I%26#039;m trying to write a story about a homosexual couple in the southern part of the United States in the 1880s. I wanted to have the younger one%26#039;s brother be involved in the KKK. What I%26#039;m wondering is this:
1. What sort of language was used in this time? I read somewhere that the term gay wasn%26#039;t used until the 1940s; what would they use in the 1880s?
2. Would the guy in the KKK be more likely to get them to go after his brother, the brother%26#039;s older lover, or both? Keep in mind that the brother (and his father) are very into all the KKK %26quot;values%26quot; (the father owned a plantation and slaves before the Civil War).
Any information anyone can give me about the language and/or culture of this time would be greatly appreciated, as would any sites you could give me for future research.
Gay people in 1880 America?
Do this research on Google or one of the other search engines. That way you%26#039;ll know the answers are authentic. Also, it doesn%26#039;t hurt not to be so lazy.
Gay people in 1880 America?
well seeing as the number of %26quot;openly%26quot; homosexual men (I think you mean men, right?) would be damned near nil...
I would guess they were just called %26quot;bachelors%26quot; or if they were fruitsy they%26#039;d probably be called retarded or %26quot;wrong in the head%26quot;
and the Klansmen brother would probably send the Klan after both, but if you want to artistically give him a heart that%26#039;s your prerogative.
do announce when it%26#039;s completed, I%26#039;d love to read it
and I%26#039;d have to add that the history channel will probably be of good use to you =D
Good Luck!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
I dont know if it was a good thing or a bad thing. I have to write an essay addressing this issue. What are your views on it?
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
Sure it was the right thing to do to end the war quickly
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
if the bomb wasn%26#039;t dropped, the allies were getting ready to invade japan. that invasion would of cause much more deaths, and prolonging the war.
Reply:Why Hiroshima? Why worry about that? We killed far more people in the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo, and death by fire bomb is more gruesome and slow than being obliterated suddenly. Was it right? No. Was it necessary? Probably, unless we wanted to do a land invasion of Japan with Russia and fight bloody battles.
Reply:Personally, I believe that he did. I know many people will disagree with me, but I also had to write a paper about it and we had to pick, wither we were for or against it.
He was really left with no other decision. The Japanese had already voiced that they were willing to fight until the death(no surrender) and wouldn%26#039;t be quitting anytime soon. By dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, yes millions of people were killed and it effected another generation, but he saved the lives of millions of American soldiers and ended the war.
Reply:There%26#039;s two answers to this; Yes or No.
Here%26#039;s my answers:
Yes: it allowed Japan to become Democratic after the surrender. It also allowed Japan to become the most developed country in the world today. It was also a easier way than to send so many soldiers to the mainland Japan when Truman knows that a lot of these soldiers would die in the battle for Honshu, Japan.
No: It killed innocent civilians, and spreaded a new disease into the world. It also started the Atomic Age in the world and caused the world to enter the Cold War Era.
Reply:YES!!!!! even though civilians died and all that mumbo jumbo, it ended the war! it saved more lives in the future than it destroyed. the war would have gone on a while longer cause japan had A LOT of islands and land. it would have taken years more to win the war and we had already won in europe.
Reply:It was a good decison because of the following reasons: less loss of American lives, wouldn%26#039;t have to invade Japan, show off military power to Soviet Union(Russia), make Japanese surrender, put immediate end to war, being outnumbered with Japanese bigger military which was 9 million, President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan.
Reply:That is a very tough question that i know Truman wrestled with even after he made it. The US believed that if they had to invade Japan it would have cost a million US casualties. Japanese casualties would have been even more staggering because the Japanese people were willing to give up their lives to save the homeland(They had a very different culture than ours, look at the kamikaze%26#039;s). By dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, millions of lives were saved but a new evil was brought into the world. Truman thought he made the right decision as a lot of other people do. I could not really tell you where i stand on this issue (though of course in hindsight i wish it did not happen) because i think a total naval blockade over Japan would have ended the war (though the reason it was not done was because it would take to long for the Japanese to surrender from the blockade like i think 4-6 years was the estimate) I do believe that the bomb drop on Nagasaki was uncalled for and i fault Truman for that moreso than over Hiroshima. I do believe that Nagasaki was to show the Soviets that we were willing and had a large number of A-Bombs. We wanted to show the world that we were the super-power
Reply:In my opinion, no. It was a bad thing. But I say this with the benefit of over sixty years of hindsight. At the time, it looked like it was justified, because the invasion of Japan was looming, and with it the deaths of US and Japanese troops, as well as Japanese civilians. So, hoping to avoid this, the bombs were dropped. But to me, this was no more than an excuse to use these new weapons, to see what they would do. Europe had been successfully invaded, and Germany had surrendered, so now the entire might of the Allies was concentrated on Japan, so - again in my opinion - the invasion wouldn%26#039;t have been as nasty or as prolonged as was claimed. The war would have gone on for a few more months, but Japan was on the ropes, and wouldn%26#039;t have lasted long. The %26quot;conventional%26quot; bombings had reduced most Japanese cities to ashes, and the military was just about finished. So I believe that this justification for using the bomb is mere propaganda - and in war, the victors write the history books. The use of the atomic bomb - and, remember, I%26#039;m saying this with sixty years worth of history to draw upon - was a terrible thing, for these reasons. (1). People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL suffering from the effects of the bombings - there is an increased level of leukemia, other cancers and birth defects amongst the populations of those cities. What do the people there today have to do with the war? (2). It let the %26quot;nuclear genie%26quot; out of the bottle, with the consequence that the world has never been safe since - for the first time in human history, we have the ability to obliterate all life on the planet, many times over. President Truman made a momentous decision when he authorised the use of these dreadful weapons, in my opinion the most important decision ever made by an American President. But he thought he was doing the right thing at the time. (Does that sound like President Bush and his WMDs? And this is one of the main objections I have to nuclear weapons - the %26quot;good guys%26quot; are allowed to have them, while the %26quot;bad guys%26quot; aren%26#039;t.
Iraq was invaded, and hundreds of thousands of people killed; Iran and North Korea are threatened with invasion, all so they can%26#039;t have these weapons. But the only country that has used the damned things in war is the good old US of A.
Why shouldn%26#039;t the bad guys have them? Nobody should have them). I know that little diatribe had nothing to do with your question, but it kinda puts things into perspective.
Here is an excellent website for you to have a look at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over...
Cheers!
Reply:Yes, it was the right decision for the times. The planned invasion of Japan would have produced roughly one million US casualties by all estimates. Even more for the Japanese with their %26quot;fight to the end%26quot; mentality. So, likely the invasion would have resulted in millions of dead, plus the additional monetary costs of fighting the war for another 6-12 months.
People that object to the use of the A-bomb against Japan often don%26#039;t understand the full picture, or they have a rigid, emotional objection to the Bomb itself.
Reply:I think he made the right decision. It saved lives in the long
run. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. It was not in their military makeup. Even after they saw the horrible
destruction of Hiroshama they allowed another bomb to be
dropped on Nagasaki before they came to their senses.
Besides which my brothers, my cousins and myself wouldn%26#039;t have been here. my father and my uncles were all POWs in Japanese concentration camps and they would have died before any convention land war would have ended due to
starvation and torture.
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
Sure it was the right thing to do to end the war quickly
Did pres. Truman make the correct decision in dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima?
if the bomb wasn%26#039;t dropped, the allies were getting ready to invade japan. that invasion would of cause much more deaths, and prolonging the war.
Reply:Why Hiroshima? Why worry about that? We killed far more people in the Fire-Bombing of Tokyo, and death by fire bomb is more gruesome and slow than being obliterated suddenly. Was it right? No. Was it necessary? Probably, unless we wanted to do a land invasion of Japan with Russia and fight bloody battles.
Reply:Personally, I believe that he did. I know many people will disagree with me, but I also had to write a paper about it and we had to pick, wither we were for or against it.
He was really left with no other decision. The Japanese had already voiced that they were willing to fight until the death(no surrender) and wouldn%26#039;t be quitting anytime soon. By dropping the A-Bomb on Hiroshima, yes millions of people were killed and it effected another generation, but he saved the lives of millions of American soldiers and ended the war.
Reply:There%26#039;s two answers to this; Yes or No.
Here%26#039;s my answers:
Yes: it allowed Japan to become Democratic after the surrender. It also allowed Japan to become the most developed country in the world today. It was also a easier way than to send so many soldiers to the mainland Japan when Truman knows that a lot of these soldiers would die in the battle for Honshu, Japan.
No: It killed innocent civilians, and spreaded a new disease into the world. It also started the Atomic Age in the world and caused the world to enter the Cold War Era.
Reply:YES!!!!! even though civilians died and all that mumbo jumbo, it ended the war! it saved more lives in the future than it destroyed. the war would have gone on a while longer cause japan had A LOT of islands and land. it would have taken years more to win the war and we had already won in europe.
Reply:It was a good decison because of the following reasons: less loss of American lives, wouldn%26#039;t have to invade Japan, show off military power to Soviet Union(Russia), make Japanese surrender, put immediate end to war, being outnumbered with Japanese bigger military which was 9 million, President Harry S. Truman dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for one reason: not to end the war with Japan, but to intimidate Stalin, keep him out of the Pacific war, deny him a share of the peace that we were going to impose on Japan.
Reply:That is a very tough question that i know Truman wrestled with even after he made it. The US believed that if they had to invade Japan it would have cost a million US casualties. Japanese casualties would have been even more staggering because the Japanese people were willing to give up their lives to save the homeland(They had a very different culture than ours, look at the kamikaze%26#039;s). By dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, millions of lives were saved but a new evil was brought into the world. Truman thought he made the right decision as a lot of other people do. I could not really tell you where i stand on this issue (though of course in hindsight i wish it did not happen) because i think a total naval blockade over Japan would have ended the war (though the reason it was not done was because it would take to long for the Japanese to surrender from the blockade like i think 4-6 years was the estimate) I do believe that the bomb drop on Nagasaki was uncalled for and i fault Truman for that moreso than over Hiroshima. I do believe that Nagasaki was to show the Soviets that we were willing and had a large number of A-Bombs. We wanted to show the world that we were the super-power
Reply:In my opinion, no. It was a bad thing. But I say this with the benefit of over sixty years of hindsight. At the time, it looked like it was justified, because the invasion of Japan was looming, and with it the deaths of US and Japanese troops, as well as Japanese civilians. So, hoping to avoid this, the bombs were dropped. But to me, this was no more than an excuse to use these new weapons, to see what they would do. Europe had been successfully invaded, and Germany had surrendered, so now the entire might of the Allies was concentrated on Japan, so - again in my opinion - the invasion wouldn%26#039;t have been as nasty or as prolonged as was claimed. The war would have gone on for a few more months, but Japan was on the ropes, and wouldn%26#039;t have lasted long. The %26quot;conventional%26quot; bombings had reduced most Japanese cities to ashes, and the military was just about finished. So I believe that this justification for using the bomb is mere propaganda - and in war, the victors write the history books. The use of the atomic bomb - and, remember, I%26#039;m saying this with sixty years worth of history to draw upon - was a terrible thing, for these reasons. (1). People in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are STILL suffering from the effects of the bombings - there is an increased level of leukemia, other cancers and birth defects amongst the populations of those cities. What do the people there today have to do with the war? (2). It let the %26quot;nuclear genie%26quot; out of the bottle, with the consequence that the world has never been safe since - for the first time in human history, we have the ability to obliterate all life on the planet, many times over. President Truman made a momentous decision when he authorised the use of these dreadful weapons, in my opinion the most important decision ever made by an American President. But he thought he was doing the right thing at the time. (Does that sound like President Bush and his WMDs? And this is one of the main objections I have to nuclear weapons - the %26quot;good guys%26quot; are allowed to have them, while the %26quot;bad guys%26quot; aren%26#039;t.
Iraq was invaded, and hundreds of thousands of people killed; Iran and North Korea are threatened with invasion, all so they can%26#039;t have these weapons. But the only country that has used the damned things in war is the good old US of A.
Why shouldn%26#039;t the bad guys have them? Nobody should have them). I know that little diatribe had nothing to do with your question, but it kinda puts things into perspective.
Here is an excellent website for you to have a look at:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over...
Cheers!
Reply:Yes, it was the right decision for the times. The planned invasion of Japan would have produced roughly one million US casualties by all estimates. Even more for the Japanese with their %26quot;fight to the end%26quot; mentality. So, likely the invasion would have resulted in millions of dead, plus the additional monetary costs of fighting the war for another 6-12 months.
People that object to the use of the A-bomb against Japan often don%26#039;t understand the full picture, or they have a rigid, emotional objection to the Bomb itself.
Reply:I think he made the right decision. It saved lives in the long
run. The Japanese had no intention of surrendering. It was not in their military makeup. Even after they saw the horrible
destruction of Hiroshama they allowed another bomb to be
dropped on Nagasaki before they came to their senses.
Besides which my brothers, my cousins and myself wouldn%26#039;t have been here. my father and my uncles were all POWs in Japanese concentration camps and they would have died before any convention land war would have ended due to
starvation and torture.
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
women and what they did to be considered in playing an important place or role in american history between 1800-1860
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of uncle tom%26#039;s cabin. This book made many people oppose slavery and in a way helped bring about the Civil War.
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
??
Reply:Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (Fought for women%26#039;s rights; Seneca Falls Convetion 1848)
Harriet Beecher Stowe (Wrote Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin)
Soujourner Truth (Abolitionist, spoke at the Seneca Falls Convention. She gave a famous speech there, asking %26quot;Ain%26#039;t I a Woman?%26quot;)
Elizabeth Blackwell (First woman physicians in the US)
Dolley Madison (Wife of 4th President James Madison--influential hostess in Washington, saved painting of George Washington when the British burned the White House in 1814)
Reply:Many women in the early 19th century were very active in the Abolitionist movement. The first female anti-slavery lecturers in the USA were Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who were also early feminists. When Angelina married another anti-slavery lecturer, Theodore Weld, in 18 38, the word %26#039;obey%26#039; was omitted from the marriage service. Many women active in the abolitionist movement subsequently became active in the campaign for women%26#039;s suffrage.
In 1833, Prudence Crandall, a schoolteacher, made a brave attempt to open a school for coloured girls in Canterbury, with the aim of giving them the same genteel education available to white girls. Local residents were outraged, and Crandall and her pupils were subject to torrades of abuse, intimidation and actual violence. the school was eventually destroyed by rioters. After the war, Connecticut voted to give its black citizens the right to vote, with Canterbury leading the way. Crandall had not been able to carry through her plan to educate young black women, but as her old friend Samuel May said, she had been succesful in teaching her neighbours.
In 1833, Lydia Maria Child published a book called An Appeal In Favour of That Class of Americans Called Africans. One of the first antislavery books to be published in America, it was also one of the boldest, arguing that the races should be able to mix freely when traveling, at the theatre, in church, and when choosing marital partners. Child, along with the Grimke sisters, was unusual even among abolitonists in her belief in the integration and equality of the races.
It could be very dangerous being an abolitonist, between 1834 and 1837, there were at least 157 mob anti-abolition actions in the north. At one Boston aboltionist meeting where the meeting provoked a riot, a woman called Maria Weston Chapman led the audinece out through the angry mob in pairs, black and white together. %26quot;If this is the last bulwark of freedom, we may as well die here as anywhere%26quot; she said.
1848 was the year Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organised the Seneca Falls Convention to present their case for women%26#039;s rights. elizabeth Cady Stanton and susan B. Antony were leaders of the women%26#039;s rights movements throughout the rest of the 19th century. Lucy Stone, another influential early feminist, was also a speaker for the anti-slavery society, she travelled the country during the early 1850s, often swaying hostile audiences with her eloquence.
Dorothea Dix was an important social reformer who improved the appalling conditions of mental patients in the USA during the 1840s. Her priorities were to alleviate conditons for the mentally ill by having instituitons for them seperate from criminals and by having ropes and chains removed. She played a direct role in the founding of 32 mental hospitals and was inspirational in founding many others. She called New jersey%26#039;s first mental hospital at Trenton %26quot;my firstborn child.%26quot;
In 1849, the remarkable Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery, and returned many times to the south to rescue fellow slaves. She was an expert at disguise and at putting her pursuers off the scent. She appeared as an old woman, or a vagabond, or a mentally disturbed man. On one occasion, when she saw a former owner coming towards her she loosed several chickens at a market and pretended to be chasing after them as she scurried by unnnoticed. Another time, when she realised she had been tracked to a railroad station, she calmly boarded a southbound train, guessing correctly that no one would suspect a black woman traveling deeper into slave territory. %26quot;I was the conductor of the underground railway for eight years and I can say what most conductors can%26#039;t say - I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger%26quot; she said.
1850 was the year Elizabeth Blackwell became the first American woman to qualify as a doctor at an American medical school. it was also the year in which Harriet Beecher Stowe published %26#039;Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin%26#039; probably the most influential novel of the 19th century. it%26#039;s impact on the anti-slavery campaign was huge.
Although male ex-slaves were common on the lecture trail, Sojourner Truth was the only female ex-slave who pursued a career as a public speaker. Tall, with a low, powerful voice, she became celebrated for her direct and colourful language. Addressing a women%26#039;s rights convention in Ohio, she said %26quot;I have heard much about the sexes being equal. I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get at it. I am as strong as any man that is now. As for intellect, all I can say is, if a woman have a pint and a man a quart - why can%26#039;t she have her little pint full?%26quot;
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
Harriet Beecher Stowe, author of uncle tom%26#039;s cabin. This book made many people oppose slavery and in a way helped bring about the Civil War.
Women of importance between 1800-1860?
??
Reply:Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony (Fought for women%26#039;s rights; Seneca Falls Convetion 1848)
Harriet Beecher Stowe (Wrote Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin)
Soujourner Truth (Abolitionist, spoke at the Seneca Falls Convention. She gave a famous speech there, asking %26quot;Ain%26#039;t I a Woman?%26quot;)
Elizabeth Blackwell (First woman physicians in the US)
Dolley Madison (Wife of 4th President James Madison--influential hostess in Washington, saved painting of George Washington when the British burned the White House in 1814)
Reply:Many women in the early 19th century were very active in the Abolitionist movement. The first female anti-slavery lecturers in the USA were Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who were also early feminists. When Angelina married another anti-slavery lecturer, Theodore Weld, in 18 38, the word %26#039;obey%26#039; was omitted from the marriage service. Many women active in the abolitionist movement subsequently became active in the campaign for women%26#039;s suffrage.
In 1833, Prudence Crandall, a schoolteacher, made a brave attempt to open a school for coloured girls in Canterbury, with the aim of giving them the same genteel education available to white girls. Local residents were outraged, and Crandall and her pupils were subject to torrades of abuse, intimidation and actual violence. the school was eventually destroyed by rioters. After the war, Connecticut voted to give its black citizens the right to vote, with Canterbury leading the way. Crandall had not been able to carry through her plan to educate young black women, but as her old friend Samuel May said, she had been succesful in teaching her neighbours.
In 1833, Lydia Maria Child published a book called An Appeal In Favour of That Class of Americans Called Africans. One of the first antislavery books to be published in America, it was also one of the boldest, arguing that the races should be able to mix freely when traveling, at the theatre, in church, and when choosing marital partners. Child, along with the Grimke sisters, was unusual even among abolitonists in her belief in the integration and equality of the races.
It could be very dangerous being an abolitonist, between 1834 and 1837, there were at least 157 mob anti-abolition actions in the north. At one Boston aboltionist meeting where the meeting provoked a riot, a woman called Maria Weston Chapman led the audinece out through the angry mob in pairs, black and white together. %26quot;If this is the last bulwark of freedom, we may as well die here as anywhere%26quot; she said.
1848 was the year Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organised the Seneca Falls Convention to present their case for women%26#039;s rights. elizabeth Cady Stanton and susan B. Antony were leaders of the women%26#039;s rights movements throughout the rest of the 19th century. Lucy Stone, another influential early feminist, was also a speaker for the anti-slavery society, she travelled the country during the early 1850s, often swaying hostile audiences with her eloquence.
Dorothea Dix was an important social reformer who improved the appalling conditions of mental patients in the USA during the 1840s. Her priorities were to alleviate conditons for the mentally ill by having instituitons for them seperate from criminals and by having ropes and chains removed. She played a direct role in the founding of 32 mental hospitals and was inspirational in founding many others. She called New jersey%26#039;s first mental hospital at Trenton %26quot;my firstborn child.%26quot;
In 1849, the remarkable Harriet Tubman escaped from slavery, and returned many times to the south to rescue fellow slaves. She was an expert at disguise and at putting her pursuers off the scent. She appeared as an old woman, or a vagabond, or a mentally disturbed man. On one occasion, when she saw a former owner coming towards her she loosed several chickens at a market and pretended to be chasing after them as she scurried by unnnoticed. Another time, when she realised she had been tracked to a railroad station, she calmly boarded a southbound train, guessing correctly that no one would suspect a black woman traveling deeper into slave territory. %26quot;I was the conductor of the underground railway for eight years and I can say what most conductors can%26#039;t say - I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger%26quot; she said.
1850 was the year Elizabeth Blackwell became the first American woman to qualify as a doctor at an American medical school. it was also the year in which Harriet Beecher Stowe published %26#039;Uncle Tom%26#039;s Cabin%26#039; probably the most influential novel of the 19th century. it%26#039;s impact on the anti-slavery campaign was huge.
Although male ex-slaves were common on the lecture trail, Sojourner Truth was the only female ex-slave who pursued a career as a public speaker. Tall, with a low, powerful voice, she became celebrated for her direct and colourful language. Addressing a women%26#039;s rights convention in Ohio, she said %26quot;I have heard much about the sexes being equal. I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get at it. I am as strong as any man that is now. As for intellect, all I can say is, if a woman have a pint and a man a quart - why can%26#039;t she have her little pint full?%26quot;
Duriong the late 1800's and early 1900's, millions of people immigrated to the United States.?
Identify and Explain several reasons people left their homelands to move to the United States.
Duriong the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s, millions of people immigrated to the United States.?
This large immigration was due to the Industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a result of the Agricultural revolution which created new styles of Farming which led to a greater food supply. Since the food supply was greater, people lived longer and had more children. The increase in population created a work force that needed jobs. This helped lead to the industrial revolution. The Industrial revolution led to urbanization. The Industrial revolution also led to a spark of medical revolution which created medicines and vaccines which kept people alive longer. So more people were being born, and they were living longer, so this led to overpopulation. During this time it was the age of Imperialism, this gave the over crowded countries a place to send people and help control the population. Some of these people, especialy from western Europe immigrated to the United states were there was open land that was easily affordable and so they immigrated. And this is what led to the
spike in Immigration in the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s.
Duriong the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s, millions of people immigrated to the United States.?
This large immigration was due to the Industrial revolution. The industrial revolution was a result of the Agricultural revolution which created new styles of Farming which led to a greater food supply. Since the food supply was greater, people lived longer and had more children. The increase in population created a work force that needed jobs. This helped lead to the industrial revolution. The Industrial revolution led to urbanization. The Industrial revolution also led to a spark of medical revolution which created medicines and vaccines which kept people alive longer. So more people were being born, and they were living longer, so this led to overpopulation. During this time it was the age of Imperialism, this gave the over crowded countries a place to send people and help control the population. Some of these people, especialy from western Europe immigrated to the United states were there was open land that was easily affordable and so they immigrated. And this is what led to the
spike in Immigration in the late 1800%26#039;s and early 1900%26#039;s.
What was "The Great Leap Forward"? Who was responsible for it?
HELP
What was %26quot;The Great Leap Forward%26quot;? Who was responsible for it?
Mao Tse Tung came up with it in 1958. Intentions were to build a strong Chinese economy that would rival anything in the West within 30 years.
What was %26quot;The Great Leap Forward%26quot;? Who was responsible for it?
Mao Tse Tung came up with it in 1958. Intentions were to build a strong Chinese economy that would rival anything in the West within 30 years.
Who was Commodore Matthew Perry? Why did he come to Japan in 1853?
HELP
Who was Commodore Matthew Perry? Why did he come to Japan in 1853?
A Naval officer for the U.S. who forced open trade with Japan. It is said that they admired our navy so much upon his visit that they built their own great navy to match. And then they used it against us in WWII. Ironic.
Who was Commodore Matthew Perry? Why did he come to Japan in 1853?
A Naval officer for the U.S. who forced open trade with Japan. It is said that they admired our navy so much upon his visit that they built their own great navy to match. And then they used it against us in WWII. Ironic.
Identify and explain one reason political machines were so successfull in the late 1800s.?
think abdout relationships between immigrants and members of political machines.
and services the political machines provided to people and cities.
and services the political machines provided to people and cities.
Who had labour day first of all countries and then out of US and Canada?
US is first, . Chicago had labour strugle, subsequently It was declared through out world by I O L
Which person did not win a gold olympic medal in swimming for Australia??
Me.
Which person did not win a gold olympic medal in swimming for Australia??
I didn%26#039;t. Nor did about 6 billion other people.
Which person did not win a gold olympic medal in swimming for Australia??
Mark Spitz?
Which person did not win a gold olympic medal in swimming for Australia??
I didn%26#039;t. Nor did about 6 billion other people.
Which person did not win a gold olympic medal in swimming for Australia??
Mark Spitz?
What are the reasons of slavery in the New world?
in 1500-1865
please give me links
thank you
What are the reasons of slavery in the New world?
Greed, sloth and entitlement but I won%26#039;t help you cheat any more than that.
What are the reasons of slavery in the New world?
The Europeans were very powerful at time and commanded many countries to do as they say or were lazy. There were vast areas in the New World and the Europeans needed helpers to grow crops, prepare them, cook for their masters, and etc. They commanded Africans, Asians, and South Americans to do their work for them cause they thought since they controlled parts of Africa they should bring them over here and make them do their work for them.
Reply:oh boy...
Well, the African slave trade was major in the New World because the Europeans wanted someone they didn%26#039;t have to pay for the manual labor done
and the Africans were immune to malaria and could live in the humid swampy conditions of the chesapeake bay region and the deep south and the bayous, whereas the native amerindians could not
but what everyone else said was pretty good too...
Reply:Cheap labor. Imagine a world in which refined sugar was a rare novelty, and go from there.
Reply:The Americas was a new land that Europeans wanted to exploit in order to boost Europe to wealth and gain colonize in this new world to live in also this came with a dilemma to the Europeans because it would need a population of a workforce
Possible workers
Native Americans- They were dying largly in numbers due to first encounters with European disease.
Also they were resistant and able to escape easily as they knew their way around better than anyone.
Europeans- Europe was not the Europe we see today it was behind, just recovering from the worst disease epidemic in human history to this day, plague/black death which kille of between 40-60% of Europes whole population and most if not all were the poor/peasants the one who would be used as the workforce in the Americas
Asians- Asia was very far and transportation of people from mainland Asia to the Atlantic was long and costly and then to cross the Atlantic was even worser the idea of that would be worthless.
Africans- Europeans had already just started the trade of European raw materials in return for African natural minerals on ports on African coasts which African leaders allowed them to. Some were already getting humans as slaves also.
Africa was just Atlantic distance to the Americas. They were plenty in number. They did not know the Americas giving less chance of escape. They were use to European disease so survived. They were the best candidates for slaves which would be needed to make the Americas home to Europeans and boost Europes economy back to stableness.
please give me links
thank you
What are the reasons of slavery in the New world?
Greed, sloth and entitlement but I won%26#039;t help you cheat any more than that.
What are the reasons of slavery in the New world?
The Europeans were very powerful at time and commanded many countries to do as they say or were lazy. There were vast areas in the New World and the Europeans needed helpers to grow crops, prepare them, cook for their masters, and etc. They commanded Africans, Asians, and South Americans to do their work for them cause they thought since they controlled parts of Africa they should bring them over here and make them do their work for them.
Reply:oh boy...
Well, the African slave trade was major in the New World because the Europeans wanted someone they didn%26#039;t have to pay for the manual labor done
and the Africans were immune to malaria and could live in the humid swampy conditions of the chesapeake bay region and the deep south and the bayous, whereas the native amerindians could not
but what everyone else said was pretty good too...
Reply:Cheap labor. Imagine a world in which refined sugar was a rare novelty, and go from there.
Reply:The Americas was a new land that Europeans wanted to exploit in order to boost Europe to wealth and gain colonize in this new world to live in also this came with a dilemma to the Europeans because it would need a population of a workforce
Possible workers
Native Americans- They were dying largly in numbers due to first encounters with European disease.
Also they were resistant and able to escape easily as they knew their way around better than anyone.
Europeans- Europe was not the Europe we see today it was behind, just recovering from the worst disease epidemic in human history to this day, plague/black death which kille of between 40-60% of Europes whole population and most if not all were the poor/peasants the one who would be used as the workforce in the Americas
Asians- Asia was very far and transportation of people from mainland Asia to the Atlantic was long and costly and then to cross the Atlantic was even worser the idea of that would be worthless.
Africans- Europeans had already just started the trade of European raw materials in return for African natural minerals on ports on African coasts which African leaders allowed them to. Some were already getting humans as slaves also.
Africa was just Atlantic distance to the Americas. They were plenty in number. They did not know the Americas giving less chance of escape. They were use to European disease so survived. They were the best candidates for slaves which would be needed to make the Americas home to Europeans and boost Europes economy back to stableness.
Why were the three central characteristics of modern science mentioned in this paragraph so significant?
By the mid 1500s, three central characteristics of modern science were widely accepted. First, it was important to be boundlessly curious. Second, a scientist should reject old assumptions and method unless they could be proven as true. Third, they way to test ideas was through experimentation and careful obsrvation. Because the important discoveries during these year were so radical, historians call these developments the Scientific Revolution.
Why were the three central characteristics of modern science mentioned in this paragraph so significant?
Newton, Avagardo, Kelvin
Why were the three central characteristics of modern science mentioned in this paragraph so significant?
Newton, Avagardo, Kelvin
What is the most significant feature of the St. Peter's Basillica in Rome?
Its dome is a dominant feature of the skyline of Rome.
Does argentina have genocide?
if so findd the 8 stages of genocidee.
and the source you got it from thanks.
Does argentina have genocide?
Gregory Stanton in 1996 devised the Eight Stages of Genocide: Classification, Symbolization, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Extermination, and Denial.
Raul Hilberg, in his book %26#039;The Destruction of the European Jews%26#039;, identified four stages - identification, expropriation, concentration, annihilation.
Does argentina have genocide?
No, they don%26#039;t have genocide. They did a much better job of eradicating the native populations in the nineteenth century than the US did, so there%26#039;s not much of a minority upon whom to practice genocide since then. The typical Argentinian is of Italian descent, though there%26#039;s a pretty wide array of European blood in the mix.
and the source you got it from thanks.
Does argentina have genocide?
Gregory Stanton in 1996 devised the Eight Stages of Genocide: Classification, Symbolization, Dehumanization, Organization, Polarization, Preparation, Extermination, and Denial.
Raul Hilberg, in his book %26#039;The Destruction of the European Jews%26#039;, identified four stages - identification, expropriation, concentration, annihilation.
Does argentina have genocide?
No, they don%26#039;t have genocide. They did a much better job of eradicating the native populations in the nineteenth century than the US did, so there%26#039;s not much of a minority upon whom to practice genocide since then. The typical Argentinian is of Italian descent, though there%26#039;s a pretty wide array of European blood in the mix.
What are the greatest empires of all time?
what empires would you class as being great? why do you think that they were great, and how did they fall?
What are the greatest empires of all time?
The WORST empires of all time were the BUSH / BUSH II empires in the former U.S. of A. during the late 20th and early 21st centuries....
What are the greatest empires of all time?
Moguhals, Invasion of Great Britan
What are the greatest empires of all time?
The WORST empires of all time were the BUSH / BUSH II empires in the former U.S. of A. during the late 20th and early 21st centuries....
What are the greatest empires of all time?
Moguhals, Invasion of Great Britan
Why do Korea and China have close historical ties?
HELP
Why do Korea and China have close historical ties?
ohh idk cuz they r right next to each other duhh
Why do Korea and China have close historical ties?
ohh idk cuz they r right next to each other duhh
What are the original names of the coutries, from their indigineous peoples?
Africa, South America, Cuba, China, Russia, Germany (Deutcheland?) , Taiwan, Japan, Hawaii, Australia, India, Egypt, France, etc Those are a list of English names I know they have to be called something different from the original peoples. Right?
What are the original names of the coutries, from their indigineous peoples?
The indigineous peoples of some of those places go back 20,000 years. How could anyone know what they called it back then?
The ind. people of Hawaii were settlers, Polynesians who went further than any others and quit when they got to Hawaii.
There were no %26quot;indigineous%26quot; peoples of China or Russia or France because they all came from Africa, and who knows what those people called their lands?
What are the original names of the coutries, from their indigineous peoples?
Africa, South America, and Australia are continents. There would be no single, aboriginal name for these since they were populated by a diverse bunch, most of which did not share a common language and probably did not know of each other%26#039;s existanc.
Same would be true of some of the other, larger countries, like Russia and China. Not ALL of these %26quot;English%26quot; names are different than those called by the original settlers. I believe that Hawaii was called %26quot;Hawaii%26quot; from the beginning.
Let%26#039;s see, Japan is called something like %26quot;Nihon%26quot; by its people. France was mostly populated by Gauls, and, the current French language is based on Latin.
You know, this question may be impossible to answer for most of the world, considering that many lands were settled by early humanoids before they had developed sophisticated speech. I%26#039;ll bet that for most of these people, there %26quot;country%26quot; (if there territories could be called that) was refered to as %26quot;The World.%26quot;
Reply:Everywhere was called %26quot;Here%26quot;.China named itself the %26quot;Middle Kingdom%26quot; from the arrogant belief that it was the center of the world and every other country,naturally would pay obeisance to it.Nihon is the Chinese name for the country originaly inhabited by the Ainu,who were pushed further and further north by the invading Japanese.I believe country naming to be relatively new.
What are the original names of the coutries, from their indigineous peoples?
The indigineous peoples of some of those places go back 20,000 years. How could anyone know what they called it back then?
The ind. people of Hawaii were settlers, Polynesians who went further than any others and quit when they got to Hawaii.
There were no %26quot;indigineous%26quot; peoples of China or Russia or France because they all came from Africa, and who knows what those people called their lands?
What are the original names of the coutries, from their indigineous peoples?
Africa, South America, and Australia are continents. There would be no single, aboriginal name for these since they were populated by a diverse bunch, most of which did not share a common language and probably did not know of each other%26#039;s existanc.
Same would be true of some of the other, larger countries, like Russia and China. Not ALL of these %26quot;English%26quot; names are different than those called by the original settlers. I believe that Hawaii was called %26quot;Hawaii%26quot; from the beginning.
