I believe that the relationship between the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment was close. In fact, I would say that the Scientific Revolution was a precursor to the Enlightenment. Although very similar, there was one big difference between the two. The Scientific Revolution was more of a search for knowledge and never really challenged the authority of the Church, while the Enlightenment acted on these new scientific principles, directly challenging the Church.
The Scientific Revolution happened in the 17th century and it was a new way of thinking that had never happened before. The Church had supreme control over Europe before and during this time. They even supported it in the beginning, until it started to drastically conflict with their authority. However, this didn't become a major issue until the 18th century.
The 18th century brought on the Enlightenment and more vocal, dissenting views from those still held by the Church. Beginning sometime around the start of the French Revolution, the people were tired of the corruption and the aging beliefs promoted by the Vatican and they literally fought back. With the scientific method nearly a century old, the Church could no longer suppress conflicting views and finally the masses decided they would no longer be subjugated.
I view both the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment as merely the steps of the scientific method themselves. The Scientific Revolution observed, questioned and hypothesized on ideas and the Enlightenment went on to test them and draw conclusions. In the end, I believe that both movements were really just one change of mind in Europe that went on to influence the world, even today.

I believe that the Dawes Act had a devastating effect on Native Americans in the West. It broke up tribal lands, attempted to destroy Native American culture, and ultimately led to the massacre at Wounded Knee. The West was the final holdout for Native Americans and the Dawes Act left them with nowhere to run.

First off, the Dawes Act broke down most of the remaining tribal land into parcels for individual Native Americans. This led to large portions being sold to ranchers and investors. Instead of Native American nations, they were diced up into unrecognizable parcels. After being pushed to the most undesirable regions of America, they were now forced to give up their way of life entirely.

Another major effect of the Dawes Act was that any remaining Native Americans must accept white culture and give up their own so that they may gain citizenship and function within their new environment. With their culture threatened and their way of life gone, Native Americans had nowhere else to go.

Feeling hopeless, Native Americans began a spiritual dance called the Ghost Dance, praying for a return to their old ways of life. They danced and they prayed that the white men would go away and that they would again be able to hunt in their forests and to harvest their fields.  Then on a cold day in December 1890, the 7th Calvary regiment of the U.S. Army stopped a Lakota Indian group and escorted them to a nearby creek called Wounded Knee. After being forced to camp overnight, the next morning many of the Lakota awoke and joined together, beginning to dance the Ghost Dance. Mistaken for a hostile dance or something (?), the U.S. troops opened fire, killing over 300 Native Americans.

In the end, the Dawes Act was the final straw that broke down the remaining Native American lands, destroyed their culture, and led to the massacre at Wounded Knee. I don’t believe they even had a choice at that point. The government pushed and pushed until finally, even the Native Americans in the West were subdued.

     I believe that the major difference between President Johnson's Reconstruction plans and those of Congress was the attitude with which they accepted the southern states back into the Union after the Civil War. Both the President and Congress had their own ideas of Reconstruction. Congress was much more accepting of the returning states while Johnson viewed their secession as illegal and requiring punishment. This would ensue in a battle between these two branches of government.

     Looking to help ease the south back into things, Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson as his Vice President. I don’t believe he fully considered the consequences of his choice, because after Lincoln’s assassination, Johnson went in the opposite direction of Reconstruction from what Lincoln had envisioned.

     Johnson was from Tennessee and was angry with many of his former southern peers who had looked down on him before the war. He was the only southern representative that remained in Congress after secession so he played the role of Military Governor of Tennessee during the war. After the war, Congress was full of northern moderates and gave no representation to southern states, who were still under the authority of the military.

     Eventually, Johnson’s hatred for his former southern peers and the eagerness of Congress to bring the south back into the fold became the most prominent issue that caused a division between Congress and the President. For the first time in history, a Presidential veto was overturned by Congress, resulting in our first Civil Rights bill.

     Johnson was certainly not the right man for the job. I believe progress would have been much swifter with Lincoln as President and an accepting Congress. In the end, Johnson’s obstinacy would only empower Congress and allow them to continue with plans for Reconstruction that former President Lincoln would have found favorable.

