Why were Alehouses and Gin-shops Threatening to Authorities?

Why were Alehouses and Gin-shops Threatening to Authorities? Why were alehouses and gin-shops threatening to the authorities? This essay will argue that alehouses and gin-shops were threatening to the authorities because they were deemed to disrupt the established social, political and economic order. Commentators of the time, labelled alehouses as nests of Satan[1] and gin-shops as the source of Theft, Murder and Perjury.[2] These hostelries were perceived a widespread menace linking them to crime, poverty, sedition, drunkenness and idleness. At the time, drinking took place in three main types of institutions: the coaching inn that supplied lodgings, victuals and replacement horses, taverns mainly in towns supplying beer and wine, and lastly alehouses, small, often one room, offering only beer. Whilst evidence suggests that government, Parliament, county magistrates and parish constables did not always worry about the same threats, it is likely that much protest and condemnation emanated from the inhabitants of the towns and cities. This viewpoint is supported by extensive research carried out on petition s, legislations, pamphlets, ballads and woodcut prints. There appears a difference in the charges levelled by the authorities between alehouses and gin-shops. With the alehouses, they were concerned in policing to prevent licentiousness and drunkenness, and the latter by moral reformers, targeting the spirits trade and the social problems caused by the labouring classes addiction to gin. This essay will look in detail at the threats posed by the alehouses and the response from government and Parliament. The protests rose from the judgments of the emerging middle-classes, moral reformers identified as Puritans, and local inhabitants. From the mid-seventeenth century, the authorities identified the potential seditious nature of some of the activities within the alehouses. The second part will identify the dangers that the gin craze posed to society at large, the size of the growing problem and the speed of the response of the authorities in tackling this issue. The social function of the alehouses, providing drinking, eating, gambling, dancing and even flirting cannot be underestimated, as these no longer occurred in churchyards following the English Reformation of the 1530s.[3] Recent studies estimate that by 1570 there were 24,000 alehouses, a ratio of 1 every 142 inhabitants, this rose to 50,000 by the 1630s and hit a peak of 60,000 in 1700, a ratio of 1 to every 87 residents.[4] Clearly, as evidence suggests, alehouses were becoming more and more popular, and more and more common within society. The corollary of this expansion infers the central nature and focus of social activities inside the alehouses. It was widely accepted that the alehouses were an essential institution run by the poor for the poor[5], and provided vital income for the innkeeper. In many ways, the alehouses could be said to offer the poor and the unemployed an alternative home.[6] Throughout this period the number of wage-earners within society grew and it is very likely that the authorities feared that people worked just long enough to earn their beer-money rather than spending it on their families, as a petition in Pewsey in Whiltshire demonstrates[7]. It could then be further claimed that this led to a greater strain upon poor relief provided by the parishes because of feckless parents. Samuel Pepys, the diarist, reflects this viewpoint in one of the ballads in his collection: in The Bad-Husbands Folly or Poverty made known a drunken husband who used to spend all his money in strong beer, neglecting his family obligations, repents and vows not to return to the alehouse because Bad company did me undo.[8] The Licencing Act of 1552, set in motion some legal controls over the proliferation of the alehouses, the law stated that to open an alehouse a licence issued by two local Justices of the Peace and evidence of a good character were required.[9] It should also be noted that the late 1500s were a period of bad harvests, hence Parliament and magistrates were probably concerned in storing the grain rather than allowing it to be used for brewing. However, this legislation failed to curb the growth in numbers of the alehouses due to the people not complying with the law and most of them remained unlicensed. This section will address the concerns of the moral reformers, known as Puritans, and of the self-declared better-sort or chief inhabitants of the towns towards the alehouses. Puritanical thought emerged from Protestantism and comprised a moral view of family life in line with scripture. They exercised authority via positions of prominence within society and were ministers of religion, Justices of the Peace, the middle-classes and the gentry. Puritan ministers were not opposed to drinking alcohol in moderation, however the excesses of the alehouses, with all that that entails and the resultant effects on family life were to be condemned. Ministers often took the lead in organising petitions against disorderly alehouses that attracted thieves, prostitutes, gamblers and female drunkards. This hotter sort of Protestants wrote pamphlets attacking the tipplers of the drunkards academye[10] as immoral, depraved and dissolute. Moreover, alehouses attracted people of ill-repute who preferred to drink rather than attend church services on the Sabbath. In addition, a recent study has proved that Puritans disliked the ritual of health-drinking or toasting, full of ceremony, that reminded them of Papist traditions of drinking from the same cup.