How Did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny Essay

DBQ: How did the Constitution guard against tyranny? Americans desperately fight against the poison of tyranny with their best weapon, the Constitution. During the Colonial Period, King George III, demanded many things from the colonists. These demands were caused by the aftermath of the French and Indian War. England had increasing debts, so the king raised the taxes of both America and England. The increase of taxes caused anger to rise from the Americans, which allowed a roll of events to unfold. After many harsh exchanges between the colonists and King George III, America declared its independence on July 4, 1776. Soon after the declaration, things began to heat up as fight over representation in government began to be more debated.†¦show more content†¦This is the same with America’s enumerated powers and reserved powers; enumerated powers meaning the central government, and the reserved powers meaning the states’ government. These two governments residing within America control each other from getting out o f hand; in this way federalism protects us from tyranny. The three branches of government also known as the legislative, judicial, and executive, helped guard against tyranny, by separation of powers. The main idea of a quote by James Madison states that, all three branches of government lean on each other, yet have separate but equal powers. (Document B) Separation of powers, created by the three branches of government, helped guard against tyranny, by allowing the three divisions to lean on each other, so that if one group did something that went out of hand, they could do something about it. In James Madison’s Federalist Paper #47, he states that, â€Å"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny†¦ (L)iberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and di stinct.† The beginning of the quote defines the outcome of what would happen if one person or group were to accumulate all the powers of the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The ending of the quote states that if liberty is wanted, the threeShow MoreRelatedHow Did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny?1299 Words   |  6 Pagesbroken system in place, why was it important that a group of wealthy, white men from the thirteen original states, except for Rhode Island, frame a government that would be strong enough to serve the new nation, but not create any form of tyranny? The first constitution, The Articles of Confederation, was an agreement among all thirteen states that was drafted on July 12, 1776 and completed its formal ratification in March of 1781. It allowed thirteen states to set up central organizations to overseeRead MoreHow Did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny5601 Words   |  23 Pagesreconciliation with the states that had seceded! because he didnt want to dissolve the union IN COMPLIANCE with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you brieï ¬â€šy and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of this office. I do not consider it necessary at present for me to -Timeliness discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxietyRead MoreHow Did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny? (Dbq) Essay822 Words   |  4 PagesHow Did The Constitution Guard Against Tyranny? Have you ever wondered what the US would be like if our government was a tyranny? Well, thanks to our founding fathers for creating a strong constitution, we don’t have to worry about that. The constitution was written in 1787 in Philadelphia. The problem was that the existing government that was under the Articles Of Confederation wasn’t very successful. Therefore, the fifty-five delegates representing twelve out of the thirteen states came togetherRead MoreEssay on How Does the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny?813 Words   |  4 PagesHow did the Constitution guard against tyranny? Tyranny is means ‘as harsh absolute power in the hands of one individual’; it has happened everywhere. Whatever the size or shape, tyranny is a problem because it means too much power in the hands of one person or group. In 1787, Representatives from almost all the states in the U.S, met in Philadelphia to fix the issue of tyranny. The House presents us to â€Å"The Articles of Confederation† to help guard against tyranny. The Constitution guarded againstRead MoreThe Constitution Of The United States1164 Words   |  5 PagesGeorge III. The way he ruled was filled with tyranny, which is the overruling of an individual or group. King George and other tyrants were people with too much power, making the colonies and anyone under their rule an utter nightmare. Luckily, we don’t have this because of the Constitution, which protects America from tyranny. A constitution in general is a set of basic principles that determines the powers and duties of a government. The Constitution was written in May of 1787 in Philadelphia becauseRead MoreThe Constitution Of The United States1453 Words   |  6 PagesThe Constitution of the United States of America was presented in 1787, pertaining to a newly formed government and how the former colonists of England projected to run a new country. The Constitution was drafted in Philadelphia by the brilliant and later 4th President of the United States, James Madison. This document was presented to ameliorate the Articles of Confederation, written in 1777, that contained a weak central government and no chief executive or court system. Another intention of theRead MoreHow Did the Framers Guard Against Tyranny?1729 Words   |  7 PagesHow Did the Constitution Guard Against Tyranny? Imagine oneself back at the constitutional convention in seventeen eighty-seven. All of the brightest minds and most respected people in one place, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the southeast of the state, near New York. Because it is May, and just beginning to be summer, it is hot, and because all the windows are closed in the interest of secrecy, it is stifling as well. Fifty-five well known thinkers of the age, all white males, have come. TheyRead MoreEssay on james madison1512 Words   |  7 Pages James Madison begins his famous federalist paper by explaining that the purpose of this essay is to help the readers understand how the structure of the proposed government makes liberty possible. Each branch should be, for the most part, in Madisons opinion, independent. To assure such independence, no one branch should have too much power in selecting members of the other two branches. If this principle were strictly followed, it would mean that the citizens should select the pre sident, the legislatorsRead MoreAnti Federalists Vs The Ratification Of The U.s. Constitution1074 Words   |  5 PagesOn the other hand, Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Unlike the Federalists, many of the Anti-Federalists were not included in the deliberations on the new constitution; they were not selected as delegates to the constitutional convention. Anti-Federalists were in favor of a confederacy; a system where the central government exercises no control over subunit governments (i.e. states) and acts for the subunits. Therefore, their name, Anti-Federalists, is notRead MoreAnti Gun Control Argument1366 Words   |  6 Pagesthe issue of gun rights. I will bring up arguments for gun rights and against gun control, citing all sources used. Some topics to be discussed are the Second Amendment, media influence on weapons violence, and the effects of crime rates in areas that allow open or concealed carry. I would like to preface with some safety notes, clearly nobody should be using a weapon they do not feel safe operating or have no knowledge of how it operates. But this is not always the case, according to the National

Medicine During The Civil War - 1548 Words

During the Civil War, medicine was an important aspect for every soldier due to the fact that many soldiers had to fight and ended up with injuries also there were many types of illnesses. In this essay, I will focus on the advance of medicine during the Civil War. Also how the soldiers and civilians were treated as well as how sanitize their location was, are questions I will try to answer. Also, I will like to include some of most known causes of deaths during the Civil War and the types of diseases that soldiers would come in contact with. Include who was in charge of the hospitals during the war. I will also include information from letters and documents that the nurse and doctors wrote while the Civil War was going one and what kind of establishments were created and the kind of equipment they used in the hospital. Since the period of the Civil War was and is consider to be the start and growth of the medical industry it is important for me to find out why. Advances included amputation and the anesthesia inhaler. The surgeon noticed the best way to save deadly infections was to simply cut off the area quickly as possible. Among the people save by having and amputation is Daniel E Sickles, the eccentric commander of the Confederate. Amputations save a large amount of lives than any other procedures also made complex injuries simpler. To be able to complete these procedures, they would soak chloroform in a handkerchief and place over their nose but the chloroform wouldShow MoreRelatedMedicine During the Civil War1813 Words   |  8 PagesMedicine During the Civil War 1861-1865 When Walt Whitman wrote that he believed the real war would never get into the books, this is the side he was talking about (Belferman 1996). Yet, it is important that we remember and recall the medical side of the conflict too, as horrible and terrifying as it was (Adams 1952). Long before doctors and people knew anything about bacteria and what caused disease was the time of Civil War medicine. Doctors during the Civil War (always referred to as surgeons)Read More Medicine During the Civil War Essay1796 Words   |  8 Pages Medicine During the Civil War 1861-1865 nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;When Walt Whitman wrote that he believed the â€Å"real war† would never get into the books, this is the side he was talking about (Belferman 1996). Yet, it is important that we remember and recall the medical side of the conflict too, as horrible and terrifying as it was (Adams 1952). Long before doctors and people knew anything about bacteria and what caused disease was the time of Civil War medicine. Doctors during the Civil WarRead MoreAdvancements in Med-Care since the Civil War Essay1461 Words   |  6 PagesAmerican Civil War often gets credit for ending slavery and reshaping the federal government in this country. But the war between the states has another, often overlooked legacy: It may have started a new era in modern medicine† (â€Å"Civil War Medicine Quotes†). Contamination of medical equipment, poor sanitation methods, and lack of efficient medical procedures all led to the spread of disease, which resulted in