Dbq Essay

Role of Government Directions The following question requires you to construct a coherent essay that integrates your interpretation of Documents A–H and your knowledge of the period referred to in the question. High scores will be earned only for essays that both cite key pieces of evidence from the documents and draw on outside knowledge of the period. 1. Analyze the extent to which western expansion affected the lives of Native Americans during the period 1860–90 and evaluate the role of the federal government in those effects. Use the documents and responses to each document to construct your response. Document A Santana, Chief of the Kiowas Source: Santana, Chief of the

People had many different opinions on the ratification of the Constitution. There were Federalists and Anti-Federalists that debated on many topics of the Constitution. The main reasons were: what type of government the United States of America should have, the people controlling our government, and some of the powers they should have. The Federalists were the ones who wanted change. They wanted to make changes to the government that was originally proposed. The Federalists wanted the government to protect the people, but not abuse their powers. They wanted to have the powers divided between the national and the state governments. The Constitution also stated that the government

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was held to address problems in governing the United States which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation since it’s independence from Britain. Fifty-five delegates from the states attended the convention to address these issues. The delegates consisted of federalists who wanted a strong central government to maintain order and were mainly wealthier merchants and plantation owners and anti-federalists who were farmers, tradesmen and local politicians who feared losing their power and believed more power should be given to the states. The Constitutional Convention dealt with the issue of the debate between federalists and anti-federalists. The debates, arguments and compromises

Establishing an effective system of government has proven to be an obstacle for centuries. Fortunately, the Founding Father recognized the common flaws of governments, as did many common men in the colonies. Consequently, the ratification of the constitution was vital for a healthy governmental system, though it did bring about much debate and persuasion. There were two main positions which people took during the ratification, those being the Anti-Federalist and the Federalist. The Anti-Federalist were a diverse assembly involving prominent men such as George Mason and Patrick Henry, and also the most unlikely of individuals, those being Farmers and shopkeepers. The chief complaint about the Constitution was that it confiscated the power from the sates, thereby robbing the people of their power. Oppositely, the Federalist believed in removing some control from the states and imparting that power to the national government, thus making America partially national. Throughout this debate, many letters were shared between the two sides, and eventually, it led to the federalist winning over the colonies.

It was inevitable and unavoidable that violence and dispossession were outcomes of the centuries-long confirmation of Native Americans with European settlers and their American descendants. European settlers were relentless whenever they were introduced to things that were appealing to their eye. If they wanted it, then they would go get it due to the superior mindset of the Europeans.

The ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 sparked a ferocious and spiteful debate between two large groups of people, those who supported the ratification and those who did not. Both sides were very passionate about their ideas yet they were so divergent, as one believed that the ratification could create a more powerful, unified country, while others worried about the government gaining perhaps too much control. The supporters and opponents equally had various strong reasons in their beliefs regarding the ratification of the US Constitution, the most common for the supporters being that the current government was heading badly, and a ratification would fix all the mistakes made originally and set the course for a successful government. On the other hand, the biggest concern for the opponents was that the ratification would give the government too much power, and there would be no controlling force to keep the government in its place.

When the founding fathers realized the articles were going to bring the US to chaos, they called a convention in Philadelphia to draft the U.S. Constitution as we know it. This Constitution brought popular sovereignty and republicanism, the ability to collect national taxes and proportional voting. Without these crucial aspects, our world today would be a much different place today, but not for the better. That is why if I had been a U.S. citizen at the time of both the Constitutional Convention and the state ratification debates, I would have supported the Constitutional

In 1787, the Constitutional Convention was held in Philadelphia in hopes of revising the Articles of Confederation before the new, established country would become unsustainable. The Articles of Confederation had failed the country as the central government was not strong enough to uphold the country and protect the people’s rights. They were then abandoned and the Founding Fathers began to draft a new government system, what we now know as the US Constitution. At the time the dilemma was, should the Constitution be ratified? The Constitution should be ratified considering that it averts abuse of power, is effective in regulation, and is in the interest of the people.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the constitution proved to be a more significant event in American political history than the Declaration of Independence. Many of the american leaders believed we needed to a new, stronger government. They had to persuade the states that stronger government was the right direction to ensure the country’s success.They did that with the constitutional convention but, To sway the states in the right direction documents such as the Federalist papers led the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. Which then led to the U.S. Constitution that we still live by to the day.

The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution while the Anti Federalists were against it. This boiled down to simple beliefs held by both groups. Anti Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government and left state governments powerless. Anti Federalists were in favor of a weaker central governments and stronger local state governments. They believed that central government was too far removed from the people, and that the nation was too large, for it to serve them on a local state basis. This resulted in the fear that people’s voices would be taken away; this fear of oppression was only increased by the fact that the Constitution didn’t include a Bill of Rights. However, Federalists believed that a strong central government, accompanied by the Constitution, was needed after the Article of Confederation failed or the nation wouldn’t survive. In the eyes of the Federalists, a Bill of Rights was not needed because the Constitution did not put any limits on the rights of the citizens; however

Analyze the responses of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration to the problems of the Great Depression. How effective were these responses? How did they change the role of the federal government?

Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist The road to accepting the Constitution of the United States was neither easy nor predetermined. In fact during and after its drafting a wide-ranging debate was held between those who supported the Constitution, the Federalists, and those who were against it, the Anti-Federalists. The basis of this debate regarded the kind of government the Constitution was proposing, a centralized republic. Included in the debate over a centralized government were issues concerning the affect the Constitution would have on state power, the power of the different branches of government that the Constitution would create, and the issue of a standing army. One of the most important concerns of the

With the era of American Reconstruction in America during the mid to late 1800’s came a sense of opportunity and hope for its people. America was on the move as nation, railroads being built faster than ever and the freedmen looking to find their niche in society. Although in the beginning the government provided support for these new citizens, efforts toward reconstruction faded as the years passed. Those efforts faded to a point where they were all but nonexistent, and with the unwritten Compromise of 1877, what feeble efforts that were left of reconstruction were now all but dead. Politically, reconstruction failed to provide equality by pulling Federal troops from the South, allowing former Confederate officials and slave owners

The effects of the Cuban Revolution on women’s lives and gender relations in Cuba from 1959 to 1990 include that some say women have not reached equality yet with men, women gained more opportunities for themselves, economy and politics, and also how women still had responsibility for children and home, not men.

(Document 2) This quote illustrates that there was no way to prevent the branches (executive, judicial, legislative) from abusing their powers. The anti-federalists feared what this strong central government would become. Reasonably, if the constitution was ratified, the federalists would have endless control. The anti federalists feared the government would become a monarchy. Perhaps the biggest argument was mentioned in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, “it is the opinion of this convention that certain amendments and alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of the commonwealth….powers not expressly delegated by the constitution… are reserved to several states.” (Document 6) This quote states that the powers that were not given to the original constitution would now be given to the states. Basically, if there was any right or law not originally in the constitution the states were given the right to adjust and look after it.