[11] Besides, healths were often described as lascivious acts that deliberately scorned puritan values and, by declaring allegiance to the king, they were straightforward in resisting Cromwells puritanical regime.[12] Whilst during the Interregnum of 1649-1660 no new legislation was enacted against the alehouses, greater enforcement was undertaken to vet and bar royalist sympathisers from obtaining a licence.[13] Another offensive came from the local yeomanry, gentry and middle-class, who unlike the Puritans, did not seek to suppress all the alehouses, but to censure the ones who were deemed to be in excess, those without a licence, off the beaten path, unruly and disruptive. It was clear that the sheltering of vagrants and prostitutes, the trade of illicit goods and excessive alcohol consumption beyond the point of drunkenness, led to a lack of sleep at night, fights and unchaste behaviour. This habit is cited in the case of Michael Fayered of Inworth in Essex who was accused of having evill rule in his house all night long.[14] Even women alehouse-keepers were deemed to be a menace with the assumption they were setting up brothels and running these establishments with immoral sexual conduct. The number of court cases and protests brought to the attention of government, who sought to limit the effects of drunkenness, led to the Acts of 1604, 1606 and 1618. For the first time, being drunk in public was a finable offence and the annual renewal of licences was established.[15] These acts were more successful than the 1552 Licensing Act and provided some control in confining disorderly behaviour. However, gaming, swearing, tippling, theft, assault and illicit sex were common cases in the law courts. James Scott in his book claims that alehouses hosted a radically subversive culture, one that was well hidden from the view of the elites, hence he coined the term hidden transcript.[16] In support of his thesis, he cites a court case of 1691 where an ale seller in Whiltshire denied hearing any seditious discourses in his house, and that he usually advised his customers not to talk about governments affairs.[17] This statement may infer that political discourse was commonly taking place. In addition, it is possible that it was within the inns and taverns, institutions frequented by the better-sort, that plots against the Crown were hatched. At the same time authorities were concerned about what was really taking place in the alehouses. In the light of these inappropriate political discourses, the targeting of the alehouses might have become a priority for the authorities who sought to crack-down on these behaviours by instituting spies. Records from seventeenth-century Southampton sh ow that a tight surveillance, by both publican and landlords, was in place[18] to make sure that their principal use, victualling and lodging, remained the primary purpose and disorderly behaviour actively discouraged. Thus, the emphasis of the authorities shifted to all forms of recreational drinking which were assumed to be a threat to law and order. Recent historical investigations support the viewpoint that the role of the alehouses for social purposes was more important than the subversive nature previously thought. The observed correlation between alehouses and drunkenness has, in recent years, moved into investigating the alehouse sociability in a more lenient and a less radical approach. The scholar Mark Hailwood demonstrates that it was not always the case that alehouses were the source of lewd behaviour and political radicalism, and that the relationship between getting drunk and being sociable was not antagonistic but interdependent.[19] Sociability might have provided so cial cohesion among people who worked and lived in the same neighbourhood, a jovial environment rather than chaos and disorder. From the proliferation to the peak of the alehouses it took roughly one hundred and fifty years, and several Acts of Parliament before the authorities brought the alehouses under control. By the end of the seventeenth century a new threat appeared on the horizon, namely the Gin Craze. Looking at the effect gin shops had on society and their threat to the authorities, there was an ever-increasing consumption of gin following the banning of French brandy in 1689 by William III. This ban and the London Company of Distillers losing its monopoly led to the increased production of cheap British gin and the establishment of unregulated distillers, who often put turpentine and other lethal ingredients as part of their concoctions. Consequently, thousands of small gin-shops opened in cellars, back rooms of private homes, some people even sold it from pushcarts in the streets. With no regulations in place and a cheap price, the so-called Gin Craze took off. By the mid-1720s the practice of regularly attending dram shops, especially amongst Londons labouring and poor classes, had become a significant social and health concern for the authorities, with the impeding need to pass legislation designed to control the consumption of gin. In contrast to the alehouses, the gin trade and its consumption were opposed mainly by the propertied classes, Puritans and a coalition of Middlesex and Westminster Justices. It can be claimed that the 1729 Gin Act did little or nothing to limit the number of unlicensed premises, which in London alone were about 4,000.