death. Howeve r, modern medicine has significantly improved from the Civil War, due to itsRead MoreEssay about Civil War Medicine1201 Words   |  5 Pages During the Civil War, they had to have many medicines, operations, and surgeries done to themselves or others in order to survive (Jenny Goellnitz, Paragraph 1). Some of these medicines we still use today. Medical technology and scientific knowledge have changed dramatically since the Civil War, but the basic principles of military health care remain the same. The deadliest thing that faced the Civil War soldier was disease. For every soldier who died in battle, two died from disease. The soldiersRead MoreThe Slang Term For Doctors Of The Civil War1325 Words   |  6 PagesSawbones is the slang term for doctors of the Civil War. How an esteemed figure like as doctor could be associated with such a name might come as a surprise to those unaware of the gruesome medical tactics used on both sides of the war. A bonesaw, which is exactly what it sounds like, was a tool commonly used by doctors of the war to amputate limbs beyond repair caused by various types of weaponry, primarily gunshots. However barbaric they may seem, the medical treatments and procedures used on woundedRead MoreThe Civil War Was A Devastating Time For The United States Of America883 Words   |  4 PagesThe Civil War was a devastating time for the United States of America. During this time the United States was divided. The Civil War was a four year long battle. It is known as one of the bloodiest battles ever fought. Consequently it was fought between people of the same country. We were divid ed between the North and the South. The cause of the Civil War was slavery. The North was against it and wanted slavery abolished. On the other hand the South did not want to part with slavery. Both the NorthRead MoreEllianne Heppler. Mr.David. Research Project. 05/08/2017.1700 Words   |  7 PagesDavid Research Project 05/08/2017 The Civil War and how it happened with A Little Twist! Think of the darkest place that terrifies people to their very core and then multiply that times 100. During the Civil War a lot of bad things happened from April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865. On April 12, 1861 The Battle of Fort Sumter happened to be one of the least casualties battles. No one was hurt until a shot was accidentally misfired. That is what started the war. But that was the least of their worriesRead MoreThe Civil War Has A Tremendous Death Toll1368 Words   |  6 PagesThe Civil War had a tremendous death toll. In fact, it had more deaths than any of the previous wars combined. At the time, it was thought that the soldiers in battle died from the wounds or amputations they received. The true cause of death came from disease. These harsh conditions were contributed by unqualified doctors and non-sterile equipment. During the Civil War, the true issue was not only the wounds received in battle but the infectious diseases that ultimately led to the soldier’s dea thRead MoreThe Civil War : A Bloody Time For Everyone Alive1541 Words   |  7 Pages If the Civil War could be described in only one word, that one word would be tragedy. Such a bloody time for everyone alive in what is now know as The United States of America. The Civil War took pace in the years of 1861-1865 there were multiple reasons as to why the Civil War broke out but the number one reason for the Civl War was, the diverse opinions on the issue of slavery. Slavery was such a horrific thing going on at this time in history, but not all people who owned slaves treated themRead MoreRhetorical Analysis Of Abraham Lincoln s Gettysburg Address 1669 Words   |  7 PagesFinal Take-Home Questions AUHIS 454: the Civil War Zoraa Lutas QUESTION 1 Abraham Lincoln speech given at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania on November 19, 1863 was described by Senator Charles Sumner, in 1865, stating â€Å"the battle itself was less important than the speech.† Explain. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln was not given the spotlight at the Soldiers’ National Cemetery on November 19, 1863, and was instead invited to give a few remarks. In fact Edward Everett’s speech would have been the official

Difference Between Ragtime and Blues free essay sample

Ragtime and blues are the foundations of Jazz. Both were initially very popular among African Americans as Jazz came from an African background. The blues contain the musical structure of Jazz with the 12 bar pattern, while ragtime supplies the unique syncopation and improvisations. The early musicians of blues and ragtime would eventually provide the transition necessary to move Into jazz. Blues contained the four-note structure, which Is also the building block of Jazz music. Further the principal motif of the composition Is typical of the blues. This four note figure seems to be particularly prized by composers Inspired by Jazz (peg. 54, Jazz Its Evolution and Essence). Ragtime and blues were both salary In that they both came from African American backgrounds. According to Jazz Its Evolution and Essence, ragtime Is the only genre In which the Influence of Negro American music can be detected (peg. 255, Jazz Its Evolution and Essence). It was considered to be a great contribution by African Americans. the only real contributions of the Negro- American genius in the domain (peg.236, Jazz its Evolution and Essence). They are similar yet different as ragtime is not related to blues. The theme of blues is often expressed in jazz. Jazz takes from blues its violin theme in which the major chords are played in the third degree. Melodically it contains no borrowing from the Blues except for a timid and no doubt involuntary during the exposition of the violin theme, where is some major minor playing around with the third degree (peg. 256, Jazz its Evolution and Essence). Some blues notes can be seen in ragtime, but these notes are not expressive and played with other sounds that drags the music away from the essence of blues. Some vague blue notes are scattered around in the principal melodic design of Piano Rag Music, but they are surrounded by a polytonal accompaniment that robs them of all resemblance to the Negro music. (peg. 256, Jazz its Evolution and Essence). A big contributor to Jazz was Louis Armstrong. One of his styles was shown in Potato Head Blues and Skip the Gutter shows in his stop choruses. The rhythm of these blues songs and Jazz were similar. It showed the metrical continuity which is characteristic of the modern style which was not contrary to the spirit of the most traditional Jazz (Peg.20, Jazz its Evolution and Essence). Another musician Mike, who was Ernest Foremans hero, was known for reproducing exactly the phrases of blues that he had learned by heart from the recordings of Odds or Arapaho. Jazz artists used a technique called portentous when extending range of the Blues language. The Blues were essentially carried from Its vocal to the instrumental style of Jazz: These blue notes eased from the vocal to the Instrumental style, carrying with them the emotional potential that the blues singers had given them. (Peg. 226, Jazz Its Evolution and Essence).Ragtime and Blues were similar in that both came from African-American was the first black music ever to achieve widespread popularity and commercial distribution (peg.9, Jazz: A History). Ragtime was mostly based on the piano, which was the principal instrument of ragtime (peg. 19, Jazz: A History). Ragtime came from the South. The instruments used to play ragtime, banjo, fiddle, fife, were instruments that were considered to be prototypes brought to this country functional diatonic harmony stressing tonic, dominant, subdivision, and applied dominants in a major tonality (peg. 2, Jazz: A History). Its syncopation occurred on the second and fourth eighth notes with accented melody notes. Syncopation, an interruption of the regular flow of rhythm, was the chief characteristic of ragtime melodies. Ragtime, when played on the piano, had a stride style, in which the pianists left hand was called to stride up and down (peg. 23, Jazz: A History). Jelly Role Morton and James P. Johnson were well known for stride playing and are Mewed as transitional figures from ragtime to Jazz (peg. 4, Jazz: A History). Tom Turnip, a musician who composed excellent music, composed rags that were in the ABA form, unlike the blues, which were usually in the ABA form. Scott Joplin, another ragtime musician, made a bigger contribution. His most famous work, The Maple Leaf Rag, sold hundreds of thousands of copies. Joplin was not interested in haphazard improvisations. He wanted to make classical ragtime comparable to Classic European music that would be used in the larger, traditional forms such as operas and symphonies (peg. 9, Jazz: A History). The blues are considered to be the center of the Jazz tradition and dates back to the earliest days of Jazz. The 12- bar blues are still at the heart of modern Jazz. The Blues are a distinct form of Jazz: When a musician says lets play the blues, he means something quite specific (peg. 99, Jazz: A History). The cry or holler was the most important characteristic of the blues, which is prominent in Jazz itself. This style originates from African tribal music.In African tribes, the dancers would cry, and likewise, the crowd would holler back, establishing a performer/audience relationship. Performers in Jazz establish this similar relationship with the audience by playing to the pleasure and responses of the audience. Another interesting difference is that the blues has a religious background, unlike ragtime. The passionate praise and worship in Black churches during those times were influential in the way musicians performed as many Caucasians during those times came from Black Christian communities. Other nonchurch going musicians would influence the blues comes a lot from the church, too. Duke Elongations best compositions of Jazz were usually transformations of the blues. Charlie Parker, who was the most influential of modern Jazzmen, was known for recording more versions of the blues than any other form (peg. 108, The Story of Jazz). A very significant archetypical legend in the Blues is Charles Buddy Bolder, who never lost a carving contest(contest in the display of musical skill). Buddy Bolder grew up during the brass band era and mastered the ornate. Buddy Bolder was in the shouting congregation at church in the church, which may explain his development in the Blues: As a child, he was a part of a shouting congregation in church (Peg. 67, The Story of Jazz). Buddy Bolder influenced many musicians with his innovative style of playing and improvisations. He was heir to all the musical influences that survived in and around New Orleans (Peg. 67, The Story of Jazz). Ragtime and Jazz were similar but had distinct characteristics that made them separate. However, both were the building blocks of Jazz music and contributed to the rhythm, style, and culture of Jazz.

Apartheid. Argument against that Nelson Mandela was the only reason apartheid ended free essay sample

In 1993 South Africa became a democratic country with Nelson Mandela as the first black president of a multi-racial South Africa. This then became the end of the apartheid political system which controlled South Africa since 1947. Many historians believe that it was Nelson Mandela that ended apartheid and others believe that it was different factors such as economic sanctions, boycotts, and other factors. Historians have different interpretations. An interpretation is a viewpoint opinion of perspective of a historical event or person. There are different historical opinions because of biasness, personal beliefs, the age, or personal experiences of the writer. In this essay I will discuss two different Interpretations of why apartheid ended. The first I will discuss them. The role of Nelson Mandela, with his leadership of the ANC, the 27 years imprisonment in Robben Island. And finally Mandela becoming the first black president of South Africa. The second interpretation is a contrast which challenges the view that it was just Mandela, it says there are other factors such as a political leader Lilian Nyogi, and FW De Klerk who played a very crucial role. There is also the pressure of economic sanctions and the political pressure from neighbouring countries. And a final factor being the international sporting boycott which was a hard decisive blow to the apartheid era. B9 One source that challenges the view that Mandela was the main factor that ended apartheid was the role of FW De Klerk. Source B9 starts with a title which says â€Å"De Klerk takes apartheid apart† this opening sentence gives credit to De Klerk as it has no mention of Nelson Mandela and it mainly says that De Klerk took â€Å"apartheid apart†. As Nelson Mandela could not officially stop apartheid it was up to a political leader to do it. As FW De Klerk was the president at the time he made some controversial decisions which did not please some white people. The source starts off saying that â€Å"President FW De Klerk has knocked out the main props of the racist apartheid system which held white minority in power in South Africa for the last 42 years†. This changed history and was a point where blacks could try to be equal, without F. W. De Klerk this would not have happened. De Klerk made an â€Å"epoch-making speech† which was a defining historical period which was ended apartheid. As a white politician he was treated with hospitality by the black people. He unbanned the African National Congress, the South African communist party, and other anti-apartheid organizations. He also promised to free Mandela within a fortnight. By him freeing and legalizing opposition groups this gave the black people a fighting chance to end apartheid; this obviously raged a lot of white people. There were different public reactions as blacks were overjoyed, and whites were not happy and De Klerk was accused of â€Å"betraying his people†. This was written in a book called â€Å"From On This Day† it’s the history of the world in 366 days. This book was written with historical facts; this makes it unbiased as they are â€Å"historical facts†. It is secondary and balanced, it is written in hindsight and it is reliable. To will write this the author would have had to consider a lot of historical events before making his judgment. This must have been an important event otherwise De Klerk would have not made it into the history of the world, this shows was the serious importance of this event. The limitation of this source is that its general there is no name, so I can’t tell if it could be bias or not. The source seems to be a summary so it would need more detailed to make a judgment. This source challenges the view that it was not only Mandela that ended apartheid as Mandela and would have needed the help of a very powerful politician, and without De Klerk the laws of apartheid could not have been removed. B11 B11 also contradicts the view that Mandela’s leadership end apartheid. Instead it argues that economic sanctions and political pressure from other countries helped to end apartheid. Economic sanctions mean domestic penalties applied by one country on another country. Economic sanctions may include various forms of trade barriers and restrictions on financial transactions. After the 1980s Thatcher and Reagan refused to enforce economic sanctions, they believed in free trade and wanted South Africa as an ally against communism. Barclay’s bank sold its largest South African bank network due to a British student protest. People refused to buy things from South Africa and in 1986 the common market refused to buy iron and steel from South Africa. In 1985 more violence was seen in townships and the Chase Manhattan bank in New York stopped its links with South Africa and as a result of that on major financial crisis followed. Many more International Investors began to see South Africa as a poor credit risk and as a result they had the pull out their investments. The worldwide rejection started a growth of economic pressure to end apartheid. In South Africa their movements, one was called the black consciousness movement and Steve Niko was a