Both men foresaw the US as a great future power. However, they differed on the path the nation was to follow in achieving this role. While Jefferson preferred an agrarian nation, Hamilton favored an industrial and business intensive nation. As such, Jefferson detested Hamilton's idea of a strong federal government. Jefferson wanted the bulk of power to rest with the states. While Hamilton distrusted popular will and believed that the federal government should wield considerable power in order steer a successful course, Jefferson placed his trust in the people as governors. These major views were behind polarizing Washington's cabinet into two distinct factions. Hamilton's followers became known as Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Hamilton and Washington were already close to one another so it makes sense that Washington gave Hamilton the attention he did. More than anything Hamilton's views were prized by Washington; he very well may have been the most socially liberal and economically liberal man of his time, Jefferson stood to counter this with ultra-conservative views and policies. The idea was for there to be a sort of balancing act with the cabinet and it worked out quite well for Washington and the united states. <span>Perhaps because of their differences of opinion, Washington made these two men his closest advisors.</span>
Answer: George Washington strongly believed that foreign involvement wasn't in the United States' best interest -- it would only lead to economic hardship and instability. The U.S. military was too weak and war-weary to fight another battle so soon after the American Revolution.
Explanation:
Two-dimensional art consists of paintings, drawings, prints, and photographs, which differ from each other primarily in the technique of their execution.
Three-dimensional media occupies space defined through the dimensions of height, width and depth. It includes sculpture, installation and performance art, craft and product design. please mark brainliest
Answer:
The work also tackles the complex relationship between Ireland and the anti-slavery movement. Douglass’s hosts in Ireland were mostly Quakers, many of whom were shielded from – and sometimes complicit in – the famine that was gripping the countryside. Similarly, many Irish in America were willing participants in slavery. Douglass’s meeting with Daniel O’Connell spurred the Irish leader to encourage the Irish community in America to support African-Americans in their fight against oppression. But his overtures went largely unheeded by the Irish political and Catholic community in the US, eager to ensure that their own people secured opportunities in their adopted country. The irony is captured in Kinahan’s work. In an interaction between Douglass and an Irish woman about to leave Cork for America, he informs her that the Irish had not always treated his people well. She replies: “Well then they’ve forgotten who they are.”
But ultimately, the work is concerned with exploring this important moment in Douglass’s life and its role in his development as a thinker and activist. As Daugherty says, Douglass’s experience in Ireland widened his understanding of what civil rights could encompass. “Douglass was much more than an anti-slavery voice. He was also a suffragette, for example, an advocate for other oppressed groups.”
Douglass himself captured the impact of his Irish journey in a letter he wrote from Belfast as he was about to leave: “I can truly say I have spent some of the happiest moments of my life since landing in this country. I seem to have undergone a transformation. I live a new life.”
Explanation:
