Answer:
probably to better themselves
correct me if im wrong but i hope this helps
<span><em>This statement ignores the process of revolution.</em></span>
Answer:
Explanation:
Reasons given in support of Manifest Destiny are:
1. "It's an American right to stretch from sea to shining sea." This implies that it is the natural right of the United States to expand from the East Coast to the West Coast, or from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as they may see fit.
2. "We (Americans) also have a responsibility to civilian this beautiful land." This implies that Americans should take over and expose the inhabitants of the territory to civilizations and advanced cultures
3. "The American claim is by the right of our manifest to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which providence has given for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federative self-government entrusted to us." This implies that it is true God's power and influence that the Americans are entrusted to overspread and possess another territory.
Reasons given in Rejection of Manifest Destiny are:
1. "America has no right to take the land west of Louisiana territory. Those lands are rightfully owned by Mexico." This implies that there is no constitutional right for America to possess such land.
2. "To enter into conflict with the Mexicans just to expand and take that land would violate the principles of this nation." This implies that taking over such territory is against the tenets of democracy and American values.
3. " They were really after gold." This implies that the purpose of the American expansion is not to civilize the inhabitants and the territory but to exploit them to their advantage.
4. "Many Indians died for that." This implies that such expansion in the past has only lead to the death of the inhabitants rather than save them. Because often it led to conflicts and wars resulting in the death of many native Indians.
He began exploring North America in 1603
As an example, I will use Woodrow Wilson to answer this questions:
Do their actions represent appropriate uses of presidential power, or examples of presidents overstepping the authority they were granted by the Constitution?
I believe that Woodrow Wilson used the presidential power in an adequate way, without overstepping the authority that was granted to him by the Constitution. He was able to pass many progressive legislation while following all necessary procedures. He was also a strong leader during the war.
How do you think the framers of the Constitution would respond to the presidency's expanded powers?
Although Wilson enjoyed significant power, I believe that the framers of the Constitution would agree with the statement that such power was necessary during times of war. Moreover, the framers would probably see that there were several instances of Wilson's power being limited by the actions of the other branches of government, such as the fact that he asked Congress for an official declaration of war in 1917, and the fact that he was unable to get the United States to join the League of Nations due to the refusal of the Senate.
In your opinion, do U.S. presidents today have too much power or not enough?
I believe that U.S. presidents today have too much power. Although the basic structure of the government remains the same as in the past, presidents today can exercise power and take actions in ways that were unimaginable in the past. For example, presidents often engage in war without the need for an official declaration of war. Moreover, presidents are able to enter treaties in an easier and faster way than ever before. Finally, presidents enjoy an unprecedented amount of media attention and money, which makes them particularly influential.
