Changes

1.  '''Disqualify answer choices that contain language that is too sweeping''', such as "everyone" or "only".  Here is an example.  Question: "Why was George Washington elected president?"  Possible answer choice:  "Because everyone wanted him.  Nope, not "everyone" liked George Washington.  Here is another example.  Question: "Why was slavery used?"  Answer:  "Solely because of greed."  Nope.  Not "solely" (or "purely" or "only”) because of greed. Some common "sweeping" words that signal an incorrect answer choice are: everyone, always, never, only, solely, purely, all and every.

1.  '''Disqualify answer choices that contain language that is too sweeping''', such as "everyone" or "only".  Here is an example.  Question: "Why was George Washington elected president?"  Possible answer choice:  "Because everyone wanted him.  Nope, not "everyone" liked George Washington.  Here is another example.  Question: "Why was slavery used?"  Answer:  "Solely because of greed."  Nope.  Not "solely" (or "purely" or "only”) because of greed. Some common "sweeping" words that signal an incorrect answer choice are: everyone, always, never, only, solely, purely, all and every.

2.  '''Look for the answer choice that is the best fit to the question'''.  The question is like a "lock" or "key hole", and you are looking for the answer (or the "key") that is the best fit.  Matching the verb or concept behind the question with the best fitting verb or concept in the answer can help.  For example, when a question asks about "exploration", the answer that says to "find" the best route would be a good fit and correct.

2.  '''Look for the answer choice that is the best fit to the question'''.  The question is like a "lock" or "key hole," and you are looking for the answer (or the "key") that is the best fit.  Matching the verb or concept behind the question with the best fitting verb or concept in the answer can help.  For example, when a question asks about "exploration", the answer choice that contains the verb "to find" the best route would be a good fit, and correct.

3.  When a question completely baffles you, such as a question asking for a hidden political motive behind the "Wizard of Oz" movie, '''consider a possible economic (money-based) answer'''.  Historical events and politics are motivated more by money than most students realize.  When you're lost and can't explain why people did something, like have slaves, then think if there was a economic or financial motivation for owning slaves.  There was: slaves were virtually free labor, and were more profitable to use than paying someone to do the job.  Slave-owners became richer than many people who opposed slavery.

3.  When a question completely baffles you, such as a question asking for a hidden political motive behind the "Wizard of Oz" movie, '''consider a possible economic (money-based) answer'''.  Historical events and politics are motivated more by money than most students realize.  When you're lost and can't explain why people did something, like have slaves, then think if there was a economic or financial motivation for owning slaves.  There was: slaves were virtually free labor, and were more profitable to use than paying someone to do the job.  Slave-owners became richer than many people who opposed slavery.

To learn history well, imagine being there at certain times and places.  Think of what it might have been like.  Imagine it in your mind.  Put yourself at the time and place of the Boston Massacre, for example.  Try to see both sides of the conflict, and why people acted as they did.  Why did the British soldiers shoot their guns?  Because people were throwing snowballs at them, some containing rocks.  Why were colonists throwing snowballs?  Because they did not think the British soldiers should be there.  Why were the British soldiers there?  Because the King George III ordered them to be there to keep things under control.  And so on.

To learn history well, imagine being there at certain times and places.  Think of what it might have been like.  Imagine it in your mind.  Put yourself at the time and place of the Boston Massacre, for example.  Try to see both sides of the conflict, and why people acted as they did.  Why did the British soldiers shoot their guns?  Because people were throwing snowballs at them, some containing rocks.  Why were colonists throwing snowballs?  Because they did not think the British soldiers should be there.  Why were the British soldiers there?  Because the King George III ordered them to be there to keep things under control.  And so on.

We discussed how England had reasons for imposing its direct taxation on the colonists, in order to pay for the [[French and Indian War]].  But how do we know that the taxes were to pay for the war?  Would that be all that the taxes would be paying for?  Would the taxes cease when the war debt was paid?  Probably not: most likely those taxes would never end, even after the war was fully paid.

