The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Some people think that if the government had greater control in regulating the economy, the Great Depression would not have happened. Others disagree. They believe that a free market economy lets consumer choices have the greatest say in the direction of the economy and produces the best outcomes for the most people. I agree with the first one because if you totally allow the market and people to dictate the flow of the economy, then you have those kinds of consequences. After the consumerism behavior of the "Roaring 1920s," most people bought things on credit. But the lack of some kind of government regulation took things to the extreme and that is when the United States stock market crashed on October 29, 1929, beginning the Great Depression.
I think the best position is a balance between government regulation is special or extreme conditions and letting the free market dictate the economy.
With the Renaissance, trade and exploration became prevalent. This caused many European nations to try and conquer lands that were then uncharted, leading to the displacement and enslavement of many indigenous populations.
This can be argued both ways.
<u>Good</u>: Lincoln's vetoing of the Wade Davis Bill ensured that the process of allowing the Confederate states to rejoin the Union would not be as difficult. The Wade Davis Bill called for a majority vote by Confederate citizens in order to rejoin the Union. At this time, a vote like this could have gone very wrong as numerous states would not have the votes necessary to rejoin the Union. Since Lincoln vetoed this bill, it never happened, probably saving the Union a significant amount of problems.
<u>Bad: </u>Radical Republicans probably saw this as bad, as they felt Lincoln's "Ten Percent Plan" let the Confederate states of too easy. The Radical Republicans wanted the Wade Davis Bill to ensure that the Confederate states would be loyal to the Union from now on. However, when Lincoln vetoed this bill, many Radical Republicans felt that the Confederates would allowed to join the Union again without much punishment.
Answer:
The term Dual Federalism refers to the political system through which a federalism is established where both the Federal State and the local States divide powers and limit each other with respect to their functions, each exercising their own and without getting involved in the other's.
For its part, the term Cooperative Federalism refers to the federalist political system by which the Federal State and the local States have a differentiation in terms of their levels of performance, but not in terms of their tasks, with which they cooperate with each other to compliance with government objectives.
Personally, I believe that cooperative federalism is more effective, as both spheres of government deal with similar issues, and control each other through a co-participatory and non-restrictive regime as in the case of dual federalism.
