Both Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller had a huge impact on the American economy in the late 1800s, since this invested huge sums of capital into massive building projects that employed thousands of workers, and provided vital infrastructure.
The first and second questions should be answered by you according to your classes. You should think of: how was President Andrew Jackson elected (1828)? What was he famous for before his candidacy? And according to this, what could be expected from his speech? Jackson was famous for his military victories over Indian tribes and for working actively on the occupation of previous Indian land. Thus his defense of the Indian Removal and his feelings of superiority over Indians wasn’t surprising.
On his opinions about the United States being better in 1830, it is due to an authoritarian view according to which the ways of the Indian’s – who preferred their territories covered with forests – were inferior to the ways of the Americans’, supposedly full of cities, Art, happy people, liberty, civilization, and religion.
Since President Jackson wasn’t thinking from the point of view of the Indians, for whom the relationship with their territory was fundamental, he thought Indians would be happy being left in peace away from the whites and free to live their own way.
He also thought Indians would be glad about this policy for believing it was “kind and generous” as the Indian Removal Act compromised to pay for the Indian’s immigration and for their first year in new territory. That was an offer, he said, “our own people would gladly embrace… on such conditions”, referring to the whites occupying lands east of the Mississipi River.
In order to predict what Elias Boudinot said about Indian Removal you should remember that he was a member of the Cherokee Nation where he was part of a minority who believed their nation would have more chances of surviving if they integrated themselves into the American society. This explains why Boudinot was in favor of Indians making treaties with the United States and willingly giving up on their lands.
Answer: I think it's A...
Explanation:
Answer and Explanation:
1. Because Britain had tyrannical positions in relation to America. He claimed that Britain did not allow America to be represented in parliament so that it was possible to exploit Americans intensively, in addition to using America's work to finance wars and pay Britain's own debts.
2. Because he believed that America was in a position to be bigger and more powerful than England. He affirmed that this was a wish of God, otherwise God would not have given the Americans a territory so much bigger and richer than that of England.
3. Paine advocated that the new independent states assume a republican and federalist government, as he believed that this type of government would promote freedom, equality and honesty among its citizens. Furthermore, he believed that the government established in the colonies should be simple, the simpler, the more difficult to promote disorder.
4. Because the text written by Paine had an extremely simple, direct and very objective language that would go to the point and did not cover complicated academic concepts, which allowed absolutely the entire population to understand what he was talking about. This makes me "fired up" because a single text managed to move the entire nation.
5. I would not change anything in Paine's text, because I believe that everything that was covered in it and the way it was written was perfect for the goals that Paine wanted to achieve. It is exactly this that makes this text debated and promoted until today and it is not correct to modify something of such specificity and success.
The question leaves no
options to choose from but as I have read the "Puritans" had the
fundamental belief that “The<span> Church of England
should be purified of Catholic traditions".
The Puritans refer to the English Reformed Protestants who
focused on purifying Church of England from its “Catholic" practices in
sixteenth and seventeenth century. </span>