     During the early years of the Reformation, Catholics and Protestants both used propaganda to promote their own agendas. This propaganda came by way of printed texts and pamphlets. This was not possible before, but with the invention of the printing press, printed materials became much more accessible. If not for the printing press, mass printed propaganda would not have been possible and the Reformation may not have been so successful.

     These pamphlets came about because of anger toward the church and accusations of corruption. Dissenters within the Catholic Church were upset over abuse of power by the papacy and began creating and circulating pamphlets with arguments against the church and a call for change.

     In response to these accusations and pamphlets, the Catholic Church began campaigns against the Protestant propaganda. Some Catholic propaganda pamphlets were produced, but they were never nearly as effective as their Protestant counterparts. The Catholic Church never truly grasped the use of printed propaganda material and suffered because of it.

     Overall, the Protestants absolutely outperformed the Catholics when it came to propaganda during the early years of the Reformation. The invention of the printing press changed the game and gave the perfect medium of communication for the rebellious Protestants. In the end, the Protestants just had the better propaganda.

     The Thirty Years War was a long, epic, entangled mess of a war that eventually engulfed most of Europe that lasted from 1618-1648. Beginning from smaller disputes between different Ottoman Empire countries, the Thirty Years War mainly involved Catholic nations versus the rebelling Protestant nations of Europe. By the end of this long and bloody conflict, the social and political landscapes were unrecognizable from the start of the war.

     Major empires began to break apart, allowing smaller territories and countries to gain independence. For example, the Spanish Empire lost its Dutch colony during the war and the Dutch Republic went on to become a major independent naval power. This would go on to greatly influence trade and politics in Europe for years to come. Because of this, Spain lost much of its influence which had emanating effect on the European political climate.

     The other major effect of the Thirty Years War was due to its religious roots. The Catholic Church lost a lot of its control in Europe to the Protestants. This war was based in religion so it’s no surprise to see that is what changed most. Before the war, the Catholic Church was battling Protestantism, but not in an all-out European war. As an outcome, Protestants won much more control over territory and self-rule.

     Overall, the Thirty Years War changed Europe’s religious and political landscapes drastically and devastated the entire continent. It was and still is the longest religious war that Europe has ever experienced. The world would never be the same again.

     American Indian views of community and the individual were evident by the way they expressed themselves through their architecture. The style of their homes as well as their placement in the community were both significant features in their culture.

     The style of American Indian homes varied throughout the United States. The development of farming allowed Native Americans to settle in one place and build a village, rather than constant migration, which was tough on the elderly and the young. The culture of the Eastern Woodland Indians adopted this lifestyle while the culture of the Western Plains Indians remained very migratory as they continued to chase the buffalo for source of food. This shows in the fact that the Woodland Indians had permanent, wooden houses while the migratory Plains Indians continued using teepees, which were easy to store and carry.

     Not only was the type of houses significant, but the placement of these structures among the community was important. Tribes only had a hand-full of families and each of those families had their own house. There was little privacy and everyone relied on their family and the tribe for survival. Houses were grouped together for protection and convenience. Usually, there was a large communal house that the tribe used for celebrations and council meetings. This communal house could also be used for protection against animals, other tribes, or frontiersmen.

     Overall, the permanent villages of Eastern Woodland Indians were well thought out and each structure was placed for a specific reason. The Western Plains Indians weren’t sedimentary and their teepees are just another example of that fact. Too bad disease and imperialism drove them to scant numbers in barren reservations across the west.

               There are many different reasons I could argue as to why Rome didn’t last, but I am going to focus on the main ones. As an empire, Rome was considerably successful and thus expanded the country’s borders to an unmanageable size. My second reason would be the fact that in the third century, the country was divided into two halves for better management. My third major reason why Rome fell is the most obvious; the invasion of the barbarian tribes.

                Throughout history, various empires, conquerors and kingdoms have set out to rule the world. Oftentimes, the overexpansion of territory leads to their downfall and Rome was certainly no exception to that fact. After wildly successful military campaigns, taking territory after territory, Rome had grown to an enormous size, stretching from Scotland to Africa and even eastern Asia. Too many different cultures, religions, and peoples existed inside this area to fall under one government.

