Difference between revisions of "Homework Four Answers - Student Two"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "American History lecture four homework 1: The northern states supported tariffs because they were man...")
 
(good work)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
1: The northern states supported tariffs because they were manufacturers and the tariffs raised the price of goods from overseas, making it harder for England and other countries to compete with them. The southern states opposed them because they lowered the amount of competition and in so doing raised the prices of goods that they needed to buy.
 
1: The northern states supported tariffs because they were manufacturers and the tariffs raised the price of goods from overseas, making it harder for England and other countries to compete with them. The southern states opposed them because they lowered the amount of competition and in so doing raised the prices of goods that they needed to buy.
 +
 +
:Excellent ... and also resulted in retaliatory tariffs against the exports on which the South relied for income.  (Minus 1).
  
 
2: I think the states do have the right to secede. In the case of the nullification doctrine, if the Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional then the states would have had a reasonable reason top secede.  
 
2: I think the states do have the right to secede. In the case of the nullification doctrine, if the Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional then the states would have had a reasonable reason top secede.  
 +
 +
:Good.
  
 
3:  James Madison was probably the most conservative of the early presidents after George Washington. This was shown by his many conservative decisions such as the Missouri Compromise and the Monroe Doctrine.
 
3:  James Madison was probably the most conservative of the early presidents after George Washington. This was shown by his many conservative decisions such as the Missouri Compromise and the Monroe Doctrine.
 +
 +
:You meant to say "Monroe", not "Madison".  It would be good to proofread your own work before turning it in.  Otherwise your answer is good.  (Minus 1).
  
 
4:  I think the war of 1812 was necessary because there was still building enmity between England and the U.S. and war would most likely have come eventually. Also it established us firmly as our own country completely apart from the English.  
 
4:  I think the war of 1812 was necessary because there was still building enmity between England and the U.S. and war would most likely have come eventually. Also it established us firmly as our own country completely apart from the English.  
 +
 +
:Your answer could benefit from some additional specificity.  (Minus 1).
  
 
5: Debate: Is it wrong for a politician to cut a deal with another politician like the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay?
 
5: Debate: Is it wrong for a politician to cut a deal with another politician like the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay?
 +
 
It is not against the constitution to do so and I think that it is basically the same as any other compromise and should be allowed.  
 
It is not against the constitution to do so and I think that it is basically the same as any other compromise and should be allowed.  
 +
 +
:Good.
  
 
6:  
 
6:  
Line 18: Line 29:
 
8: The thing that surprised me most about the map of the United States in 1840 was the amount of land that was still claimed by Britain.
 
8: The thing that surprised me most about the map of the United States in 1840 was the amount of land that was still claimed by Britain.
  
 +
:Right.  Could be a model answer.
  
 
Honors questions
 
Honors questions
  
 
1: I completely disagree that we overpaid for the Louisiana Purchase. A dollar was less than 30 times as valuable as today. This comes out as less than 90 cents an acre by today’s standards. The Louisiana Purchase was one of the best deals ever made. According to the Democratic Republicans, who believed that they should stay as close as possible to the founding fathers original intent and have only the powers granted them in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (which is to say they were strict constructionists), the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. However according to the loose constructionist Federalist Party it could have been considered constitutional. (Note: Jefferson himself did not consider it to be constitutional)  
 
1: I completely disagree that we overpaid for the Louisiana Purchase. A dollar was less than 30 times as valuable as today. This comes out as less than 90 cents an acre by today’s standards. The Louisiana Purchase was one of the best deals ever made. According to the Democratic Republicans, who believed that they should stay as close as possible to the founding fathers original intent and have only the powers granted them in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (which is to say they were strict constructionists), the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. However according to the loose constructionist Federalist Party it could have been considered constitutional. (Note: Jefferson himself did not consider it to be constitutional)  
 +
 +
:Interesting point about Jefferson, but why should we have had to pay for land that would could have simply settled anyway?  Should we have "purchased" New Jersey also from someone?  Also, note that most of the Louisiana Purchase is not being used even to this day.
  