[20] Protests against the gin trade reached a fever-pitch by 1735 with the publication of pamphlets, cartoons and treatises. These discourses claimed that drunkenness caused by gin in the street was responsible for social disorders, with an increased number of robberies, fights, murders and deaths by intoxication. It was inferred that the consumption of gin may have been linked to idleness and the incapacity to work, resulting in opportunistic crimes being committed to obtain money to satisfy their addiction to Mother Gin. The Puritans feared that the addled minds of drunk people might have supported the ever-present Jacobean threat, resulting in a return to Catholicism in Britain. These concerns have been well summarised in the 1736 Thomas Wilsons pamphlet Distilled Spirituous Liquors the Bane of the Nation: people were enervated by a fatal love of a slow but sure Poyson.[21] The likely lobbying of Sir John Gonson, a Westminster magistrate, associated with the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and Sir Joseph Jekyll, played an active role in the contended passage of the 1736 Gin Act that increased license fees and fines, and also aimed to reduce the smuggling of gin.[22] Historians have started to investigate the impact of gin drinking on society, and according to Peter Clark, the reformists campaign against the spirits trade was exaggerated and sensationalist.[23] His theory is supported by records of the time which demonstrate that in Clarkenwell, Mile End and Stepney, where gin selling was widespread, there was no substantial evidence of increased crime rates, and this was also reflected in the wider country. Despite legislation being enacted in 1736, it failed to regulate gin selling leading to widespread public disorder by 1738. Many of the gin-shops and street gin selling occurred in the southern and eastern suburbs of London where gin was mostly popular amongst women. The increasingly observable situation of drunk mothers and neglected children caused moral outrage to the Puritans with their view of family life[24]. There was a polarisation between drunken behaviour and thriftiness promoted by moralists. It was believed that heavy drinking was increasing the number of mothers and babies deaths, and that gin was the root of disruption of domestic oeconomy and respectability. It was also widely perceived that gin-drinking mothers were regarded to produce a Spindle shankd generation,[25] with the foetus being damaged in the womb. Above all, it was a commonly held thought that drunkenness led to fecklessness, and people were condemned to a life of misery. The renowned 1751 engraving by Wi lliam Hogarth, Gin Lane,[26] highlights all these threats posed to society. The print pictorialises the violence of excessive gin consumption depicting a ragged bare-breasted mother scraping the contents of her snuff box as her child is toppling from her arms down a cellar that bears the inscription Drunk for a penny, Dead drunk for twopence. The new 1751 Act was effective and restricted retailing to respectable sellers and raised duties on distilling, subsequently gin consumption fell. Overall, it can be asserted that the offensives of Parliament, middling urban society and reformers towards gin consumption blamed the poor for their behaviour. This essay had discussed the different reasons why alehouses and gin-shops were a threat to the authorities in early modern England. Even though the consumption of ale had existed within English society in perpetuity, the increased popularity and concentration of excessive beer drinking became a problem from the mid-sixteenth century. Although the authorities were not against drinking per se, they were worried about the acts of disorder caused by excessive drinking. The authority exercised on the alehouses came from above, government and Parliament, and from below by Puritans and citizens. On the other hand, the gin craze was a sudden import from the continent in the late 1600s and started in metropolitan areas as opposed to the mostly rural alehouses. As demonstrated, the gin craze presented similar problems to the authorities as the alehouses, but included more acute threats that required urgent action: extreme criminality, adult mortality and infant deformity. It should be noted t hat the authorities reaction to the alehouses spanned a period of about one-hundred and fifty years and multiple acts of legislation by Parliament. This is a marked difference to legislation against the gin trade that took over a period of about twenty years culminating in the provisions set out in the Act of 1736. The seditious nature of alehouses only became to be considered a problem from the mid-1600s, prior to this period the alehouses were a focus of social discord which could have deemed to have been a threat to authority but it was not in its nature seditious. On the other hand, gin-shops were deemed to be seditious since their inception. The difference in the