Let%26#039;s see, Japan is called something like %26quot;Nihon%26quot; by its people. France was mostly populated by Gauls, and, the current French language is based on Latin.
You know, this question may be impossible to answer for most of the world, considering that many lands were settled by early humanoids before they had developed sophisticated speech. I%26#039;ll bet that for most of these people, there %26quot;country%26quot; (if there territories could be called that) was refered to as %26quot;The World.%26quot;
Reply:Everywhere was called %26quot;Here%26quot;.China named itself the %26quot;Middle Kingdom%26quot; from the arrogant belief that it was the center of the world and every other country,naturally would pay obeisance to it.Nihon is the Chinese name for the country originaly inhabited by the Ainu,who were pushed further and further north by the invading Japanese.I believe country naming to be relatively new.
An Alternate History Scenario?
Here is the Scenario, in 1933 FDR is assasinated and John Nance Garner is assumes the Presidency. He is unsucessful in helping with the Depression. In the 1936 election he looses the Democratic parties nomination to Huey Long(govenor of Louisiana). Long wins the election and becomes president.
Huey long was a known socialist, just short of being communist. I remember hearing FDR once saying the man he feared most was not Hitler or Stalin but MacArthur. He said if anyone in the country could over throw the government it would be him.
My question is, given this scenario, how likely would a Cival war in America at this time be?
An Alternate History Scenario?
For some interesting insights, check out the alternative history series of books by Harry Turtledove. His first postulated a way in which the Confederacy won it%26#039;s independance from the United States.
He has written many others, including one in which the Japanese find the US carrier fleet at Peal Harbor, and other series, including one in which the English do NOT defeat the Spanish Armada, and one in which Hannibal of Carthage is not defeated.
Interesting reading
An Alternate History Scenario?
As I understand it, the 2 people FDR feared the most were Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin. This is from William Manchester%26#039;s %26#039;The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972%26#039;.
Reply:With your scenario, I%26#039;d rate the odds of Civil War to be low. The US would still be digging out of the Depression, matters in Europe would still be proceeding, and I don%26#039;t see McArthur, even if he were stupid enough to attempt a military coup, able to muster anything near the support needed. We have traditionally indoctrinated out military to the concept of cvilian rule. Though the military may not like the civilians running the country, it would be a violation of their oaths to rise against it. So, lots of dirty politics, scandals, and a new president in the 1940 election, just in time to find Germany overwhelming Britian, which has not been recieving support from a FDR administration, a Japan that is still likely to launch a Pearl Harbor attack, and a military that is even more obsolete than the one that was in place at the time. But the capacity to gear up for war would still be there, so the second world war would occur, and would simply last longer.
Huey long was a known socialist, just short of being communist. I remember hearing FDR once saying the man he feared most was not Hitler or Stalin but MacArthur. He said if anyone in the country could over throw the government it would be him.
My question is, given this scenario, how likely would a Cival war in America at this time be?
An Alternate History Scenario?
For some interesting insights, check out the alternative history series of books by Harry Turtledove. His first postulated a way in which the Confederacy won it%26#039;s independance from the United States.
He has written many others, including one in which the Japanese find the US carrier fleet at Peal Harbor, and other series, including one in which the English do NOT defeat the Spanish Armada, and one in which Hannibal of Carthage is not defeated.
Interesting reading
An Alternate History Scenario?
As I understand it, the 2 people FDR feared the most were Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin. This is from William Manchester%26#039;s %26#039;The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972%26#039;.
Reply:With your scenario, I%26#039;d rate the odds of Civil War to be low. The US would still be digging out of the Depression, matters in Europe would still be proceeding, and I don%26#039;t see McArthur, even if he were stupid enough to attempt a military coup, able to muster anything near the support needed. We have traditionally indoctrinated out military to the concept of cvilian rule. Though the military may not like the civilians running the country, it would be a violation of their oaths to rise against it. So, lots of dirty politics, scandals, and a new president in the 1940 election, just in time to find Germany overwhelming Britian, which has not been recieving support from a FDR administration, a Japan that is still likely to launch a Pearl Harbor attack, and a military that is even more obsolete than the one that was in place at the time. But the capacity to gear up for war would still be there, so the second world war would occur, and would simply last longer.
Whose rule in Spain ended in 1492?
Best answer gets automatic 5 stars
Whose rule in Spain ended in 1492?
The Battle of Covadonga in 722 is considered the official beginning of the Reconquista.
The Portuguese Reconquista ended in 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve (Arabic 丕賱睾乇亘 鈥?Al-gharb) under Afonso III, the first Portuguese monarch to claim the title %26quot;King of Portugal and the Algarve%26quot;.
The wider Reconquista, the Portuguese Reconquista being a part of it, came to an end on the 2 January 1492 with the conquest of Granada, as the last Muslim ruler of Granada, Muhammad XII of Granada (Boabdil of Granada) surrendered his kingdom to King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile, the Catholic Monarchs (los Reyes Cat贸licos). This event ended Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula.
Whose rule in Spain ended in 1492?
The Battle of Covadonga in 722 is considered the official beginning of the Reconquista.
The Portuguese Reconquista ended in 1249 with the conquest of the Algarve (Arabic 丕賱睾乇亘 鈥?Al-gharb) under Afonso III, the first Portuguese monarch to claim the title %26quot;King of Portugal and the Algarve%26quot;.
The wider Reconquista, the Portuguese Reconquista being a part of it, came to an end on the 2 January 1492 with the conquest of Granada, as the last Muslim ruler of Granada, Muhammad XII of Granada (Boabdil of Granada) surrendered his kingdom to King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile, the Catholic Monarchs (los Reyes Cat贸licos). This event ended Muslim rule in the Iberian Peninsula.
What happened to Vietnam after the U.S. pulled out?
HELP
What happened to Vietnam after the U.S. pulled out?
It was a %26quot;stalemate%26quot;. But after the U.S. got out of there under Nixon, the North took over the south and it has remained communist to this day.
What happened to Vietnam after the U.S. pulled out?
The North took over the South and a reunited Viet Nam is now totally Communist. And our tanks are still sitting over there waiting on us to return.
Reply:the country collapsed and was taken over by the north. their was mass slaughter of the south Vietnamese who had ties to the Americans. lets just say everything hit the fan
Reply:THE VIETNAMESE GOT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN DESTINY,
Reply:After the troops left, ARVN held out surprisingly well. But that required continued logistic support from the US. After all, they were using M-16%26#039;s other US equipment. When Congress cut off all aid a couple of years later, they fell like a house of cards.
%26quot;They got to choose their own destiny%26quot; is a little disrespectful of the tens of thousands of teachers, doctors, and others who died as a result of the ensuing communist %26quot;re-education,%26quot; which often changed the mind by the introduction of a thirty caliber 123 grain bullet into the braincase.
Reply:When the south fell, the US imposed an embargo - which hurt everyone, north and south. The country was united.
As for the US sympathizers having been eliminated, I don%26#039;t believe that. I have a Vietnamese friend in the city of Phan Rang, Ninh Thuan Province. He was a captain in the South Vietnamese Army, and had lots of American friends. He is alive and well in communist Viet Nam. I have met other people who collaborated with the south / US, and somehow the purge missed them. Maybe the purge was a right-wing myth created for normal right-wing purposes? I also know of others who knew and worked with the Americans - and are still alive and well. I would like to see some references for sources, reliable sources on the right-wing allegations, facts rather than allegations.
There are a lot of details of the effects of the US-led embargo that people like to ignore.
What happened to Vietnam after the U.S. pulled out?
It was a %26quot;stalemate%26quot;. But after the U.S. got out of there under Nixon, the North took over the south and it has remained communist to this day.
What happened to Vietnam after the U.S. pulled out?
The North took over the South and a reunited Viet Nam is now totally Communist. And our tanks are still sitting over there waiting on us to return.
Reply:the country collapsed and was taken over by the north. their was mass slaughter of the south Vietnamese who had ties to the Americans. lets just say everything hit the fan
Reply:THE VIETNAMESE GOT TO CHOOSE THEIR OWN DESTINY,
Reply:After the troops left, ARVN held out surprisingly well. But that required continued logistic support from the US. After all, they were using M-16%26#039;s other US equipment. When Congress cut off all aid a couple of years later, they fell like a house of cards.
%26quot;They got to choose their own destiny%26quot; is a little disrespectful of the tens of thousands of teachers, doctors, and others who died as a result of the ensuing communist %26quot;re-education,%26quot; which often changed the mind by the introduction of a thirty caliber 123 grain bullet into the braincase.
Reply:When the south fell, the US imposed an embargo - which hurt everyone, north and south. The country was united.
As for the US sympathizers having been eliminated, I don%26#039;t believe that. I have a Vietnamese friend in the city of Phan Rang, Ninh Thuan Province. He was a captain in the South Vietnamese Army, and had lots of American friends. He is alive and well in communist Viet Nam. I have met other people who collaborated with the south / US, and somehow the purge missed them. Maybe the purge was a right-wing myth created for normal right-wing purposes? I also know of others who knew and worked with the Americans - and are still alive and well. I would like to see some references for sources, reliable sources on the right-wing allegations, facts rather than allegations.
There are a lot of details of the effects of the US-led embargo that people like to ignore.
Anyone who is good with history?
The two %26quot;lessons%26quot; that have dominated US foreign policy since WWII were drawn from the Munich Conference of 1938 and the bombing of pearl harbor in 1941. What are these %26quot;lessons%26quot; and to what extent do they still apply?
(Hint; 9/11 in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
Anyone who is good with history?
They have no relevance.
Anyone who is good with history?
The lesson from the Munich Agreement is to draw a closer line in the sand, %26quot;if you give them an Inch, they take a mile%26quot;. That one was quite literal. And the lesson from pearl harbor is fact that you can%26#039;t keep out of the world forever. You can%26#039;t wait for them to knock over your slerpy to respond.
Reply:Appeasement doesn%26#039;t work. Unless and until you are prepared to resort to violence to counter violence, the person/nation you are attempting to appease will simply continue to demand more.
Always be prepared for the unexpected, and appropriate communications of intellegence is nessacary to avoid really nasty suprises.
Both apply as much as they did in WW 2. Human nature simply doesn%26#039;t change that much that quickly. And the next major attack probably won%26#039;t be with planes into buildings. We are somewhat prepared for that. Look for some other form of attack.
(Hint; 9/11 in 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003)
Anyone who is good with history?
They have no relevance.
Anyone who is good with history?
The lesson from the Munich Agreement is to draw a closer line in the sand, %26quot;if you give them an Inch, they take a mile%26quot;. That one was quite literal. And the lesson from pearl harbor is fact that you can%26#039;t keep out of the world forever. You can%26#039;t wait for them to knock over your slerpy to respond.
Reply:Appeasement doesn%26#039;t work. Unless and until you are prepared to resort to violence to counter violence, the person/nation you are attempting to appease will simply continue to demand more.
Always be prepared for the unexpected, and appropriate communications of intellegence is nessacary to avoid really nasty suprises.
Both apply as much as they did in WW 2. Human nature simply doesn%26#039;t change that much that quickly. And the next major attack probably won%26#039;t be with planes into buildings. We are somewhat prepared for that. Look for some other form of attack.
Which has a greater impact on the world evolution or revolution?
Evolution.
Which has a greater impact on the world evolution or revolution?
Since evolution is a myth, I%26#039;d have to say revolution.
Which has a greater impact on the world evolution or revolution?
Since evolution is a myth, I%26#039;d have to say revolution.
Which groups benefited from the reforms of the progressive era? Which group did not benefit?