                Because of this instability, the country was divided into two kingdoms in the third century by Emperor Diocletian. The eastern empire, based in Constantinople, went on to become a strong, dominant force known as the Byzantine Empire. Some claim that the Empire lived on through Byzantine, but I would argue that it just wasn’t the same, hence the change in name.

                My third and final reason why Rome fell is the most obvious. After numerous campaigns against the barbarian tribes such as the Goths and Visigoths, Rome had made its share of enemies. This came back to haunt them when Rome was torn apart by these tribes.

                There are many more reasons I could give for Rome’s demise, such as the weak and crooked government or the rise of Christianity. Overall, the downfall of Rome was due to many different reasons. Maybe it was just their time.

     The Roman Republic’s political system had both strengths and weaknesses right up to the collapse. A republic was a new form of government and the Romans made it work for many years. The Republic form of government has many strengths as well as weaknesses.

     I would say that the biggest strength of their political system was the Roman Senate. While most senators were wealthy nobles that couldn’t connect with the common Romans, this still rings true today. This may have been seen as weakness, but at least the nobles were highly educated. Having a group of highly educated people run the country was a giant step forward, away from past ideas of monarchy and despotism.

     I believe the biggest weakness in the Roman Republic’s political system was the fact that Julius Caesar was able to take over as dictator. This resulted from the constant wars due to Roman imperialistic world views. A dictator can make quick, decisive plans while a senate is slow and quarrelsome. Sometimes quick decisions are needed, but the problem with Rome was that it got away from the Republic system and eventually became an empire.

     Overall, the Roman Republic was an amazing democratic experiment that eventually led to the form of government we have today. Every country, culture and belief have their own strengths and weaknesses and Rome was no exception. Their ultimate failure has led to the United States and other democracies succeeding.

     Greek religion and philosophy affected everyday life in Greece’s economy, science and medicine. The Greeks were the first free-thinkers and helped to enlighten and educate the populace. I believe that the country benefitted from the philosophical aspect, but was held back by the religious views.

     As far as the economy, Ancient Greece was in much better shape than it currently is today. The ideas of Greek Enlightenment helped to educate citizens so that they could go on to perform more important, complicated jobs rather than general labor. Philosophy helped Greece’s economy prosper.

     As far as science, I think that their ideas of philosophy were beneficial while their religious principles didn’t help. The Greeks believed in many gods and in the fact that those gods had complete control over their lives. This is detrimental to the advance of science because it lends to the common argument of “god(s) did it.” Science requires critical thinking and Greek religious principles hindered that.

     As far as medicine, I can see the benefits as well as the detriments caused by philosophy and religion. In a philosophical context, critical thinking helped spur the growth of Greek medicine. On the other hand, past religious beliefs were often rooted in medicine. Greek religion resulted in ancient medicinal practices that were passed down through history.

     Overall, Greek philosophy and religion had both positive and negative effects on their civilization and culture. I do believe that the Greeks would have advanced even more if they had focused solely on philosophical ideas and denied the notion of the gods.

           Around the time of the Civil War, two major forms of architecture re-emerged in the United States. Both the Greek and Gothic Revivals conveyed the message of power, but in different aspects. Greek Revival was mainly used by the government, while Gothic Revival was used by the church.
 
           Greek Revival was promoted by the government to portray Greek Enlightenment thoughts such as freedom and democracy. This was different than Neoclassical Architecture because Greek Revival stressed exact replicas of ancient Greek buildings, whereas Neo Classical used specific elements. Greek Revival architecture was used on government buildings to show the power of the nation. This gave observers the sense of established authority based on the ancient ideals of Greek society.

            Gothic Revival was a more romantic form of architecture and was generally used by the church. Power was displayed through the grand, bold, dark designs. This style of architecture wanted to appeal to your feelings through its frighteningly-beautiful cathedrals and churches. Authority was shown by making the observer feel small and insignificant next to this great work of architecture.

            While both forms of architecture conveyed power, each did so in its own unique way. Even though neither style was exclusive to only the government or only the church, the government used Greek Revival much more while the church used Gothic Revival. Greek Revival was used to reminisce on enlightened thoughts and ideas and Gothic Revival was an appeal to feelings through its great, romantic structures. Both styles had the same message, they just managed to portray it in very different ways.