response by authorities to the alehouses and gin-shops could be partially explained by the hidden rural proliferation of the alehouses amongst the poor, compared to the self-evident chaos observable in Gin Lane by the urban upper and middle-classes. The influence of puritanism and its revulsion of the amoral family val ues, that resulted from the gin-craze, was probably more keenly felt in the metropolitan areas rather than in the countryside. Ultimately, it is very interesting to note the changes in historical perspective with regards to beer. As detailed in Hogarths Beer Street and Gin Lane[27], intended to be viewed together, alehouses were not seen as places of chaos and disorder any more, they were rather a site of social conviviality, in contrast with the parish of St. Giles portrayed as an urban image of an alcohol-induced road to oblivion. [1] Christopher Hudson 1631 in Peter, Clark, The Alehouse and the Alternative Society in Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (eds.), Puritans and Revolutionaries. Essays in Seventeenth-Century History presented to Christopher Hill, (Oxford, 1978), p.47 [2] Hogarth, William and Fielding, Henry, Gin Lane, (1751) [accessed 15 February 2017] [3] Mark, Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship in Early Modern England, (Boydell and Brewer Ltd, 2014),p.5 [4] Peter, Clark, The English Alehouse: a Social History 1200-1830, (London, 1983),pp.42-47 [5] Clark, The Alehouse,p.53 [6] Patricia, Fumerton, Not Home: Alehouses, Ballads and the Vagrant Husband in Early Modern England, Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies,32:3 (Fall 2002),p.505 [7] Hailwood, Alehouses,p.41 [8] The Bad-Husbands Folly; or, Poverty made known (c.1671-1702), in Pepys Ballads, IV, p. 77 [accessed 15 February 2017] [9] James, Nicholls, The Politics of Alcohol: A History of the Drink Question in England, (Manchester University Press, 2011),p.11 [10] Sir Richard Grosvenor 1625 in Hailwood, Alehouses,p.19 [11] Angela, McShane, Material Culture and Political Drinking in Seventeenth Century England, Past and Present Supplement 9, (2014),p.260 [12] Marika, Keblusek, Wine for Comfort: Drinking and The Royalist Exile Experience, 1642-1660, in Adam Smyth (ed.), A Pleasing Sinne. Drink and Conviviality in Seventeenth-Century England, (Cambridge, 2004),pp.55-68 [13] Bernard, Capp, Englands Culture Wars: Puritan Reformation and Its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649-1660, (Oxford University Press, 2012),pp.162 [14] Keith, Wrightson, Alehouses, Order and Reformation in Rural England, 1590-1660 in Eileen Yeo and Stephen Yeo, (eds.), Popular Culture and Class Conflict 1590-1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure, (The Harvester Press Limited, 1981),p.8 [15] Nicholls, Politics,pp.13-15 [16] Scott in Hailwood, Alehouses,p.65 [17] Ibid.,pp.70 [18] James, Brown, Drinking Houses and the Politics of Surveillance in Pre-industrial Southampton, in B. KÃ ¼min (ed.), Political space in Pre-industrial Europe, (Ashgate, 2009),pp.61-80 [19] Mark, Hailwood,'It puts good reason into brains: Popular Understandings of the Effects of Alcohol in Seventeenth-Century England,Brewery History,150 (2013),p.14 [20] Peter, Clark, The Mother Gin Controversy in the Early Eighteenth Century, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society,vol.38 (1988),p.68 [21] Wilson in Jonathan, White, The slow but sure Poyson: The Representation of Gin and its Drinkers,1736-1751, Journal of British Studies,42:1(2003),p.46 [22] Clark, Mother Gin,pp.74-75 [23] Ibid.,p.72 [24] Maddox in White, The Representation,p.59-63 [25] Nicholls, The Politics,p.40 [26] Hogarth, Gin Lane, (1751) [27] Hogarth, Beer Street and Gin Lane (1751)

Analysis of Eating Christmas in the Kalahari

Analysis of â€Å"Eating Christmas in the Kalahari† Richard Lee’s piece, â€Å"Eating Christmas in the Kalahari,† describes his experience living with the ! Kung Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert in south central Africa, but it does more than just reiterate a three year stint with a native African tribe. It also serves as documentation of another instance of how different societies of people distinguish themselves from one another with certain customs and differences in how they conduct themselves socially. Misunderstandings are commonplace when it comes to anthropologist living among an unfamiliar group of people due to many sorts of cultural barriers.The primary obstacle that Lee encounters is a misinterpretation between himself and the tribesman on why he isn’t receiving the gratitude that he expects for slaughtering such an enormous ox. While it may not seem like it at first, the conflict that arises between the tribesman and Lee can symbolize the dispari ty between society in the United States and society in the Kalahari Desert. In the United States, when people do a deed that they deem as an act of kindness, they expect a â€Å"thank you† from the beneficiary. The! Kung Bushmen operate a little differently.Instead of the â€Å"thank you† that is customary in the United States, they ridicule and degrade the gift. This is what occurred with Lee and his ox which left him bewildered as to why the Bushmen would treat him this way when he was sure that he has chose a more than adequate ox for the feast. This is another example of