Women
Temperence Movement Supporters
People fighting government corruption
Temperence Movement Supporters
People fighting government corruption
Foreign policies of washington, adams, and jefferson?
I need to compare their foreign policies and made some form of argument about them. What is a good website or a good place to start doing this?? Good argument to make?
Foreign policies of washington, adams, and jefferson?
Try the following set of articles from the Miller Center (one on the foreign policy of each President):
http://millercenter.org/academic/america...
http://millercenter.org/academic/america...
http://millercenter.org/academic/america...
Foreign policies of washington, adams, and jefferson?
Try the following set of articles from the Miller Center (one on the foreign policy of each President):
http://millercenter.org/academic/america...
http://millercenter.org/academic/america...
http://millercenter.org/academic/america...
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900: miners, cattlemen, and
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900: miners, cattlemen, and farmers
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900: miners, cattlemen, and
The government sold land cheaply, which attracted people interested in farming. Some were Americans, but many were European immigrants.
Miners settled most in the mountainous regions. There was an important migration to California following the discovery of gold in 1848, but there were important discoveries elsewhere as well.
Cattlemen were usually the last to migrate west, and they occupied the Great Plains, where it was too dry to grow crops but which were flat and did not have many precious metals. Sometimes they got into conflicts with farmers, for large expanses of land were required for grazing cattle, but farmers wanted to fence their property to protect it.
Settlement generally followed the railroads, for this land was the most accessible. It was also desirable because it meant that farmers and herders were relatively close to their markets.
Explain how the following influenced the development of the last West from 1850 - 1900: miners, cattlemen, and
The government sold land cheaply, which attracted people interested in farming. Some were Americans, but many were European immigrants.
Miners settled most in the mountainous regions. There was an important migration to California following the discovery of gold in 1848, but there were important discoveries elsewhere as well.
Cattlemen were usually the last to migrate west, and they occupied the Great Plains, where it was too dry to grow crops but which were flat and did not have many precious metals. Sometimes they got into conflicts with farmers, for large expanses of land were required for grazing cattle, but farmers wanted to fence their property to protect it.
Settlement generally followed the railroads, for this land was the most accessible. It was also desirable because it meant that farmers and herders were relatively close to their markets.
I need some info concerning Irish immigrant's contribution to industrial u.s. economy 1845-1855. Thanks!?
This information is needed for my IB HOTA historical investigation IA and I found plenty of information on why Irish immigrated during this time period (famine) but very little information about how they contributed to increasing America%26#039;s industrial economy. Any help would be greatly appreciated! thanks!!
I need some info concerning Irish immigrant%26#039;s contribution to industrial u.s. economy 1845-1855. Thanks!?
%26quot;Between 1852 and 1855, the Wisconsin Commission of Emigration actively encouraged the settlement of European immigrants in Wisconsin. Pamphlets extolling the state%26#039;s virtues were published in German, Norwegian, Dutch, and English and were distributed throughout Europe as well as in eastern port cities. Advertisements were placed in more than nine hundred newspapers. By 1855, however, the rise of antiforeign sentiment, or nativism, led to the dissolution of the commission.%26quot;
%26quot;t is estimated that more than 1 million people fled Ireland between 1845 and 1855 and many took refuge in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. By 1850, the Irish population was 18 percent of the total population of Philadelphia with over 72,000 Irish-born persons in the region.
Irish immigrants, largely from rural areas, ironically found themselves evolving into urban dwellers. As unskilled laborers, they populated the industrializing cities of the United States at astounding rates. In Philadelphia, textiles, metals, transportation and construction were major areas of Irish immigrant labor. Male Irish immigrants engaged in arduous tasks such as the building of railroads and canals while many Irish women found work as domestic servants. Many of these impoverished settlers took up residence in the already over-crowded cities and established Catholic schools, churches, hospitals, and political and social organizations. Their transition into American life, however, was not smooth as this growing minority came into direct and sometimes violent conflict with the Protestant majority. %26quot;
I need some info concerning Irish immigrant%26#039;s contribution to industrial u.s. economy 1845-1855. Thanks!?
%26quot;Between 1852 and 1855, the Wisconsin Commission of Emigration actively encouraged the settlement of European immigrants in Wisconsin. Pamphlets extolling the state%26#039;s virtues were published in German, Norwegian, Dutch, and English and were distributed throughout Europe as well as in eastern port cities. Advertisements were placed in more than nine hundred newspapers. By 1855, however, the rise of antiforeign sentiment, or nativism, led to the dissolution of the commission.%26quot;
%26quot;t is estimated that more than 1 million people fled Ireland between 1845 and 1855 and many took refuge in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. By 1850, the Irish population was 18 percent of the total population of Philadelphia with over 72,000 Irish-born persons in the region.
Irish immigrants, largely from rural areas, ironically found themselves evolving into urban dwellers. As unskilled laborers, they populated the industrializing cities of the United States at astounding rates. In Philadelphia, textiles, metals, transportation and construction were major areas of Irish immigrant labor. Male Irish immigrants engaged in arduous tasks such as the building of railroads and canals while many Irish women found work as domestic servants. Many of these impoverished settlers took up residence in the already over-crowded cities and established Catholic schools, churches, hospitals, and political and social organizations. Their transition into American life, however, was not smooth as this growing minority came into direct and sometimes violent conflict with the Protestant majority. %26quot;
Urgent: why did the Cuban missble pose such a great threat to world peace?
The Cuban Missile Crisis, if Kennedy had gone through with it and invaded Cuba, the Soviet Union would have thrown a hissy fit and gone to war with the United States
Eventually that would%26#039;ve dragged in everyone as allies with either country and it would%26#039;ve been a World War 3 in a sense.
Urgent: why did the Cuban missble pose such a great threat to world peace?
They had the range to reach a good portion of the US, including Washington, with little time to react had they been launched. The really big deal, though, was that Kennedy had been shown to be inexperienced and weak, and it hurt his feelings, so that and the increased involvement in Vietnam were both means for him to project a %26quot;tough guy%26quot; image and assuage his feelings.
Urgent: why did the Cuban missble pose such a great threat to world peace?
Because global thermo-nuclear war can ruin your day.
And because America at the time was led by a lying, meth and steroid-addled incompetent who was willing to destroy Western Civilization so that he%26#039;d have ten more minutes to get to his bunker if the Soviets attacked.
Reply:The missiles were close enough to fire them into the US, which would have started a nuclear war. John Kennedy was wise enough to avoid it. Krushev had sent him a message saying that we had to remove our missiles from Turkey in order for them to remove theirs from Cuba. He also sent Kennedy a private message saying that if we promised not to invade Cuba, Russia would remove the missiles from Cuba. Kennedy ignored the one involving Turkey and agreed not to invade Cuba. In fact, I think they were two wise men.
Reply:Kennedy was worried that Cuban missiles could be directed at the United States, just as American missiles in Turkey could be directed at the Soviet Union.
The missiles almost certainly would have been under the control of the Soviet, not Cuban, military. They weren%26#039;t %26quot;Cuban missiles.%26quot; Instead, people talk about the missile crisis in Cuba, or the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Eventually that would%26#039;ve dragged in everyone as allies with either country and it would%26#039;ve been a World War 3 in a sense.
Urgent: why did the Cuban missble pose such a great threat to world peace?
They had the range to reach a good portion of the US, including Washington, with little time to react had they been launched. The really big deal, though, was that Kennedy had been shown to be inexperienced and weak, and it hurt his feelings, so that and the increased involvement in Vietnam were both means for him to project a %26quot;tough guy%26quot; image and assuage his feelings.
Urgent: why did the Cuban missble pose such a great threat to world peace?
Because global thermo-nuclear war can ruin your day.
And because America at the time was led by a lying, meth and steroid-addled incompetent who was willing to destroy Western Civilization so that he%26#039;d have ten more minutes to get to his bunker if the Soviets attacked.
Reply:The missiles were close enough to fire them into the US, which would have started a nuclear war. John Kennedy was wise enough to avoid it. Krushev had sent him a message saying that we had to remove our missiles from Turkey in order for them to remove theirs from Cuba. He also sent Kennedy a private message saying that if we promised not to invade Cuba, Russia would remove the missiles from Cuba. Kennedy ignored the one involving Turkey and agreed not to invade Cuba. In fact, I think they were two wise men.
Reply:Kennedy was worried that Cuban missiles could be directed at the United States, just as American missiles in Turkey could be directed at the Soviet Union.
The missiles almost certainly would have been under the control of the Soviet, not Cuban, military. They weren%26#039;t %26quot;Cuban missiles.%26quot; Instead, people talk about the missile crisis in Cuba, or the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Why were the writings of sean o'casey significant to the early 1900s ireland?
1. he raised awareness of political intrigue within the government
2. he raised awareness of the poverty and disease of dublin slum life and the working class
3. he celebrated the anti-war sentiment
4. he criticized the british government%26#039;s dominance of irish government
Why were the writings of sean o%26#039;casey significant to the early 1900s ireland?
1. No. He did not even mention the government.
2. Yes. He raised awareness of poverty and disease in Dublin.
3. No. The war was over at that time.
4. No. He was not really interested in the political situation.
2. he raised awareness of the poverty and disease of dublin slum life and the working class
3. he celebrated the anti-war sentiment
4. he criticized the british government%26#039;s dominance of irish government
Why were the writings of sean o%26#039;casey significant to the early 1900s ireland?
1. No. He did not even mention the government.
2. Yes. He raised awareness of poverty and disease in Dublin.
3. No. The war was over at that time.
4. No. He was not really interested in the political situation.
Where did Che Guevara learn french? I heard he was fluent.?
What difference does it make what language this piece of s--t spoke. He don%26#039;t speak any of them now.
What movement did the artist Paul Gauguin belong to?
Eug猫ne Henri Paul Gauguin (7 June 1848 鈥?8 May 1903) was a leading Post-Impressionist painter. His bold experimentation with coloring led directly to the Synthetist style of modern art while his expression of the inherent meaning of the subjects in his paintings, under the influence of the cloisonnist style, paved the way to Primitivism and the return to the pastoral. He was also an influential exponent of wood engraving and woodcuts as art forms.
Is God seen in history?
Religious writing of all kinds mention God under various names and manifestations, but %26quot;God%26quot; does not appear in any historical writing.
Jesus, recognized as the Son of God (and the Second Person of the Trinity) was probably an historic figure, although there is no concrete proof of his existence. Similarly, Sidhartha, who became the Buddha, was probably an historic figure.
Is God seen in history?
I believe if you look at the larger picture of history you can see god in history . An improbable , impossible event happens that sets in motion a chain reaction of unlikely events that influence history for decades or even hundreds of years . There are many examples , you just have to look for them .
Is God seen in history?
I guess it matters what your beliefs are. If you are Jewish you will believe that God has been seen in history within the Hebrew Scriptures (god allowed Moses to see his back) If you are christian then the answer is jesus. maybe not so much in islam(Mohammad received his revelations through an angel but there is folklore where he may have seen god) You can probably go through most of the religions and find an instance where god(s) were thought to be seen. Now the question is are you a religous person who believes that whomever your god is has revealed themselve(s) to the people
Reply:If there were a God, would that God not want people to see proof of God%26#039;s creations outside of only one written source?
It seems preposterous that a group of people could claim that God%26#039;s words were contained in their holy books, and there were no other sources. Sadly, this is one way that %26quot;God%26quot; can be seen in History - groups of God%26#039;s people all claiming to have God%26#039;s words in a written source, yet denying the validity of any other written sources.
If there were a God, would that God want us to learn from only one book? Would that God not be capable of creating others?
Jesus, recognized as the Son of God (and the Second Person of the Trinity) was probably an historic figure, although there is no concrete proof of his existence. Similarly, Sidhartha, who became the Buddha, was probably an historic figure.
