Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Controversy over slavery in the united states of america pdf or doc essay
Retorical analysis on the debate over slavery in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Name:Alyssa Cariaso Date: September 16
U.S. History Unit 1 Lesson 3 Assignment Sheet
Complete this assignment sheet as you go through the lesson. Follow these simple steps:
1. Complete all lesson Quiz Me questions and activities.
2. Add all answers on this assignment sheet as directed in the lesson.
3. Save this assignment sheet often so as not to lose your work.
4. Click on the Finish button at the end of the lesson to record your score in the grade book.
5. Submit this completed assignment sheet in the Unit 1 Lesson 3 Submission Assignment Folder for a grade.
Introduction (Page 1)
Quiz Me
Place your answer to the Quiz Me below. 5 points a. That has a balanced budget. b. That does not get involved in affairs of other countries.
…show more content…
Answer the questions below. (30 points)
Question Answer
1.) Why did Washington warn against factions or divisions and what were his fears? He thought they would tear the nation apart. His fear was political parties spring divisions that could eventually cause divisions in the country.
2.) Why did Washington warn against permanent foreign entanglements? Washington begins his warnings to the American people by trying to convince them that their independence, peace at home and abroad, safety, prosperity, and liberty are all dependent upon the unity between the states. As a result he warns them that the union of states, created by the Constitution, will come under the most frequent and focused attacks by foreign and domestic enemies of the country.
Political Compromise (Page 6)
Conflict and Compromise
Read the document located in the lesson. As you read, answer the questions below. (40 points)
Compromise Describe the compromise and how the issue dealt with slavery.
1.) Missouri Compromise (1820) Some of the most famous debates ever held in congress, a new compromise too place and it was decided that California would enter as Free state to the
In the book written by Slaughter it says “as a foreign traveler remarked in 1781 the possibility of a separation of the federal union into two parts, at no distant day... was a matter of frequent discussion… and seemed to be an opinion that’s was daily gaining ground” Some predicted that it would turn into two Northern and Southern halves (31-30). This quote is supported by our textbook, which states that Washington also spoke to foreign policy matters in his retirement address he stated “United States to avoid making any permanent alliances with distant nations that has no real interest in promoting American security.” This statement became the cred for years to come of the American isolationist who argued that United States should steer clear of foreign entanglements. (171). These two statements support each other because Slaughter gives us the details about the uprising of the event, while the textbook gives us the conclusion of the
Historians have viewed the idea of white dominance as a key element to the legacy of slavery. Losing this dominance with the concept of emancipation was mind boggling. However, the admission of California into the Union required it to enter as a free state according to the Compromise of 1850. Losing white dominance in the newly acquired regions in the West frightened Southern slave holders. Leading to the long trek of individuals from both the North and the South to ensure their version of destiny in the West.
This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it. For nothing can be more evident, and to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. However, if the Union were to disband, then the thirteen states would become thirteen countries unto themselves with their own armies. However, these armies would not be effective because the colonies are new with no experience and were poorly supplied. There would be war with each country trying to conquer the other and a war would happen over and over again. The countries in Europe are older, with a better Army, Navy, and are better supplied. Therefore, the small states would not have any chance with an invader like Europe. Hamilton explains that if the states stay together, work hard to build a military, and then continue to maintain their military, to include a branch of government that does nothing but care for the military, then the states can defeat all invaders and help each other when war breaks out. For, when you are united invaders are unable to enforce encroachments against the efforts of the great body of the people. Hamilton goes on to tell the colonists that without the Union they will revert to a monarchy and their freedoms will diminished when it comes to this type of government. However, if the public can learn to govern itself, then they can enjoy the freedoms that they have been wanting and live in safety and security of their own laws. This deserves the most serious and mature consideration of every prudent and honest man of whatever party. Then after thinking upon this great idea, there will not be any objection to a Union. In Federalist Paper Number Ten James Madison tells us that we need to defuse and control
Throughout Europe in the fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, nations were filled with poor and less fortunate individuals. While the nobles of countries such as France and England ruled their lands, many forgot about the underprivileged that roamed the city streets begging for alms. As a result, the opinions towards these lower class people were very differentiated. However, three main opinions stood out. All in all, the views of the poor in fifteenth – eighteenth century Europe included those who believed individuals should help the poor because it is the right thing to do, those who believed individuals should help the poor for God, and those who believed the poor were just idlers
Washington’s farewell address mainly focused on foreign policy, but he does express concern for his other ideas such as religion and unity. Today’s foreign policy differs from what Washington had hoped for through his Farewell Address but, his policy today would have many different positive and negative manifestations. With his strong use of diction that strengthens his tone as well as his appeal to ethos, Washington’s address has definitely played a role in America’s current position today.
Hamilton implored the newly formed 13 States of the United States of the need for a strong federal government; he feared the grave dangers awaiting this newly formed body of States. “A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages “(Hamilton).
In regards to unity, during 1774 and 1775, there were 17 contributors of Donations for the Relief of Boston. This astonishing number of contributors reflects the desire and willingness for unification. It shows that from anywhere as north as Massachusetts and as south as South Carolina, the colonies wanted to help each other out when another was in need. This fact is clearly evident that indeed America was slowly but surely trying to unite and fight as one (G).
The preamble of the Constitution lays out six reasons for its establishment of which two reasons standout, the establishment of justice and providing for the common defense. The national security of the United States was of paramount importance to our founders and remains so today after over 200 years. While there is no clear answer on how to achieve security, our constitutional system of government provides the framework for seeking its ends. The Constitution itself, in its ambiguity and deliberate requirement for interpretation, along with the elements of division of power and the rule of law, play key roles in how our government provides the blanket of security for our nation. This paper will explore how these elements complement and contrast one another in providing our government leaders the tools to achieve national security.
Hannah Wood, 31, Manager of Boots, Nottingham. Hannah has been the manager of Boots for almost four years and wants to partner with a body care company that would not only promote boots, but the body care company as she believes it will bring in more customers to Boots as they would have the opportunity to buy the product at Boots in Nottingham. She wants to buy it from an e-commerce site and believes it will make a huge impact.
The Reconstruction was an eight-year effort to fix the South after the Civil War left it destroyed. Now that the Civil War ended, and the North & South were united once again, they were the ones responsible for fixing the economic, political, and social damage. Though the Reconstruction was made to unite all Americans and support equality, the Reconstruction ended up tearing America apart. This support soon came to an end in the mid-1870s with the question being; How much responsibility does the South have for the end of southern support? The KKK, political violence, and voting fraud all caused tension and violence that eventually brought the Reconstruction to an end.
Since the beginning of the Cold War in the late 1940’s, the United States has embraced a policy of global involvement to protect its national security interests. Initially, these security interests involved preventing the spread of communism abroad and protecting the United States against communist subversion at home. With the end of the Cold War in 1991, the greatest threat to U.S national security to emerge was global terrorism. The United States suffered attacks in 1993 with the World Trade Center bombing and attacks overseas in Africa and in Yemen when the USS Cole was bombed in 2000. The most significant attack was on September 11th, 2001 when the attacks on the World Trades Center and the Pentagon resulted in the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
In today’s society many countries and even citizens of the United States question the U.S. government’s decision to get in involved in nuclear warfare. These people deemed it unnecessary and state that the U.S. is a hypocrite that preaches peace, but causes destruction and death. Before and during World War II the U.S. was presented with a difficult decision on whether or not to develop and use the atomic bomb.
In conclusion, without struggle and without sacrifice this country would not have gained the independence and prove that united we stand and divide we fall. Thomas Paine quite elegantly put it “however strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given to shew, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration of independence” (Paine 111).
This event was made possible due to Zachary Taylor, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, John Greenleaf Whittier, William H. Seward, Horace Mann, John Quincy Adams, and Abraham Lincoln. Each and everyone of these characters presented a resolution to each of their colleagues and argued that California represented an essential spirit of compromise that would preserve ...
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.