American History Homework Two Answers - Student 35

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of American History Homework Two Answers - Student 35 as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 09:40, 22 June 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

10/6/08

by JonathanL

1) religious freedom, individual freedom, and economic freedom, or not having to conform to long standing regulations regarding what you can and can not do, basically allowing for capitalism.

Good, original insights.

2.) Reverend Jonathan Mayhew used the term in a sermon in Boston in 1750. This phrase was used to describe the bitter feelings towards Britons ability to tax the colonies without them having any say or position in Parliament.

Correct.

3.) the Boston tea party took place on 12/16/1773. It was led by Samuel adams in an attempt to underscore the colonists valid hatred towards the newly passed “Tea Act” of 1773. Colonists, disguised as Indians, boarded British ships and dumped overboard 350 chests of tea! Although this did have a significant financial impact, nearly 1.8 million $ in today’s terms, the real point of the attack was to show 1) that the colonists were not intimidated by the British, and 2.) that they were at this point in time in their young history ready to branch off from Britain… this must have been a scary time for English officials during this time period.

Excellent, but could say a bit more about who owned the ship and what the objection to that tea was.

4.) The devil, regardless of if the girls were possessed, is to blame. Either way people were killed, whether the allegations were true or not. This IS the work of the devil… as for the girls you would think that they would have better common sense as to not pretend to be demonic in a Puritan society, who historically to this point has not been known to take kindly to other religions, let alone some little girls claiming that they were controlled by the devil. All this can only lead me to believe that these girls were in fact possessed, not only because it would be so foolish to make such a claim, but also, according to record anyway, these girls were said to have identical stories.

Superb answer, which I would have included in the model answers if you had posted this by the deadline!

5.) FALSE. Colonies having more religious freedom ought to have greater conflict with the king, because Protestantism was the norm at the time in England, and though not all the colonists were English, the greater percentage were… that being said, religious freedom in this case would have to mean Catholicism, or Anglicism, which were not the standard in England… This would mean that religiously tolerant colonies would have more disputes with the king than non-tolerant, or religiously free colonies.

Good insights, but you need examples (colonies) to back up your theory, which you might have a hard time finding, which may cause you to reconsider your theory. Otherwise your answer is excellent. (Minus 1).

6.) Debate: Should England have been able to impose direct taxes on the colonies?

This is a vague question, leaving up for interpretation whether or not the colonies were able to have representation for these taxes, and whether or not English citizens were subject to these same taxes. However, answering this question strictly from the historical point of view, i.e. not having representation for their taxes, I believe and know that it was completely wrong of England to impose direct taxes. I also get the impression that God did not appreciate this at some level, the fact that England was a protestant country and they were using their power, with the God label on their shields, to impose all of these taxes… I would assume that this gave a bad name at some level for Christianity, seeing a world power such as England say they are Christian and then do something like this…. Well God had his vengeance, and freed us from that “world power” only shortly there after, a testament to the character, and power, of God.

Fascinating approach!

7.) This cartoon represents the colonies need to unite, or their unavoidable doom. This cartoon had to be created before the war, as a very moving picture of what the colonists will be undivided, useless, or what they could be together, a deadly serpent. This is represented as all the state abbreviations are next to different parts of the divided snake… but I wonder, did they put more important colonies near the head of the snake?

Nice guess, but the order is geographic. Also, it would be "before the war," but the real issue (question) is when before the war (1754). Good otherwise. (Minus 1).

H1) What is interesting about this map is that all areas left of the dotted line have Either French or Indian names. Looking at the map you can see what a small portion of today’s America the original colonies made up, and how much of a miracle it was that we won the war seeing how accessible our ports were for British ships to just come and go as they pleased.

Superb.

H4) The key differences between colonial America and England was very evident. Their economies were very different. Although England was not communist, it definitely did not allow for the same growth of individuals as today’s United States does, such as Capitalism. Although not at first, America has much more religious freedom then England did, the cultures were similar, most likely because most of the colonists were from England. I think that the two most interesting differences between America and Briton, which still hold true to this day, is that 1) how we have the freedom of the press. We take it for granted that we have this right, but people in Briton, to this very day, can get arrested for speaking out against the government, or anyone in power for that matter. It also proved that the truth is the perfect response or defense against libel, or defamation.

"differences ... WERE (not "was")". Excellent, but England was somewhat capitalistic, perhaps not quite as much as American.

H5) Debate: Do you think a jury should be able to ignore the law in order to find a defendant “not guilty?”

Although it may work in the favor of the accused for the wrong reasons at times, I do feel strongly that the jury should be able to ignore the law and do “the right thing,” if necessary. Without this ability you lose the factor of human interpretation, which can be important. Sometimes breaking the law for the greater good is important, and without this human interpretation element you could put a lot of people that were doing the wrong thing for the right reasons behind jail, which I strongly feel is wrong. As I said, granted you can, and will make mistakes with this method, but I feel that the majority of the time this outlook to law will be very beneficial to the legal process as a whole.

Excellent answer.
Very well done. Lost 3 points for being late. Score: 95/100.--Aschlafly 10:38, 10 October 2008 (EDT)