Is God seen in history?
I believe if you look at the larger picture of history you can see god in history . An improbable , impossible event happens that sets in motion a chain reaction of unlikely events that influence history for decades or even hundreds of years . There are many examples , you just have to look for them .
Is God seen in history?
I guess it matters what your beliefs are. If you are Jewish you will believe that God has been seen in history within the Hebrew Scriptures (god allowed Moses to see his back) If you are christian then the answer is jesus. maybe not so much in islam(Mohammad received his revelations through an angel but there is folklore where he may have seen god) You can probably go through most of the religions and find an instance where god(s) were thought to be seen. Now the question is are you a religous person who believes that whomever your god is has revealed themselve(s) to the people
Reply:If there were a God, would that God not want people to see proof of God%26#039;s creations outside of only one written source?
It seems preposterous that a group of people could claim that God%26#039;s words were contained in their holy books, and there were no other sources. Sadly, this is one way that %26quot;God%26quot; can be seen in History - groups of God%26#039;s people all claiming to have God%26#039;s words in a written source, yet denying the validity of any other written sources.
If there were a God, would that God want us to learn from only one book? Would that God not be capable of creating others?
What was the time period of Paul Gauguin's work?
1881-1897
What was the time period of Paul Gauguin%26#039;s work?
Gauguin had been interested in art since his childhood. In his free time, he began painting. He also visited galleries frequently and purchase work by emerging artists. Gauguin formed a friendship with artist Camille Pissarro, who introduced him to various other artists. As he progressed in his art, Gauguin rented a studio, and showed paintings in Impressionist exhibitions held in 1881 and 1882. Over two summer vacations, he painted with Pissarro and occasionally Paul C茅zanne.
In 1891, Gauguin, frustrated by lack of recognition at home and financially destitute, sailed to the tropics to escape European civilization and %26quot;everything that is artificial and conventional.%26quot; (Before this he had made several attempts to find a tropical paradise where he could %26#039;live on fish and fruit%26#039; and paint in his increasingly primitive style, including short stays in Martinique and as a labourer on the Panama Canal construction, however he was dismissed from his job after only two weeks). Living in Mataiea Village in Tahiti, he painted %26quot;Fatata te Miti%26quot; (%26quot;By the Sea%26quot;), %26quot;Ia Orana Maria%26quot; (Ave Maria) and other depictions of Tahitian life. He moved to Punaauia in 1897, where he created the masterpiece painting %26quot;Where Do We Come From%26quot; and then lived the rest of his life in the Marquesas Islands, returning to France only once, when he painted at Pont-Aven. His works of that period are full of quasi-religious symbolism and an exoticized view of the inhabitants of Polynesia. In Polynesia he sided with the native peoples, clashing often with the colonial authorities and with the Catholic Church. During this period he also wrote the book Avant et apr猫s (before and after), a fragmented collection of observations about life in Polynesia, memories from his life and comments on literature and paintings.
What was the time period of Paul Gauguin%26#039;s work?
he was a Post impressionist who painted mainly from 1880 to his death in 1903.
What was the time period of Paul Gauguin%26#039;s work?
Gauguin had been interested in art since his childhood. In his free time, he began painting. He also visited galleries frequently and purchase work by emerging artists. Gauguin formed a friendship with artist Camille Pissarro, who introduced him to various other artists. As he progressed in his art, Gauguin rented a studio, and showed paintings in Impressionist exhibitions held in 1881 and 1882. Over two summer vacations, he painted with Pissarro and occasionally Paul C茅zanne.
In 1891, Gauguin, frustrated by lack of recognition at home and financially destitute, sailed to the tropics to escape European civilization and %26quot;everything that is artificial and conventional.%26quot; (Before this he had made several attempts to find a tropical paradise where he could %26#039;live on fish and fruit%26#039; and paint in his increasingly primitive style, including short stays in Martinique and as a labourer on the Panama Canal construction, however he was dismissed from his job after only two weeks). Living in Mataiea Village in Tahiti, he painted %26quot;Fatata te Miti%26quot; (%26quot;By the Sea%26quot;), %26quot;Ia Orana Maria%26quot; (Ave Maria) and other depictions of Tahitian life. He moved to Punaauia in 1897, where he created the masterpiece painting %26quot;Where Do We Come From%26quot; and then lived the rest of his life in the Marquesas Islands, returning to France only once, when he painted at Pont-Aven. His works of that period are full of quasi-religious symbolism and an exoticized view of the inhabitants of Polynesia. In Polynesia he sided with the native peoples, clashing often with the colonial authorities and with the Catholic Church. During this period he also wrote the book Avant et apr猫s (before and after), a fragmented collection of observations about life in Polynesia, memories from his life and comments on literature and paintings.
What was the time period of Paul Gauguin%26#039;s work?
he was a Post impressionist who painted mainly from 1880 to his death in 1903.
What is a good scene name for Marina/Mina?
I NEED a new scene name., mine was MarinaMURDER but everyone goes by murder.. i was kinda thinking massacre., what do you think?
What is a good scene name for Marina/Mina?
MarinaMacabre =D
What is a good scene name for Marina/Mina?
MarinaMacabre =D
How did the two superpowers that emerged during the cold war compete for influence over other nations?
1. the soviet union and the us competed by establishing colonies in Algeria%26#039;s, north Africa, and asia
2. the us and Germany competed through each country%26#039;s military developments, leading to the arms race
3. the soviet union and the us competed by offering economic and military aid to less-developed nations
4. the soviet union and th4e us competed by supporting imperialism in the middle e and asia.
How did the two superpowers that emerged during the cold war compete for influence over other nations?
1
2. the us and Germany competed through each country%26#039;s military developments, leading to the arms race
3. the soviet union and the us competed by offering economic and military aid to less-developed nations
4. the soviet union and th4e us competed by supporting imperialism in the middle e and asia.
How did the two superpowers that emerged during the cold war compete for influence over other nations?
1
The red scares?!?!?
What were they in american history please explain
thankyou xx
The red scares?!?!?
people were afraid there would be a communist uprising
The red scares?!?!?
Capitolist countries frightened that Communism would spread around the world.
Look up McCarthyism
Reply:basically what the other posters have said
but I%26#039;d like to add that you research the Palmer Raids...
A.M. Palmer
thankyou xx
The red scares?!?!?
people were afraid there would be a communist uprising
The red scares?!?!?
Capitolist countries frightened that Communism would spread around the world.
Look up McCarthyism
Reply:basically what the other posters have said
but I%26#039;d like to add that you research the Palmer Raids...
A.M. Palmer
Does anyone else think Georgia O'Keefe was a genius? On the other hand, Freida Kahlo had a fire in her belly
Whom do you admire more and why?
Does anyone else think Georgia O%26#039;Keefe was a genius? On the other hand, Freida Kahlo had a fire in her belly
Frida Kahlo was a mexican visionary.
i vote her all the way.
Does anyone else think Georgia O%26#039;Keefe was a genius? On the other hand, Freida Kahlo had a fire in her belly
Eh, neither were too bad for female artists. Probably O%26#039;Keefe was better because she painted flowers to look like vaginas. She was operating on the male wavelength, oh yeah!
Reply:I like Georgia O%26#039;Keeffe better. She was a great artist, my art teacher went to the same college that she did and there was this story that my mom used to tell about her. She was mainly known for her flower paintings which, even though people love her today, the critics didn%26#039;t think was %26quot;serious art%26quot;. So, she went to an ugly gray barn in her neighborhood and painted one side bright red. Just plain red. When she finished the side and signed it, all the critics had to say was that she finally did some %26quot;serious art%26quot;. It gets better. At one of my mom%26#039;s old jobs, her boss had a picture of the same barn that Georgia painted. You could tell it was the same one because only one of the sides had a fresh coat of bright red paint and the rest were a hideous gray color. Freida Kahlo was a great artist all the same. I just prefer Georgia.
Does anyone else think Georgia O%26#039;Keefe was a genius? On the other hand, Freida Kahlo had a fire in her belly
Frida Kahlo was a mexican visionary.
i vote her all the way.
Does anyone else think Georgia O%26#039;Keefe was a genius? On the other hand, Freida Kahlo had a fire in her belly
Eh, neither were too bad for female artists. Probably O%26#039;Keefe was better because she painted flowers to look like vaginas. She was operating on the male wavelength, oh yeah!
Reply:I like Georgia O%26#039;Keeffe better. She was a great artist, my art teacher went to the same college that she did and there was this story that my mom used to tell about her. She was mainly known for her flower paintings which, even though people love her today, the critics didn%26#039;t think was %26quot;serious art%26quot;. So, she went to an ugly gray barn in her neighborhood and painted one side bright red. Just plain red. When she finished the side and signed it, all the critics had to say was that she finally did some %26quot;serious art%26quot;. It gets better. At one of my mom%26#039;s old jobs, her boss had a picture of the same barn that Georgia painted. You could tell it was the same one because only one of the sides had a fresh coat of bright red paint and the rest were a hideous gray color. Freida Kahlo was a great artist all the same. I just prefer Georgia.
Answer briefly.?
How was Clarence Earl Gideon%26#039;s trial different the second time when he was defended by a lawyer? suuport with examples from the movie Gideon%26#039;s trumpet.
What is the declaration of indepence?
i know what it is, but can someone tell me the history?
What is the declaration of indepence?
I watched something on history channel about it and learned that they were all drunk when signing it. =oP
What is the declaration of indepence?
where americans wanted to seperate fro the british so they had a war and july 4 1776 was the day the british gave up and had rules of what they had the freedom off.
Reply:Frustrated by English oppression and increasing taxes, colonists in all 13 colonies chose representatives for a Continental Congress to develop a common response in 1775. This Congress was largely unsuccessful, so a second one was called in 1776, and it met in Philadelphia.
Based largely on the writings of John Locke, delegates worked out a series of complaints against the king. Most of the writing was done by Thomas Jefferson, although there is no doubt that Benjamin Franklin and others played a part. The first draft of the document was prepared on July 2, 1776, and the final draft was approved and signed two days later. Then it was printed and widely distributed.
Reply:The American colonies felt that they were being taxed unfairly on their trade, because they had no representatives in the British parliament. Their slogan was no taxation without representation. That led to the Boston Tea Party, where the colonists dumped British tea into Boston Harbor and formed militias to get rid of British authorities. The British attempted to bargain with or stop the colonists. You can easily find information by doing a search on the net.
Reply:Here%26#039;s the first part of my own notes, %26quot;trivia%26quot; and things people often miss about the Declaration and those who signed it.
THE WRITING
* not considered THE important event or date at the time -- the July 2nd vote for Richard Henry Lee%26#039;s resolution was the key (and that is the date John Adams expected to be celebrated); the Declaration was almost an afterthought, done in part to allow more time to line up support for the resolution
In one sense this document was not the declaration of independence itself, but the declaration of the REASONS/CAUSES to justify to the world what they had already voted to do, as its preamble specifically states. (This perfectly parallels the English Bill of Rights of 1689, to which it has other connections -- see below)
* it was almost an accident that Jefferson did the main writing. As Committee chair he would be expected to take a lead role, and it WAS considered important, even necessary that a VIRGINIAN should take the lead, to gain conservative Southern support (from delegates who had little respect for those from Massachusetts). BUT Richard Henry Lee had offered the resolution and would presumably have been the chair, except that his wife took ill and he had to leave. If Jefferson had NOT drafted it,most likely John Adams or perhaps Franklin (though far less likely) would have. (As it was, these two did provide a number of suggestions and edits... and may even have offered more instructions on the basic form and content BEFORE the draft was begun.)
