England's people would of been the first group of English settlers to establish a settlement.
<span>Erie Canal (from Lake Erie) is <span>a canal connecting America to the
western territories which was built
from 1817 to 1825 under the
supervision of DeWitt Clinton often called as “Clinton’s folly”. Some of its
effects to the United States are the following: </span></span>
<span><span>·
</span>It decreases importing and exporting products in
which it could ship millions of goods annually.</span>
<span><span>·
</span>It had connected the United States’ great lake <span>the Atlantic
Ocean.</span></span>
<span><span>·
</span>It made new York City as the busiest port overnight.
</span>
<span><span>·
</span>At its popular time, 50,000 people (or more) depended
on the canal for their livelihood making boat houses for transactions.</span>
<span><span>·
</span><span>It was the first public infrastructure to extend
help to hospitals and institutions.</span></span>
So the question ask what is the result in the westward expansion in the mid 1800's and the best answer among your choices is letter A. increased dramatically. I hope you are satisfied with my answer and feel free to ask for more if you have clarifications
Higher class woman
Women who belonged to the nobility class lived and enjoyed a life of luxuries. These women spent most of their time attending tea parties and balls and the remaining time they would spend in knitting and horseback riding. Women had several attendants to look after them. They were expected to be highly educated. Their main job was to effectively instruct the servants on what is to be done and to groom younger girls of the same class (nobility) to become women.
Middle class woman
After the noble class came the middle class. These people were not as rich as the nobles though many of the people of this class tried mingling with the noble class people. The women belonging to this class were expected to take education, help in the family business and try to get married into the nobility. At the close of the Victorian era, few women of this class were self-employed by being a nurse, writer etc.
Lower class woman
when it came the lower class women who came from extreme poverty and took up menial jobs like that of prostitution, laborers, or any activity which involves physical exertion. These lower class women mostly remained single all their lives as they were more in number as compared to their male counterparts. Women were considered to be a sign of purity and cleanliness except during their menstrual cycles. Their bodies were treated as temples as a result of which they could not be engaged in any vigorous activity. The only job of these Victorian woman was to keep their husband (if they had one) happy and raise her children for which they groomed right from their childhood days. The rights which the women enjoyed were similar to those which were enjoyed by young children whereby they were not allowed to vote, sue or even own property.
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.
But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.
Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.
It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.
It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.
Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
