Answer:
Hiya there!
Explanation:
Hamilton proposed that the federal Treasury take over and pay off all the debt that states had incurred to pay for the American Revolution. The Treasury would issue bonds that rich people would buy, thereby giving the rich a tangible stake in the success of the national government.
Hope this <em><u>Helped!</u></em> :D
Credit sourced from "wikipedia.com"
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?
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.
The great thinker of the Renaissance argued that rhetoric is subordinate to logic further explaining that rhetoric is only concerned with style and delivery but logic should guide the "invention" canon, was Pierre de La Ramee, translated into English as Petrus Ramus.
Ramus (1515-1572) was a bright thinker during the Renaissance times and expressed many concepts about logic and the use of reason. Ramus also wrote about the correct use of Rhetoric, saying that the proper use of language was a determinant aspect of being eloquent.
Answer:
A , i can't explain why but I just feel like i would do that most likely
Answer:
He was different because he wasn't fighting for equality, he was fighting for separation from white society