part of this, who later was killed. When Robert Mugabe became prime minister of the independent Zimbabwe in 1980 South Africa was left with no white government neighbours, the survival of apartheid â€Å"began to appear more questionable. † These political pressures helped South Africa lose its buffer zone of likeminded neighbours. This was written by Tony Howarth who is a historian is writing in a school history textbook was called â€Å"the world since 1900† (1982) Tony Howarth is a historian who is trained to be objective and unbiased. To be allowed to be published in a school textbook it must be factual and historically correct. The use of this source however is limited as it is a textbook for school students so it will be less informative and less explanatory. A specialist book focusing on apartheid in South Africa would provide more detailed information and discuss different reasons why apartheid ended. The fact that this event was mentioned in 20th century history means it must have been a very important factor that caused apartheid to end, it backs up my point that it was not just Mandela there were more factors to the end of apartheid. B12 B13 disagrees with the viewpoint outlined in the title. It contends that sporting boycotts were crucial to ending apartheid. Afrikaners were keen on sports especially rugby and cricket these teams were highly successful and very highly rated internationally, but then boycotts were introduced. Some Africans are proud of these teams and were mortified when boycotts were introduced, South Africa did not want be kept out of the national sporting events, and were banned from the Olympic games in the 1960’s. In 1970 the cricket tour to England was cancelled, and in 1977 commonwealth and sporting contacts and rugby tours such as the lions tour stopped going to South Africa. Source B12 is someone’s view and they say it was a â€Å"fundamental blow to apartheid† which means it really meant something to sporting figures in South Africa. The writer describes people as â€Å"rugby fanatics† the fact he uses the word â€Å"fanatics† means its not just a gamr to them it really was a hard blow to them. The source then says that â€Å"most observers of the downfall of apartheid say will say the boycott was an absolutely fundamental body blow to the whole process†. Because he did not say the statement himself, it was by â€Å"objective observers† this means it was impartial and not the writers own opinion. When he goes on to say it was a â€Å"fundamental body blow† it underlines the importance of the sporting boycott. The source then goes on to say â€Å"Most white South African men were far more interested in the sports pages than in the news pages† this implies the sport was an essential part of South African culture. This was written by Peter Hain an MP for Neath and a leading anti-apartheid campaigner in the 1970s giving an interview to the Western Mail newspaper. (November 2004). Hain is bias as he is anti-apartheid, and he could exaggerate importance of the boycott. It is a primary source as Hain met Mandela and lived through the apartheid era. This is written in hindsight in 2004; he is retelling and looking back on events. This source could be more trusted if Hain was a historian but as he is not, it can be bias and probably is. But this source can useful as it retells the events in some detail. This can be useful to a historian but not very useful. This is still a factor which could have caused apartheid to end, so nevertheless the source has some use. B15 Many people would argue thattoo much focus has been out on Mandela and not other important black leaders such as Lilian Ngoyi. Source B16 shos but she played a vital role in the anti-apartheid protests and was actively campaigning when Mandela was imprisoned. Source B15 starts with a speech at Ngoyi funeral. The first sentence includes her with her male peers â€Å"Nelson Mandela, Govan Mbeki and Walter Sisulu. † She’s compared to these men who were successful anti-apartheid campaigners. The next paragraph starts with â€Å"away liberation waits for mothers like Lillian. Men will catch the disease of determination from you. Sisters, mothers, women, our liberation is in your hands. † This is including women and shows women playing an important role in the campaign against apartheid. Ngoyi is an inspiration for all women, as it says in the source â€Å"the challenge is not so much on the men but on the women to start where Lillian Ngoyi left off. † This source was extracts from speeches made at the funeral of Lilian Ngoyi in 1980. She was the first woman elected to the executive committee of the African National Congress and helped launch the Federation of South African women. The source is biased due to the context as it is funeral and people will exaggerated the achievements and importance of her actual achievements. It’s not an objective assessment of her contribution to the anti-apartheid movement. This source could be less bias if there was a historian’s view of Lilians achievements. Even though this could be bias she still did help with all these things and was an important factor to the end of apartheid, Proving it was not just Mandela that there were also other main factors that caused apartheid to end.