<span>According to Kaminski, the authors of the
Constitution did not abolish slavery because they considered blacks to
be inferior to whites, and to be property. </span>
It was constructed in 2500 B.C.
This is a matter of opinion. Do YOU think the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was worth it? Let's look at the factors.
What were some of the positives? Well, firstly, it ended World War II. That's kind of a big deal. In fact, it caused Japan not only to surrender, but UNCONDITIONALLY surrender. Basically, that means the US could ask Japan to do whatever it liked--which the US liked! Secondly, it was a triumph of science. The atomic bomb was a revolutionary work of science. Nothing like it had ever been made before, and it was all based on secrecy and theoretical science. The atomic bomb also <span>provided the basis for new, improved weapons, including the hydrogen bomb. </span>Thirdly, it helped establish the United States as a world power. Knowing about this super powerful weapon the US had, countries were likely to back off!
But there's a lot of negatives here, too. Keep in mind that most of these benefits were for the United States alone. Of course, there was one other BIG negative for the United States, and that's cost. The atomic bomb was worth billions of dollars! A second big one wasn't so much for the United States as for the world, especially Japan. When the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the effects on the people and city were devastating. People were vaporized. Cities and buildings were flattened, and nothing is left but carnage. People died, their skin peeling off, from cancer and radiation. It was awful! Thirdly, it caused the arms race. Knowing the US had this super weapon, ALL the countries started building their own. Now, we pretty much live in fear of all the nuclear weapons there are today--which are hundreds of times more powerful each than the first bomb!
So what do you think? Was it worth it?
The first two political parties, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, were created during the first American presidential administration, George Washington.
The Federalists, founded by Alexander Hamilton and supported mainly by the upper class, wanted a strong national power, rather than state power. They sought commercial and diplomatic harmony with Britain. Looking down on open elections, democracy and generalized suffrage, the Federalists also interpreted the Constitution loosely--Hamilton would say that if something was not clearly forbidden in the Constitution, it could be done.
The Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, were mostly supported by the middle and lower classes. They emerged as opposition to the Federalists. They distrusted British monarchy and were pro-French instead, strongly influenced by the ideals of the French Revolution. They were for a more egalitarian and democratic government, frowning upon too much centralization power. The Democratic. Republicans also believed the interpretation of the Constitution should be strict, and that if it did not clearly allow something it should not be done.
As it was coming out of the American Revolution, the nation had significant debt. George Washington named Alexander Hamilton the Treasury Secretary. Hamilton suggested that to pay back the debt, they should assume the debt of the states and create a national bank. However, there was nothing explicit in the Constitution about the creation of a national bank. The Democratic-Republicans believed that creating a national bank would be an abuse of power by the federal government. After a lot of debate, Washington approved the creation of the first Bank of the United States, supported by the Federalists and against the Democratic-Republicans arguments.
