In my opinion these contrasting philosophies share one common flaw.  Both concepts remove the accountability and responsibility that an individual should employ in making moral decisions.  For me to cast aside my moral beliefs because it will make more people happy is negligent of my own happiness.  On the other hand, to ignore the possible outcomes of my choice because my actions are in accordance with the social and cultural morays of a society is just foolish.  I should be willing to think for myself and arrive at my own moral conclusions instead of relying on cultural conditioning to tell me what is right; I should also not be willing to allow the potential happiness of the masses to determine my course of action.  

Making Sense of the Absurd

    The theater of the absurd is a literary movement in response to senseless social situations that seemed, to many playwrights and philosophers, as pointless, irrational, illogical, and downright absurd.  During a time of military expansion, social upheaval, and religious insecurity, these innovators of modern thought attempted to identify the significant motivators that produced this state of social chaos.  The first absurdist works surfaced in theater but soon expanded to include philosophical essays, fiction novels, and even modern film.  This essay will endeavor to discover the elements that make up absurdist literature, the religious themes that are addressed in absurdist literature, and the philosophical implications that absurdist authors intend to convey with their writings.

    The classification of literature known as absurdism is an abstract notion, referring to, among other things, the style and theme of the work.  Martin Esslin summed up this idea eloquently in the essay “Absurdist Drama,” where he states:

A term like the Theatre of the Absurd must therefore be understood as a kind of intellectual shorthand for a complex pattern of similarities in approach, method, and convention, of shared philosophical and artistic premises, whether conscious or subconscious, and of influences from a common store of tradition. (par. 5)

To better understand the theater of the absurd, the authors attributed to this movement must also be considered.  Samuel Beckett, like many absurdist writers, often includes overtones of death, suicide, and hopelessness, and as Beckett himself describes as “narration of self-abandonment within an apocalyptic scene” (Cornwell 216).  As the protagonists of these stories attempt to come to terms with their inevitable demise, they are faced with concerns of morality, duty, and the persistent struggle of self-realization.  Unlike the typical play style of the era, Beckett’s plays contain no witty dialogue, little or no character development, and actions by the players that seem nonsensical.  It may seem odd, for example, that Clov, in Becket’s Endgame, feels a strong sense of duty to Hamm and refuses to leave, even though he is so grossly mistreated.  This sort of absurd contradiction is a mainstay of absurdist literature.  Many absurdist fiction authors also seem to write in response to social events, like war, that greatly impacted their lives.  Kurt Vonnegut, known for Cat’s Cradle, participated and was interred as a POW in World War II, and Yossarian, the main character from Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 is a U.S. Air Force pilot in the same war.  The point that the authors beautifully displayed in these stories is that: in war, there is no winner.  The authors felt that war itself was pointless, but it was part of the human dualistic nature to pursue irrational and illogical endeavors.  Weather in play form or novel, the same underlying message of meaningless and irrationality remains prevalent.

    In an attempt to understand the moral and ethical source of the social conundrum, these great minds turned their rhetoric and logic on the concept of religion or God.  Existentialism, the predominant philosophy attributed to absurdism, has often been at odds with structure and rigidity of organized religion.  In the words of Esslin, “the Theatre of the Absurd attacks the comfortable certainties of religious or political orthodoxy” (Esslin, par 30).  This does not mean that all absurdist writers and existentialist philosophers are antitheists; Kierkegaard, attributed to being the father of modern existentialism, was an avid Christian and incorporated God into many of his philosophies (Golomb 36).  The trouble is in understanding Gods role as it pertains to humanity.  The non-existence of God or failure of divine evidence is often a theme of absurdist fiction.  In Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, two men are waiting on a country road for the arrival of a man name Godot.  Godot is, according to many literary critics, a representation of God.  In this interpretation, the fact that Godot does not appear implies that either God does not exist or that He has abandoned mankind.  Esslin too, as Amanda Kelsch states, “acknowledges that Godot could be read as a symbol of God,” but offers deeper philosophical implications as to the meaning behind this unseen character (Kelsch 39).  These two men seem to be seeking identity and purpose through this person, but Godot does not ever appear; this therefore illustrates that the pursuit of self-identity cannot be found in some external being, but must be found within one’s self.  This leads to the more esoteric religious view demonstrated by Camus in The Rebel.  In this essay, Camus claims that “morality is the ultimate aspect of God, which must be destroyed before reconstruction can begin.  Then God no longer exists and is no longer responsible for our existence; man must resolve to act, in order to exist” (Camus 34).  The concept of God proved to be insufficient evidence to explain the absurd behavior of humans, so the scrutinous lens must be instead turned on mankind.

    At first glance, readers may find absurdist literature to be melancholy and depressing.  The authors intended for this drowning feeling of anguish to be the starting point of the total journey.  Although individuals are bombarded daily by irrational meaninglessness, “through awareness of one’s authentic needs one may organize and refine this chaos into a harmonious, sublimated whole” (Golomb 69).  Basically, by identifying the pointlessness of the world, one can then pick out the few things that have real meaning.  Absurdism is an observation of the human condition that has been turned into a satire to show the irrational and illogical nature of humans.  This is a hard lesson that absurdist authors espouse, not because everything in life is necessarily meaningless, but “because there are no easy solutions to the mysteries of existence, because ultimately man is alone in a meaningless world” (Esslin, par 30). 

    Absurdism brings to light a new perspective on the human condition.  Humanity’s fruitless attempt to bring order to a chaotic universe is futile, but, because of the dualistic and contradictory nature of mankind, is inevitable.  This essay has proven through examination of the elements that make up absurdist literature, the religious themes that are addressed in absurdist literature, and the philosophical implications that absurdist authors intend to convey with their writings that the world in which mankind must dwell is irrational, illogical, and completely absurd.  This does not excuse, however, humans – being rational beings – accepting senseless social situations.  Humanity must endeavor to find morality, identity, and purpose from within.

Works Cited

Beckett, Samuel. “Endgame.” The Norton Anthology of World

Literature. Vol. F. Ed. Sarah Lawall. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 2002. 2459-87. Print.

Camus, Albert. The Rebel. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1956.

    Print.

Cornwell, Neil. The Absurd in Literature. Manchester, UK:

    Manchester University Press, 2006. Print.

Esslin, Martin. “Absurd Drama.” 1965. Ed. James Saunders.

Penguin Books, 2003. The Samuel Becket On-Line Resources and Links Pages. Web. 29 July 2011.

Golomb, Jacob. In Search of Authenticity: From Kierkegaard to

    Camus. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.

Kelsch, Amanda. “Reading Waiting for Godot through the lens of

Christian Existentialism.” Diss. Eastern Michigan University, 2007. Digital Commons @ EMU. Web. 31 July 2011.