THE FORM %26amp; CONTENT, EDITING
* Though Jefferson is responsible for most of the choices of words, phrasing, etc., most of the CONTENT is unoriginal - based first on well-established British forms (esp. the %26quot;English Bill of Rights of 1689%26quot; in which Parliament had listed James II%26#039;s violations of rights, justifying their deposing him in favor of William and Mary, and various STATE declarations of independence that preceded the national one)
-see English Bill of Rights (1689) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/englan...
* Much of the content and basic form -- the argument about their %26quot;rights%26quot; and list of grievances against the King-- was laid out by the FIRST Continental Congress in October 1774, its %26quot;Declarations and Resolves%26quot;. Give it a good read -- you will see not only echoes of the English Bill of Rights, but an interesting list of rights and the basis for them -- not just the Lockean stuff, but specific references to traditional Englishman%26#039;s rights, and appeals to such things as the %26quot;compacts%26quot; created by the early Puritan settlers (e.g., Mayflower Compact).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/resolv...
In short, these documents show that while SOME of the political philosophy was rooted in Locke (though he HIMSELF drew from English political events and traditions), much was NOT from his work
* the three-fold list of %26quot;inalienable rights%26quot; likewise was not Jefferson%26#039;s idea. It was based on a common formula, going back esp. to John Locke; %26quot;the pursuit of happiness%26quot; was an alternative for the more common%26quot;property%26quot;, but even this expression is found in Locke, et.al. and esp. in the %26quot;Virginia Declaration of Rights%26quot; penned by George Mason just before the Declaration, which reads as follows:
%26quot;That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.%26quot;
http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/D/1776-180...
* most of the strongest religious references in the Declaration were added by other committee members or by Congress as a whole. Ironically, the ONE use of %26quot;Christian%26quot; was in Jefferson%26#039;s charge concerning the slave trade - the most significant section to be STRUCK from the Declaration by Congress (at the insistence of South Carolina and Georgia)
* contrary to the mythology, Jefferson did not passively accept the edits by Congress, but was upset with many of them (though he typically did not express his anger in public)
THE VOTE(RS) - note that the vote was actually for the RESOLUTION (on July 2nd)
* the decision was made that the vote for independence MUST be unanimous. This meant that it needed majority support from each delegation, NOT the vote of every single delegate In fact, the key state of Pennsylvania was only able to gain a majority when two members opposed (more to the TIMING than anything else, thinking it a bit premature) agreed to abstain; and Caesar Rodney of Delaware was summoned to make a last-minute ride to break the 1-1 tie in that state%26#039;s vote. (Note: generally, even those who VOTED against the resolution joined in SIGNING the Declaration.)
* by the 4th of July only TWELVE of the colonies had voted for it; New York abstained because of restrictions in instructions they were sent... though later in July they were able to vote for it (see on John Jay below)
PRINTING, SIGNING, SIGNERS
* the original document was signed on July 4th by TWO people - Hancock, as President of Congress, in behalf of all, and Charles Thomson, the Secretary (his post through the entire period of the Second Continental Congress), officially attesting Hancock%26#039;s signature; the signing by others could only begin after a formal copy was %26#039;engrossed%26#039; by the printer and returned to Congress on August 2nd (Most signed on that day, some not there did so later in the month, a few later in the year...)
http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Decl...
* the printer who engrossed the Declaration, Thomas Matlack, HAD been a member of the Society of Friends, but this group remained pacifist during the War; Matlack was one of an independent group of %26quot;Fighting Quakers%26quot; who split off at the beginning of the Revolution
http://www.virtualology.com/declarationo...
* there is some confusion about the LAST signature (even whose it was!) of the 56 signers. Some say it was Thomas McKean, because his name does not appear on the official version released in January 1777, but it%26#039;s possible that was a printer%26#039;s error, and McKean claimed to have signed it much earlier; in that case Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire would be the last to have signed it, in November 1776
http://research.history.org/pf/signers/s...
http://research.history.org/pf/signers/b...
http://research.history.org/pf/signers/i...
* the arrangement of the signatures - Hancock%26#039;s name, as President was centered at the top; then, following a custom at the time, the rest were ordered by geography, North to South, one delegation at a time (New Hampshire delegates signed first, at the top right, Georgia last). BUT (compare previous point) Matthew Thornton did not have enough room to add his name under New Hampshire, so signed at the bottom
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/documents/d...
* John Jay of New York - some mistakenly claim he avoided coming to Congress that year because he did not favor independence.. BUT in fact he had more vital work to do in New York%26#039;s provincial congress at that time... INCLUDING drafting the resolution that authorized New York%26#039;s delegates to the Continental Congress to finally vote for the Declaration later in July, and so to sign it
http://www.nndb.com/people/374/000049227...
* the most famous non-signer - John Dickinson of Pennsylvania- was, at the very same time carrying out Congress%26#039;s charge to draft %26quot;Articles of Confederation%26quot;... and this original form was much stronger and more centralized than the final form adopted in 1777
* it is usually stated that ALL the members kept the pledge (on their %26#039;lives, fortunes and sacred honor%26#039;), and there are some impressive stories about how many did so. But there is some question about Richard Stockton of New Jersey, captured by the British later in the year and pressured to renounce the Revolution. It is unclear and debated whether he effectively did so.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?am...
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles...
biographies of the signers - http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/sig...
What is the declaration of indepence?
I watched something on history channel about it and learned that they were all drunk when signing it. =oP
What is the declaration of indepence?
where americans wanted to seperate fro the british so they had a war and july 4 1776 was the day the british gave up and had rules of what they had the freedom off.
Reply:Frustrated by English oppression and increasing taxes, colonists in all 13 colonies chose representatives for a Continental Congress to develop a common response in 1775. This Congress was largely unsuccessful, so a second one was called in 1776, and it met in Philadelphia.
Based largely on the writings of John Locke, delegates worked out a series of complaints against the king. Most of the writing was done by Thomas Jefferson, although there is no doubt that Benjamin Franklin and others played a part. The first draft of the document was prepared on July 2, 1776, and the final draft was approved and signed two days later. Then it was printed and widely distributed.
Reply:The American colonies felt that they were being taxed unfairly on their trade, because they had no representatives in the British parliament. Their slogan was no taxation without representation. That led to the Boston Tea Party, where the colonists dumped British tea into Boston Harbor and formed militias to get rid of British authorities. The British attempted to bargain with or stop the colonists. You can easily find information by doing a search on the net.
Reply:Here%26#039;s the first part of my own notes, %26quot;trivia%26quot; and things people often miss about the Declaration and those who signed it.
THE WRITING
* not considered THE important event or date at the time -- the July 2nd vote for Richard Henry Lee%26#039;s resolution was the key (and that is the date John Adams expected to be celebrated); the Declaration was almost an afterthought, done in part to allow more time to line up support for the resolution
In one sense this document was not the declaration of independence itself, but the declaration of the REASONS/CAUSES to justify to the world what they had already voted to do, as its preamble specifically states. (This perfectly parallels the English Bill of Rights of 1689, to which it has other connections -- see below)
* it was almost an accident that Jefferson did the main writing. As Committee chair he would be expected to take a lead role, and it WAS considered important, even necessary that a VIRGINIAN should take the lead, to gain conservative Southern support (from delegates who had little respect for those from Massachusetts). BUT Richard Henry Lee had offered the resolution and would presumably have been the chair, except that his wife took ill and he had to leave. If Jefferson had NOT drafted it,most likely John Adams or perhaps Franklin (though far less likely) would have. (As it was, these two did provide a number of suggestions and edits... and may even have offered more instructions on the basic form and content BEFORE the draft was begun.)
THE FORM %26amp; CONTENT, EDITING
* Though Jefferson is responsible for most of the choices of words, phrasing, etc., most of the CONTENT is unoriginal - based first on well-established British forms (esp. the %26quot;English Bill of Rights of 1689%26quot; in which Parliament had listed James II%26#039;s violations of rights, justifying their deposing him in favor of William and Mary, and various STATE declarations of independence that preceded the national one)
-see English Bill of Rights (1689) http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/englan...
* Much of the content and basic form -- the argument about their %26quot;rights%26quot; and list of grievances against the King-- was laid out by the FIRST Continental Congress in October 1774, its %26quot;Declarations and Resolves%26quot;. Give it a good read -- you will see not only echoes of the English Bill of Rights, but an interesting list of rights and the basis for them -- not just the Lockean stuff, but specific references to traditional Englishman%26#039;s rights, and appeals to such things as the %26quot;compacts%26quot; created by the early Puritan settlers (e.g., Mayflower Compact).
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/resolv...
In short, these documents show that while SOME of the political philosophy was rooted in Locke (though he HIMSELF drew from English political events and traditions), much was NOT from his work
* the three-fold list of %26quot;inalienable rights%26quot; likewise was not Jefferson%26#039;s idea. It was based on a common formula, going back esp. to John Locke; %26quot;the pursuit of happiness%26quot; was an alternative for the more common%26quot;property%26quot;, but even this expression is found in Locke, et.al. and esp. in the %26quot;Virginia Declaration of Rights%26quot; penned by George Mason just before the Declaration, which reads as follows:
%26quot;That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.%26quot;
http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/D/1776-180...
* most of the strongest religious references in the Declaration were added by other committee members or by Congress as a whole. Ironically, the ONE use of %26quot;Christian%26quot; was in Jefferson%26#039;s charge concerning the slave trade - the most significant section to be STRUCK from the Declaration by Congress (at the insistence of South Carolina and Georgia)
* contrary to the mythology, Jefferson did not passively accept the edits by Congress, but was upset with many of them (though he typically did not express his anger in public)
THE VOTE(RS) - note that the vote was actually for the RESOLUTION (on July 2nd)
* the decision was made that the vote for independence MUST be unanimous. This meant that it needed majority support from each delegation, NOT the vote of every single delegate In fact, the key state of Pennsylvania was only able to gain a majority when two members opposed (more to the TIMING than anything else, thinking it a bit premature) agreed to abstain; and Caesar Rodney of Delaware was summoned to make a last-minute ride to break the 1-1 tie in that state%26#039;s vote. (Note: generally, even those who VOTED against the resolution joined in SIGNING the Declaration.)
* by the 4th of July only TWELVE of the colonies had voted for it; New York abstained because of restrictions in instructions they were sent... though later in July they were able to vote for it (see on John Jay below)
PRINTING, SIGNING, SIGNERS
* the original document was signed on July 4th by TWO people - Hancock, as President of Congress, in behalf of all, and Charles Thomson, the Secretary (his post through the entire period of the Second Continental Congress), officially attesting Hancock%26#039;s signature; the signing by others could only begin after a formal copy was %26#039;engrossed%26#039; by the printer and returned to Congress on August 2nd (Most signed on that day, some not there did so later in the month, a few later in the year...)
http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Decl...
* the printer who engrossed the Declaration, Thomas Matlack, HAD been a member of the Society of Friends, but this group remained pacifist during the War; Matlack was one of an independent group of %26quot;Fighting Quakers%26quot; who split off at the beginning of the Revolution
http://www.virtualology.com/declarationo...
* there is some confusion about the LAST signature (even whose it was!) of the 56 signers. Some say it was Thomas McKean, because his name does not appear on the official version released in January 1777, but it%26#039;s possible that was a printer%26#039;s error, and McKean claimed to have signed it much earlier; in that case Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire would be the last to have signed it, in November 1776
http://research.history.org/pf/signers/s...
http://research.history.org/pf/signers/b...
http://research.history.org/pf/signers/i...
* the arrangement of the signatures - Hancock%26#039;s name, as President was centered at the top; then, following a custom at the time, the rest were ordered by geography, North to South, one delegation at a time (New Hampshire delegates signed first, at the top right, Georgia last). BUT (compare previous point) Matthew Thornton did not have enough room to add his name under New Hampshire, so signed at the bottom
http://bensguide.gpo.gov/6-8/documents/d...
* John Jay of New York - some mistakenly claim he avoided coming to Congress that year because he did not favor independence.. BUT in fact he had more vital work to do in New York%26#039;s provincial congress at that time... INCLUDING drafting the resolution that authorized New York%26#039;s delegates to the Continental Congress to finally vote for the Declaration later in July, and so to sign it
http://www.nndb.com/people/374/000049227...
* the most famous non-signer - John Dickinson of Pennsylvania- was, at the very same time carrying out Congress%26#039;s charge to draft %26quot;Articles of Confederation%26quot;... and this original form was much stronger and more centralized than the final form adopted in 1777
* it is usually stated that ALL the members kept the pledge (on their %26#039;lives, fortunes and sacred honor%26#039;), and there are some impressive stories about how many did so. But there is some question about Richard Stockton of New Jersey, captured by the British later in the year and pressured to renounce the Revolution. It is unclear and debated whether he effectively did so.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?am...
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles...
biographies of the signers - http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/sig...
The road to World War I help!?
The Triple Alliance was a loose agreement of cooperation among
Serbia, Germany, and Britain.
Italy, Serbia, and France.
Germany, Italy, and Russia.
Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
Which one of the following is NOT considered a major cause of World War I?
the growth of nationalism
impressionism
militarism
internal dissent
Austria-Hungary feared that Serbia would
create a large Slavic state.
kill Archduke Ferdinand.
invade Russia.
invade Germany.
Germany viewed the Russian czar%26#039;s full mobilization of the army as an
act of support for Austria-Hungary.
act of kindness.
act of war.
act of bad judgment.
The German military plan devised by General von Schlieffen
called for war on two fronts.
relied on carpet-bombing.
depended on help from Serbia.
depended on French neutrality.
The road to World War I help!?
Here are some sites that will help you determine the answers.
Serbia, Germany, and Britain.
Italy, Serbia, and France.
Germany, Italy, and Russia.
Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
Which one of the following is NOT considered a major cause of World War I?
the growth of nationalism
impressionism
militarism
internal dissent
Austria-Hungary feared that Serbia would
create a large Slavic state.
kill Archduke Ferdinand.
invade Russia.
invade Germany.
Germany viewed the Russian czar%26#039;s full mobilization of the army as an
act of support for Austria-Hungary.
act of kindness.
act of war.
act of bad judgment.
The German military plan devised by General von Schlieffen
called for war on two fronts.
relied on carpet-bombing.
depended on help from Serbia.
depended on French neutrality.
The road to World War I help!?
Here are some sites that will help you determine the answers.
How did the oil crisis in the 1970s illistrate the problem of economic interdependence?
1. all nations rely on oil and when nations with oil resources underwent political crises, production was halted and prices soared, creating economic shock waves.
2. the dependence of the us on middle e oil was seriously damaged when saudi arabian oil fields were attacked by afghnistan%26#039;s rebel forces
3. multinational corporations had brought new technologies to developing countries, which used this new technology to create alternative fuels at high costs
4. less-developed nations, once dependent on the middle e for oil, joined the OPEC and were able to get substantial discounts on oil reserves
How did the oil crisis in the 1970s illistrate the problem of economic interdependence?
Carter told us in the 70s that we needed to get away from Arab oil dependence.
2. the dependence of the us on middle e oil was seriously damaged when saudi arabian oil fields were attacked by afghnistan%26#039;s rebel forces
3. multinational corporations had brought new technologies to developing countries, which used this new technology to create alternative fuels at high costs
4. less-developed nations, once dependent on the middle e for oil, joined the OPEC and were able to get substantial discounts on oil reserves
How did the oil crisis in the 1970s illistrate the problem of economic interdependence?
Carter told us in the 70s that we needed to get away from Arab oil dependence.
Why was the chinese cultural revolution important in history?
lol idk babe
google it
Why was the chinese cultural revolution important in history?
It was important becase it brought trade usein the silk rod which was one of the largerst trade routes in China.
google it
Why was the chinese cultural revolution important in history?
It was important becase it brought trade usein the silk rod which was one of the largerst trade routes in China.
The French revolution inspired revolutions in what other region?
I wrote my senior thesis on this. Mostly dealing with the Caribbean and the French colonies there. Haiti (San Domingue), Guadeloupe, Martinique and even St. Lucia all saw there own revolutions. It was a blur of alliances. Slave v White, Republican white v. Royalist white, free blacks v. slaves, British and Royalist French v Republican French and free blacks. The combinations are numerous. My argument was that the Revolution and the Great Terror drifted across the Atlantic into the colonies. There were other historians, like David Geggus, that argued the slave revolts would have occured even without revolution in France. Laurent Dubois argued however that the revolts were a direct response to the Revolution in France. I agreed with Dubois%26#039; stance. Mostly because after the Revolution, there was a large increase in revolts and they were organized with a language to rally to. Check my authors list
The French revolution inspired revolutions in what other region?
Rousseau inspired the American Revolution, but IT inspired the French Revolution, which began several years after the American one ended. Listen to th man who did his thesis on the subject.
The French revolution inspired revolutions in what other region?
Rousseau inspired the American Revolution, but IT inspired the French Revolution, which began several years after the American one ended. Listen to th man who did his thesis on the subject.
Which of the following led to the reunification of germany in 1989?
1. the european union%26#039;s euro currency brought economic success to france, a staunch ally of west germany
2. communism declined in the soviet union
3. the us divided its military support between east and w germany
4. rebels in west germany revolted against party leadership
Which of the following led to the reunification of germany in 1989?
Here
Which of the following led to the reunification of germany in 1989?
Definitely #2. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the USSR, and he began easing up on the restictions that had prevailed throughout the country and its satellites. When he paid a visit to East Germany, crowds shouted, %26quot;Gorby! Help us!%26quot; About the same time, East Germans began taking %26quot;vacations%26quot; to other parts of Europe (something that wouldn%26#039;t have been allowed a couple of decades earlier) and ending up in WEST Germany. A political cartoon about that time depicted East Germany as a ship whose captain, looking resolutely ahead, was proclaiming, %26quot;Steady as she goes!%26#039; while another office, about midway back, was helping a stream of passengers off the ship and admonishing them, %26quot;Steady as you go.%26quot;
Reply:2
2. communism declined in the soviet union
3. the us divided its military support between east and w germany
4. rebels in west germany revolted against party leadership
Which of the following led to the reunification of germany in 1989?
Here
Which of the following led to the reunification of germany in 1989?
Definitely #2. Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of the USSR, and he began easing up on the restictions that had prevailed throughout the country and its satellites. When he paid a visit to East Germany, crowds shouted, %26quot;Gorby! Help us!%26quot; About the same time, East Germans began taking %26quot;vacations%26quot; to other parts of Europe (something that wouldn%26#039;t have been allowed a couple of decades earlier) and ending up in WEST Germany. A political cartoon about that time depicted East Germany as a ship whose captain, looking resolutely ahead, was proclaiming, %26quot;Steady as she goes!%26#039; while another office, about midway back, was helping a stream of passengers off the ship and admonishing them, %26quot;Steady as you go.%26quot;
Reply:2
Why were so many Vietnamese people apposed to Ngo Dinh Diem? Also what eventually happened to him?
Many Vietnamese opposed Ngo Dinh Diem because he was a dictator. He took control and stifled opposition to his control.
%26quot;Ngo Dinh Diem oppressed the Vietnamese people so badly that many of them turned to the communists for protection from his ruthless rule. Even President Eisenhower admitted that %26quot;had elections been held (as agreed upon in the Geneva Convention in 1954), possibly 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.%26quot; Yet Diem, who once lived in the U.S., had connections in Washington who liked his anti-communism. He founded the Can Lao Party (CLP), a secret police force overseen by his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and Nhu%26#039;s wife, Madame Nhu. The three (whom one U.S. official called %26quot;three victims of blankwall irrationality%26quot;) were notorious for their ineptitude and cruelty, and, according to Brigadier General Edward Lansdale, the CLP was not their idea; %26quot;it was originally prmoted by the U.S. State Department%26quot; to rid the country of communists.
Diem alienated urban professionals by suppressing all opposition to his regime. He alienated peasants by cancelling their their age old local elections, forcing them off their land, and moving them into %26quot;agrovilles%26quot; surrounded by barbed wire, which even U.S. officials conceded bore a striking resemblance to concentration camps. Ultimately, he angered his own military officers because he promoted on the basis of loyalty (as seen in China%26#039;s failed dictator Chiang Kai-shek too) - not merit. In an effort to keep Diem in power, the U.S. tried to persuade him to make political reforms. He refused, so they persuaded him to make military reforms. But when Diem was finally overthrown and assassinated in 1963, none of his generals rose to defend him. Nor did the U.S., which, after 8 years, had finally realized that Diem wasn%26#039;t popular.%26quot;
He was eventually murdered by his generals in a coup that the CIA and the American government knew about and were responsible for in many ways.
%26quot;Ngo Dinh Diem oppressed the Vietnamese people so badly that many of them turned to the communists for protection from his ruthless rule. Even President Eisenhower admitted that %26quot;had elections been held (as agreed upon in the Geneva Convention in 1954), possibly 80% of the population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.%26quot; Yet Diem, who once lived in the U.S., had connections in Washington who liked his anti-communism. He founded the Can Lao Party (CLP), a secret police force overseen by his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and Nhu%26#039;s wife, Madame Nhu. The three (whom one U.S. official called %26quot;three victims of blankwall irrationality%26quot;) were notorious for their ineptitude and cruelty, and, according to Brigadier General Edward Lansdale, the CLP was not their idea; %26quot;it was originally prmoted by the U.S. State Department%26quot; to rid the country of communists.
Diem alienated urban professionals by suppressing all opposition to his regime. He alienated peasants by cancelling their their age old local elections, forcing them off their land, and moving them into %26quot;agrovilles%26quot; surrounded by barbed wire, which even U.S. officials conceded bore a striking resemblance to concentration camps. Ultimately, he angered his own military officers because he promoted on the basis of loyalty (as seen in China%26#039;s failed dictator Chiang Kai-shek too) - not merit. In an effort to keep Diem in power, the U.S. tried to persuade him to make political reforms. He refused, so they persuaded him to make military reforms. But when Diem was finally overthrown and assassinated in 1963, none of his generals rose to defend him. Nor did the U.S., which, after 8 years, had finally realized that Diem wasn%26#039;t popular.%26quot;
He was eventually murdered by his generals in a coup that the CIA and the American government knew about and were responsible for in many ways.
Tutankhamens dad?
was his dad Amen- RE?
i need 2 know right now pleasee (:
i have to write a essayyy.
^ it sucks though haha
i need 2 know right now pleasee (:
i have to write a essayyy.
^ it sucks though haha
Great American Short Stories?
The most significant conflict in %26quot;Bernice Bobs Her Hair%26quot; is between
A. Warren and Marjorie.
B. Marjorie and men in general.
C. Bernice and Marjorie.
D. Bernice and herself.
Which one of the following items is an example of a symbol in %26quot;Bernice Bobs Her Hair%26quot;?
A. Marjorie%26#039;s talk with her mother
B. Bernice%26#039;s car
C. The dinner-dance at the country club
D. Bernice%26#039;s haircut
Great American Short Stories?
D and C
A. Warren and Marjorie.
B. Marjorie and men in general.
C. Bernice and Marjorie.
D. Bernice and herself.
Which one of the following items is an example of a symbol in %26quot;Bernice Bobs Her Hair%26quot;?
A. Marjorie%26#039;s talk with her mother
B. Bernice%26#039;s car
C. The dinner-dance at the country club
D. Bernice%26#039;s haircut
Great American Short Stories?
D and C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)