how cultures can contrast with one another. The reasoning behind why the! Kung Bushmen handle gifts the way they do is actually a simple one. Their goal is to have no one man perceive himself greater than others just because he can bring home food.The line â€Å"We insult men after they make a kill because of Arrogance. Yes, when a young man kills much meat he comes to think of himself as a chief or big man, and he thinks of the rest of us as inferior or servants. We can't accept this† supports this line of thinking. When the Bushmen realized how proud Lee was of his sacrifice, they utilized this in order to keep him humble. Many times when Americans perform a good deed it is so they can receive some sort of recognition which in turn builds their ego. This is where the !Kung and Americans contrast. The ! Kung act the way they do because they see it as a service. They consider keeping one humble as doing the person a favor. Richard Lee’s firsthand experience served to deliver the message to the reader much more efficiently than if we were to read it from someone who received their information indirectly. By reading Lee’s account, we are able to fully grasp the effect that the ! Kung have on someone and how that person reacts to it, in addition to why the ! Kung act operate in the manner that they do.

The War Of The French Revolution - 899 Words

Corey Simms Mrs. J Modern History March 19, 2015 Justified or Nahh Bertrand Russell once said, â€Å"war does not determine who is right-only who is left.† A bloodshed event in modern European History, the French Revolution began in 1789 and ended in the late 1790s with the ascent of Napoleon Bonaparte. During this period, French citizens razed and redesigned their country’s political landscape, uprooting centuries-old institutions such as absolute monarchy and the feudal system. Like the American Revolution before it, the French Revolution was influenced by enlightenment ideas, particularly the concepts of popular sovereignty and inalienable rights. Although it failed to achieve all of its goals and at times degenerated into a chaotic†¦show more content†¦These are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.† (Dec. of Rights) This means the government should provide security which is safety for the people when they’re stating a difference in opinion. For example, even the King and Queen, and Robespierre were not safe or protected from the guillotine. This article explains how people who disagree with the government should go unpunished. During the reign of terror people were punished for exercising their basic rights. The Reign of Terror was unjustified and so were their methods. The government used extreme methods during the reign of terror, and tried to change laws to support what they believed in. â€Å"Judgment of last resort: the local court has final say. Therefore can be no appeal, even for a death by guillotine conviction.† (Letter from the vendee) The government is trying to take away people’s rights, and kill whoever they claim not fit to live in their society. The government is trying to change the laws to justify killing the poor and people who disagree with them. This method goes in direct violation with the (Dec. of Rights). For example, article 7 says â€Å"no person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned, except in cases [allowed] by law.† Another example comes from the same source but article 9 â€Å"all person are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty.† Judgment of last resort clearly violates everyone’s rights and therefore is unjustified. Louis XVI

The War On Human Trafficking - 2117 Words

The War on Human Trafficking Leah A. Rampersaud La Guardia Community College Professor Bojana Blagojevic December 3rd ,2014 Introduction: Today in our society human trafficking is a definitely a growing crime that more than often goes unrecognized. Men, women and children are being stolen and traded for sex everyday against their will. Mistakenly people tend to think that human trafficking is a third world issue but it’s not, it’s bigger than that it’s a worldwide phenomenon. Although it’s a world wide issued I will be focusing deeper on effects of human trafficking in India, China and the United States; by analyzing the problem of trafficking in these countries through the lens of the following international relation theories liberalism, realism and social constructivism. A lot of people seem to think slavery is something that happened hundreds of years ago and doesn’t exist today. My reason for choosing this topic is because a lot of individuals are unaware of human trafficking and the reason is because of lack of information provided by the public and ignorance. It’s real ly an unfortunate situation and I believe the best thing we can do is help raise awareness of the issue. Human trafficking is a criminal activity; humans are being treated as a possession. It is a terrible crime that affects every country of the world. It includes forced labor and sexual exploitation. Human trafficking is modern day slavery it generates billions ofShow MoreRelatedThe Issue of Human Trafficking1116 Words   |  5 Pagesvery prevalent issue today, under the name of human trafficking. Human traffickers are those who victimize others in their desire to profit from the existing demand. People of all