In order to paraphrase a text you should understand each paragraph's main ideas and then think of other citations and examples of your own to complete the logic of it.
1 - The Beard interpretation has two main problems: first, there isn’t in the Constitution any confession or strong sign of the influence from those who believed the fundamental private rights of property being fundamentally anterior to government and morally unreachable for the popular majorities; second, it is impossible to deny the Constitution as a document in federalism.
2 - These problems should be addressed. The second is simple for it is consensual amongst Revolutionary era historians that the big question of that moment was: how to articulate diverse parts of an empire towards common purposes? And how to realize that articulation without taking one side more than another, without transforming demands for liberty and autonomy into central government undermining. It can be argued that’s the same debate over Federal aid to education.
3 - The Declaratory Act was a declaration of the British failure in solving this same problem, about which Edmund Burke sharply observed the impossibility of arguing anyone into slavery. When it was time for Americans to deal with this dilemma the Articles of Confederation were adequate when discussing the distribution of powers but lacking in sanctions. This deficiency was the cause of the Philadelphia Convention.
4 - Although Beard’s interpretation is convincing when arguing that those who wrote the Constitution belonged to the propertied classes, he is not as convincing about this being reflected on the Constitution itself. If the framers were trying to protect their property they didn’t succeed. Our analysis of the Economic Interpretation of the Constitution shows that the auteur’s reading of that historical moment fails to legitimate itself when confronted with the Constitution’s text. What each of the framers did after the Constitution and how it was directly linked to his class isn’t enough proof of the auteur’s argument if it isn’t shown also through the Constitution.
Yes, I do think there’s a difference between history and culture. History it what has happened in the past, culture is our traditions,religions,food,places and things we’ve been doing over the years. It is important to study culture when studying history because they kind of collapse together. Like for example, día de los muertos (day of the day) that’s history from a long time ago but you can’t really go in depth into what it is without explaining the culture behind it. Hope this helps not really good at explaining things!!
Answer:
Women typically took over men's jobs.
Explanation:
During the duration of World War II, the US government called for the American women to do their part in the war, such as saving material needed for the war effort and recycling them, as well as working in factories. They also were asked to be used as nurses in the front if needed.
The effect of this when the men came back from the war, was that many ladies did not want to go back to be "home-owners", and would rather work away from home as well. This led to them trying to 'take' men's jobs away, and led to the women's movement for the right to work outside.
~
The correct answer is the Hanseatic League.
The Hanseatic League was formed in the 1100s and existed as a confederation of merchant towns in modern-day Germany until the late 15th-century.
The Hanseatic League can be seen as a modern precursor to the European Union, that is, a confederation of economic interests that work to provide mutual benefit.
Answer:
Could you reword your question
Explanation:
