The answer to the question presented above is letter a. Anti-Federalist were suspicious of a strong central government.
They (Anti-Federalists) believed that the new constitution <span>was an enemy of freedom and designed to give control of the government to a rich elite.</span>
Answer:
[B] religious morals
Explanation:
For a bit of a timeline reference, the period that the Social Gospel reigned was during the late nineteenth to early twentieth century. The Social Gospel was a group of people who tried to use their Christian faith to justify their ideas of what solutions to certain social problems should be. A way to remember the religious ties that the Social Gospel had to society would be the word <em>gospel</em>, which by definition relates to church and thus religious faith.
[A] Imperialism would be an incorrect response. Think of imperialism as typically belligerent or selfish nations who tried to get as many resources as possible from other developing countries, like how Great Britain was the mother colony farming resources from the colonies throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For some extra context, imperialism was much more prevalent during the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.
[C] Laissez-faire is a method of practicing capitalism that the federal government used in the US. The phrase <em>laissez-faire</em> is French and essentially means "let it be," which follows the conservative economic ideal of not regulating the market.
In the summer of 1794, tensions between farmers and creditors in western Pennsylvania boiled over into violence. A group of armed farmers, calling themselves the "Associators," began to attack and seize the property of anyone they saw as an enemy. In response, President George Washington dispatched a force of 13,000 militiamen to put down the rebellion.
In a report to Congress, Alexander Hamilton described the events in Pennsylvania as an "insurgent" and "insurrection." By using these words, Hamilton was trying to downplay the seriousness of the situation and avoid calling it a full-blown rebellion. He may have also been trying to avoid provoking even more violence by using language that was less inflammatory.
The situation in Pennsylvania was eventually resolved without any major bloodshed. However, the episode showed how quickly tensions could boil over into violence in the early days of the republic. It also showed the importance of having a strong central government that was able to quickly put down any internal threats to the stability of the country.