ages, even children, are recruited and taken from all around the world and forced into acts such as prostitution, war, and extreme labor. Many people are not aware of these events occurring at all, and more awareness needs to be brought to this topic. Human trafficking exists for a few reasons. One reason is thatRead MoreHuman Trafficking as a Global Issue1405 Words   |  6 Pagesrecognise that there are differing types of trafficking globally, including voluntary, involuntary, trafficking into labour exploitation and trafficking into sexual exploitation. However, for the purpose of this report, we will look more specifically into the vast existence of sexual exploitation in trafficking, considering the 85% of women and girls that are trafficked into prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation worldwide. Human trafficking is a global issue, existing in some form inRead MoreThe Thirteenth Amendment To The U.S. Constitution Declares860 Words   |  4 PagesMany people believe that because of the thirteenth Amendment, slavery has ended. Many of you probably believe that. There are approximately twenty to thirty million slaves in the world today. Human trafficking is immoral, destroys communities and robs the innocence of children. Human trafficking has been in existence for thousands of years. From the ancient Greek and Romans to the medieval times, and up until today. Ancient Egypt, for example, used slaves to build its pyramids. PortugalRead MoreA Sad and Cruel Industry: Human Trafficking Essay1079 Words   |  5 PagesHuman Trafficking is the transportation, recruitment, harboring, transfer or receipt of persons, by means of threat, force or other forms of abduction, of coercion, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation includes, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other formsRead MoreTamara Johnson. Mr. Migues. Honors English 3. 13 February1022 Words   |  5 Pages2015 Human Trafficking Human trafficking,the illegal practice of trading in human beings for the purpose of prostitution, forced labor, or other forms of exploitation, is a crime that affects the most vulnerable citizens of society. After drugs, it the largest criminal activity globally! The victims must be the primary concern for all law enforcement units. Human trafficking in the world can be diminished and possibly erased through teachings, government intervention, and awareness. Human traffickingRead More Do People Who Are Trafficking Human Organs Help Other People?992 Words   |  4 Pages Do People Who Are Trafficking Human Organs Help Other People? (Campbell Davison, 2012), say that the unlawful business in human organs special kidneys has advanced quickly and unexpectedly. The reasons why selling kidneys has advanced quickly is that nowadays many countries have wars so there are many poor people who need money to live a good life. Also, after wars, there are many sick people that felt desperation because they lost their organs in the war and no one donated to them, so they neededRead MoreIllicit Drug Trafficking : An Organized Crime1481 Words   |  6 Pagesof this paper was to gather research of the topic called illicit drug trafficking. It explores 10 online research articles and websites that relate to illicit drug trafficking. These articles however, vary in their research about the topic. It begins by stating how illicit drug trafficking is considered an organized crime. Two of the main drugs that are trafficked are cocaine and heroin. As a result of drug trafficking, the war on drugs has been a problem for many decades in different countries. Read MoreHuman Trafficking Is The Exchange Of Human Beings Worldwide953 Words   |  4 PagesHuman trafficking is the exchange of human beings worldwide. As devastating as it is, human trafficking has been taking place since the United States was granted freedom from Britian. Everyone from the African Americans, children, women, and grown men have been victims of this color-blind crime. No one is quite sure how many African slaves were forced into America but the number is estimated to be between 92,000 and 291,126 between the U.S.’s birth of a nation and the Civil War (Ingersoll, 2005)Read MoreNuclear Crisis Research Paper1194 Words   |  5 Pages2017 are†¦. North Korea nuclear weapons, illegal immigrants/DACA, human trafficking Native Americans. The political issues our country is facing are very serious because we are having to defend against North Korea setting off nuclear weapons that can easily travel to the United States. In addition, the United States is having to deal with DACA and how to solve this issue. The last issue the United States is facing is human trafficking Native Americans from their lands. One issue the U.S. faces is NorthRead MoreHuman Trafficking And Its Effects On Human Rights856 Words   |  4 PagesHuman Trafficking is basically another form of slavery, which was abolished almost 150 years ago. The main types of human trafficking today Sex trafficking and forced labor. Sex trafficking involves traffickers threating, using violence and taking people in upon their own will and selling them for sex. Around 300,000 children are forced into sex trafficking each year. Forced labor is people who are being forced to work against their will. Many times these people are immigrants. Most of these jobs