We discussed how England had reasons for imposing its direct taxation on the colonists, in order to pay for the [[French and Indian War]].  But how do we know that the taxes were to pay for the war?  Would the taxes pay directly for the war, or would taxes be used to pay for more than the war?  Would the taxes cease when the war debt was paid?  Probably not: most likely those taxes would never end, even after the war was fully paid.

Learn to use your imagination and common sense to understand history, and see the motivations on both sides of conflicts.  One side may be completely wrong, but understand why it is motivated to act as it does.  Often the reason is simple:  to make more money.

Learn to use your imagination and common sense to understand history, and see the motivations on both sides of conflicts.  One side may be completely wrong, but understand why it is motivated to act as it does.  Often the reason is simple:  to make more money.

Ask yourself this question:  was the American Revolution a "conservative revolution?"  It did not attempt to overthrow and remove King George III, who ruled for 60 years (including nearly 40 years after American Revolution).  The American Revolution was not motivated to establish a brand new future with its own leader, and for years afterwards the colonies (then states) refused to have a president at all.  Instead, the American Revolution was an attempt to restore the past of the colonies, and restore natural God-given rights as the colonists understood them.   

Ask yourself this question:  was the American Revolution a "conservative revolution?"  It did not attempt to overthrow and remove King George III, who ruled for 60 years (including nearly 40 years after American Revolution).  The American Revolution was not motivated to establish a brand new future with its own leader, because for the first few years after the Revolution the colonies (then states) refused to have a president at all.  Instead, the American Revolution was an attempt to restore the past of the colonies, and restore natural God-given rights as the colonists understood them.   

==State Constitutions==

==State Constitutions==

All the constitutions then, and now, contain references to [[God]].<ref>http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html</ref>  But many were fed up with kings, and their opposition to concentrating power in one person was reflected in the states' constitutions.   

All the constitutions then, and now, contain references to [[God]].<ref>http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html</ref>  But many were fed up with kings, and their opposition to concentrating power in one person was reflected in the states' constitutions.   

Power was generally concentrated in the legislative branch rather than in an executive like a governor.  The concept of governors rankled with the states, after their bad experiences with governors appointed from England, who had absolute veto power.  The colonists typically deprived their new governors of having the power to veto any legislation.  A bill became law as soon as the legislature passed it.  In many cases, the governor was elected by the legislature as well.

The state constitutions concentrated power in the legislative branch rather than in an executive like a governor.  The concept of governors rankled with the states, after their bad experiences with governors appointed from England, who had absolute veto power.  The colonists typically deprived their new governors of having the power to veto any legislation.  A bill became law as soon as the legislature passed it.  In many cases, the governor was elected by the legislature as well.

Short term lengths were also used to limit the power of governors, as some state constitutions set the time period for a governor to serve at only one year!

Short term lengths were also used to limit the power of governors, as some state constitutions set the time period for a governor to serve at only one year!

The new courts lacked power just as the governors did.  In Pennsylvania, the general assembly could remove judges at any time for vaguely defined "misbehavior".  The situation was similar in Rhode Island.  One judge decided that Rhode Island's attempts to force citizens to use paper money was unconstitutional.  He and other judges who agreed with him were then dismissed by the legislature.

The state courts lacked power just as the governors did.  In Pennsylvania, the general assembly could remove judges at any time for vaguely defined "misbehavior".  The situation was similar in Rhode Island.  One judge decided that Rhode Island's attempts to force citizens to use paper money was unconstitutional.  He and other judges who agreed with him were then dismissed by the legislature.

Perhaps the new state governments put in place after the war may have overreacted in avoiding the policies of the British.  Or perhaps the new state governments had it right in limiting the concentration of power.  But those who favor concentrated power began demanding a new national government.

Perhaps the new state governments put in place after the war may have overreacted in avoiding the policies of the British.  Or perhaps the new state governments had it right in limiting the concentration of power.

'''Debate:  Were State Constitutions Right or Misguided in Concentrating Nearly All Power in the Legislature?'''

'''Debate:  Were State Constitutions Right or Misguided in Concentrating Nearly All Power in the Legislature?'''