 
2: my favorite political party from the lecture is the democratic republican party because it was the party that I agreed most with as far as its basic views.  
 
2: my favorite political party from the lecture is the democratic republican party because it was the party that I agreed most with as far as its basic views.  
 +
 +
:OK.
  
 
3:  Debate: Was the "Louisiana Purchase" an improper exercise of power?
 
3:  Debate: Was the "Louisiana Purchase" an improper exercise of power?
 
The Louisiana was not a improper exercise of power because even though it was unconstitutional it was beneficial to the country and was (I think) what the American people wanted which in a democracy cannot generally be an improper exercise of power.  
 
The Louisiana was not a improper exercise of power because even though it was unconstitutional it was beneficial to the country and was (I think) what the American people wanted which in a democracy cannot generally be an improper exercise of power.  
 +
 +
:That's an interesting view of what is constitutional.  Under that theory, why even have a constitution if it is simply "majority rule"?
  
 
4:  
 
4:  
Line 34: Line 52:
  
 
Jon S.
 
Jon S.
 +
 +
:Grade: 87/90.  Some interesting answers!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 6 March 2011 (EST)

Revision as of 16:47, 6 March 2011

American History lecture four homework

1: The northern states supported tariffs because they were manufacturers and the tariffs raised the price of goods from overseas, making it harder for England and other countries to compete with them. The southern states opposed them because they lowered the amount of competition and in so doing raised the prices of goods that they needed to buy.

Excellent ... and also resulted in retaliatory tariffs against the exports on which the South relied for income. (Minus 1).

2: I think the states do have the right to secede. In the case of the nullification doctrine, if the Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional then the states would have had a reasonable reason top secede.

Good.

3: James Madison was probably the most conservative of the early presidents after George Washington. This was shown by his many conservative decisions such as the Missouri Compromise and the Monroe Doctrine.

You meant to say "Monroe", not "Madison". It would be good to proofread your own work before turning it in. Otherwise your answer is good. (Minus 1).

4: I think the war of 1812 was necessary because there was still building enmity between England and the U.S. and war would most likely have come eventually. Also it established us firmly as our own country completely apart from the English.

Your answer could benefit from some additional specificity. (Minus 1).

5: Debate: Is it wrong for a politician to cut a deal with another politician like the "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay?

It is not against the constitution to do so and I think that it is basically the same as any other compromise and should be allowed.

Good.

6:

7:

8: The thing that surprised me most about the map of the United States in 1840 was the amount of land that was still claimed by Britain.

Right. Could be a model answer.

Honors questions

1: I completely disagree that we overpaid for the Louisiana Purchase. A dollar was less than 30 times as valuable as today. This comes out as less than 90 cents an acre by today’s standards. The Louisiana Purchase was one of the best deals ever made. According to the Democratic Republicans, who believed that they should stay as close as possible to the founding fathers original intent and have only the powers granted them in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution (which is to say they were strict constructionists), the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional. However according to the loose constructionist Federalist Party it could have been considered constitutional. (Note: Jefferson himself did not consider it to be constitutional)

Interesting point about Jefferson, but why should we have had to pay for land that would could have simply settled anyway? Should we have "purchased" New Jersey also from someone? Also, note that most of the Louisiana Purchase is not being used even to this day.

2: my favorite political party from the lecture is the democratic republican party because it was the party that I agreed most with as far as its basic views.

OK.

3: Debate: Was the "Louisiana Purchase" an improper exercise of power? The Louisiana was not a improper exercise of power because even though it was unconstitutional it was beneficial to the country and was (I think) what the American people wanted which in a democracy cannot generally be an improper exercise of power.

That's an interesting view of what is constitutional. Under that theory, why even have a constitution if it is simply "majority rule"?

4:

5:


Jon S.

Grade: 87/90. Some interesting answers!--Andy Schlafly 16:47, 6 March 2011 (EST)