The Devil And Daniel Webster Essays - , Term Papers

The Devil and Daniel Webster The Devil and Daniel Webster The play "The Devil and Daniel Webster" was written by Stephen Vincent Bent in 1938. Stephen Vincent Bent was born in 1898 in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. His education came from Yale University and the Sorbonne in Paris, France. "The Devil and Daniel Webster" has a wide array of characters, each with a distinguished personality, yet an overall temperment that would be fitting of a New England community. The main character is Jabez Stone, a wealthy New England statesman whose possition was the state senator of New Hampshire. He had started out as a farmer though, but moved up in life and, when he was about thirty years of age, married the fair woman, Mary Stone- who was in her early twenties. The fiddler, though not incredibly important, was a key character in that he provided foreshadowing. When he said, "But the very devil's got into that fiddle of mine.", he was forshadowing the coming of the devil to disturb the merriments. A very key character in this play is the devil himself, which took the name of Scratch (for that was what he was called in New England communities). He had come to steal the soul of Jabez Stone, claiming that he had a right to Jabez because of a legal contract. Last- but most certainly not least in this story- is the great Governor of New Hampshire, loved by all, Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster was not only the governor, but an excelent orator. He had a way of using words to pursued the opinion of others, sometimes by conveying feelings or emotion. The play starts out in the ornate home of Jabez and Mary Stone, right after their wedding has taken place. The Fiddler, who sat upon a Cider Barrel, played a tune on the Fiddle, and all of the guests danced to it. Basically, it was a wedding reception. At first, there was nothing more than small talk going on, but by using even this smalltalk, Bent very accurately described the lifestyles of the New England residents. As the play progressed, political favor of the day was expressed as Daniel Webster arived, associating himself with Jabez Stone. One man cried out, "Vote the Whig ticket!" and another, "Hurray for Daniel Webster!" Of course, political disfavor was also shown, as Scratch (the devil) portreyed himself as a lawyer from Boston, implying that the political party from Boston was disfavored. Later on, after some forshadowing by both Jabez and Mary, it is learned that Jabez had sold his soul to the devil. He had done this because of the dessolite land he had to farm, it was entirely baren, and had an abundance of large stones there. In return, the devil brought him prosperity- for a time. Jabez had become state senator, married a wonderful woman, and had friends in high places. But it did not last forever. A small climax- more like a turning point- occurred when Scratch had driven all the guests away from fear. He then left for a short time, preparing to come back at a later time to reclaim his "prize". Daniel Webster, however, felt confidant that he could defeat Scratch in a fair trial and/or debate. As it turned out, both happened. When Scratch came back, they had a trial- a trial with a biased jury of the undead. A great oratory debate soon followed between Scratch and Daniel Webster. It was a fierce debate, though it did remain civil. Webster used his cunning intellect against Scratch, but in every case, either Scratch would refute his claim, or the judge at this trial, Judge Hawthorne of the Salem Witch Trials, would over-rule Daniel Webster- no matter how logical he had been. For instance, when Daniel Webster claimed that "Mr. Stone is an American citizen, and American citizen may be forced into the service of a foreign prince.", the devil replied that he was no foreigner with "...when the first wrong was done to the first Indian, I was there. When the first slaver put out for the Congo, I stood on her deck...". Such a trial was impossible to win, until Daniel Webster used his words to bring back memories of the undead jury- of when they had been alive and human. He appealed to them, one by one, and slowly changed the sway of the biased jury of the undead. In the end, the verdict was"not guilty", and old Scratch was finally flung out the door. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this play by Stephen Vincent Bent, and I would recommend

Current Issue in Federalism

Current Issue in Federalism Throughout the world’s history, conflicts have emerged on how to unite state and federal powers within one system of governance. To date, several controversies indicate how these conflicts continue. This paper examines the current federal issue of the same-sex marriage, its pros and cons, and my own opinion regarding the best power division.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Current Issue in Federalism specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Same-sex marriage was once a concern for individual states, but currently it is emerging as a federal issue. This has triggered the debate to shift from the state courts and legislatures to the federal courts with the interest groups looking for the best platform to present their case. Earlier, the federal government was prohibited to legalize same-sex marriage by the Defense of Marriage Act. In addition, state governments were also included. However, as from 2004, states began leg alizing it. Relative to the advantages, federal involvement on same-sex marriage can promote individualism. This will help with accommodation of interests of the bigger majority like culture, style, or language (Bond Smith, p. 76). However, state government is better placed to enhance policy positions that are specific to its area and needs of its constituents. On the other hand, federal government formulates policies that cater for the majority in order to create a balance between the states. Next, it will allow for experimentation of various laws and policies across different states. In regard to the disadvantages, federal government involvement in the same-sex marriage has contributed to various challenges. First and foremost, conflicts have erupted between states due to different policies pertaining same-sex marriage (Bond Smith, p. 86). Different states develop their own individual customs and culture pertaining to same-sex marriage. Every time one crosses a state boundary he or she is bound by different laws and policies. Therefore, it is challenging for the federal government to come up with a strong policy as the states are often divided on the issue. Secondly, this has an adverse effect on the economy.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The central government is responsible for handling the overall economy although each state has its unique economy. Same-sex marriage faces huge economic disparities, as opposed to heterosexual marriages. Same-sex couples are not legitimately recognized as married couples. In this case, they are not entitled to some of the states’ or federal government benefits such as exemption from taxes like the heterosexual couples. For instance, a heterosexual spouse is not subjected to taxation in inheritance cases from his or her deceased partner whereas a same-sex couple is subjected taxation. Furthermore, federalism has led to the growth of inequality mostly among the minority groups. This leads to mental problems such as stress due to stigmatization. Studies from various states prohibiting same-sex marriages have revealed that the majority of same-sex couples exhibited mental heath problems. This was attributed to minority stress resulting from stigmatization of the minority groups and psychological distress. Moreover, the negative campaign associated with its ban is what increased the stress. Apart from the mental health problem, the ban on same-sex marriage leads to other physical health problems. For instance, its ban is said to have triggered an increase in HIV infection in some states. Finally, the division of power between federal and state government based on confederation is the best. In this case, the federal government receives direct grant power from the states government, but not from the citizens (Bond Smith, p. 73). This would allow for optimum resource utilization a nd formulation of policies. As mentioned, state government is better placed to handle local needs. Thus, the federal government would be best suited for international issues and defense. Bond, Jon R. K.B. Smith. The Promise and Performance of American Democracy. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education, 2008. Print.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Current Issue in Federalism specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More