Answer:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Answer:
Many men became rich and brought their families, leading to bustling towns of successful small business owners. Mining towns did well with little regulation from the government, leading to the establishment of more independent towns in the West.
Answer:
Numerous Federalists opposed the war because many of these men earned their living through trade. The conflict hampered the Federalists' ability to exchange with England. Tensions increased so much so that by 1814, some Federalists in New England threatened to secede from the United States to form their own country unless the American government immediately sought peace. With the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 and the end of the War of 1812, many Americans viewed the Federalists as traitors. The Federalist Party collapsed, leaving the Democratic-Republican Party as the only political party in the United States until the mid-1820s.
Explanation:
Answer: B. Increased production of war materials
C. A reduction in the number of European Immigrants
Explanation:
Due to WWI, there was a severe shortage of labor since many former factory workers had enlisted in the army and not many European migrants were pouring into the country. With demand for war materials at an all time high, African Americans were compelled to migrate to the more indutrial north to become industrial workers, with higher wages than those of an agricultural worker in order to make up for the lost manpower.
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.
But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.
Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.
It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.
It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.
Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
