Well that would be a democracy run by Jackson. Correct? And I think that would cause an imbalance in power.
Plato was probably talking about a Democratic government which is composed of several leaders that are in-charge of particular cities and communities in a country. During his time, Plato is a known philosopher who spent his time discussing with people in plazas and squares arguing about almost anything under the sun.
Answer:
In my opinion, I would be for the U.S. expansion. With the expansion comes opportunities for new jobs, farming, new trading routes, and overall a chance at a new life. Although it is inaccurate to say that I would be in need of a job considering that I did not live at the same, I would assume that those in need of farm land and work would appreciate the movement. If I were a rich man living in the city during the time of expansion, I would still agree with the expansion. Because of the amount of people in search of a job in the city, the streets were crowded, work places were filled to the top, and people were desperate for work. The expansion allows for these people to move and find new work somewhere else that does not interfere with my work. However, we can not overlook the horrible things that came with this movement such as slavery, the deaths of many people, and the basic fact that it was unconstitutional. In perspective, this question could differ depending on the person. I would have been against the expansion if I were an Indian whose home was taken and whose family was being killed by the travelers.
Explanation:
i dont know if this is good i just wrote something do what you will with it
Cities couldn't thrive in the harsh winter of New England but villages could work together to protect each other against it.
