Between The signing of the DOI in 1776 and The Constitution in 1787 the American Revolution was going on [Which starts right before the DOI is signed in 1775 with the Battle of Lexington and Concord aka ‘The shot heard round the world’] and ends with the battle of Yorktown in 1781 with the victory of the American colonist under the command of general George Washington [Spoiler Alert, He becomes President Right After the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790’s] In those 11 years many things escalated; We made a pact with the French [Which we would later diss]; Our country discovers many new faces like Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Ben Franklin, which leads to the eventual cabinetry under GW. Anyway, The colonies also started using spies as a tool in those 11 years, helping win the battles.
To reach justice and equality for all, and overall a better life and future.
Answer:
Option: C. Pliny the Younger
Explanation:
The cities Pompeii and Herculaneum were part of the Roman Empire until its destruction by the Volcano eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD. After volcano eruption, both the Roman cities remain as abandon for almost as many years until it was founded (Pompeii) after excavation by the architect Domenico Fontana in the 16th century (1748).
The destruction and volcano explosion comes from a report by Pliny the Younger, who was staying in the Bay of Naples when Mt. Vesuvius exploded. According to Pliny the Younger, the eruption lasted 18 hours which buried Pompeii and Herculaneum with ash, volcano rocks, and other volcanic materials and killing thousands of people.
Compare:
- Both were inspired by Enlightenment ideas.
- Inspired by American and French Revolution ideas.
- Both were ruled by the minority.
Contrast:
- Haitian slaves created a republic without slavery while Mexico's peasantry fought for a democartic republic.
- Mexican uprisings were caused by different goals while Haitian slaves fought for equal rights.
- A Haitian republic was established while Porfirio Diaz was overthrown.
This debate isn't merely historical. As could be gleaned from the flaps surrounding statements by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Interior Secretary Gale Norton during their confirmation periods, issues stemming from the Civil War go to the heart of many current political debates: What is the proper role of the federal government? Is a strong national government the best guarantor of rights against local despots? Or do state governments stand as a bulwark against federal tyranny? And just what rights are these governments to protect? Those of the individual or those of society? Such matters are far from settled.
So why was the Civil War fought? That seems a simple enough question to answer: Just look at what those fighting the war had to say. If we do that, the lines are clear. Southern leaders said they were fighting to preserve slavery. Abraham Lincoln said the North fought to preserve the Union, and later, to end slavery.
Some can't accept such simple answers. Among them is Charles Adams. Given Adams' other books, which include For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization and Those Dirty Rotten Taxes: The Tax Revolts that Built America, it isn't surprising that he sees the Civil War as a fight about taxes, specifically tariffs.
In When in the Course of Human Events, he argues that the war had nothing to do with slavery or union. Rather, it was entirely about tariffs, which the South hated. The tariff not only drove up the price of the manufactured goods that agrarian Southerners bought, it invited other countries to enact their own levies on Southern cotton. In this telling, Lincoln, and the North, wanted more than anything to raise tariffs, both to support a public works agenda and to protect Northern goods from competition with imports.
Openly partisan to the South, Adams believes that the Civil War truly was one of Northern aggression. He believes that the Southern states had the right to secede and he believes that the war's true legacy is the centralization of power in Washington and the deification of the "tyrant" Abraham Lincoln. To this end, he collects all the damaging evidence he can find against Lincoln and the North. And he omits things that might tarnish his image of the South as a small-government wonderland.
Thus, we hear of Lincoln's use of federal troops to make sure that Maryland didn't secede. We don't learn that Confederate troops occupied eastern Tennessee to keep it from splitting from the rest of the state. Adams tells us of Union Gen. William Sherman's actions against civilians, which he persuasively argues were war crimes. But he doesn't tell us of Confederate troops capturing free blacks in Pennsylvania and sending them south to slavery. Nor does he mention the Confederate policy of killing captured black Union soldiers. He tells us that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus; he doesn't mention that the Confederacy did also.
Adams argues that Lincoln's call to maintain the Union was at root a call to keep tariff revenues coming in from Southern ports. Lincoln, he notes, had vowed repeatedly during the 1860 presidential campaign that he would act to limit the spread of slavery to the West, but he would not move to end it in the South. Lincoln was firmly committed to an economic program of internal improvements -- building infrastructure, in modern terms -- that would be paid for through higher tariffs. When the first Southern states seceded just after Lincoln's election, Adams argues, it was to escape these higher taxes. Indeed, even before Lincoln took office, Congress -- minus representatives from rebel Southern states -- raised tariffs to an average of almost 47 percent, more than doubling the levy on most goods.
