I think the appropriate response is no. It was misguided and shortsighted.Both Britain and France were less needy financially on exchange with the US than Jefferson envisioned, however then financial matters never was his solid suit.
The War of 1812 was more to do with the possibility that Britain, its assets secured in the long haul battle against Napoleon, would be not able make any successful guard of Canada which could in this manner effectively be conquered.However, Britain had since a long time ago settled maritime amazingness over France and was along these lines ready to utilize its naval force to disable the US economy and power Madison into an arranged peace.
The New Jersey plan called for a single house with equal representation from each state (New Jersey would have been screwed over if Virginia got its way with proportional representation).
When World War I broke out in Europe, the president Woodrow Wilson follow the policy stated in option B. He declared U.S. Neutrality and the right to trade with both sides.
Keeping in mind that, 1 in every 7 Americans were born in some of the countries at war, the president highly believed that his country must remain neutral. Besides that, by the time the WWI began The United States was in an economic recession, so his government couldn't provide any economic support to the war, and instead decided to focus on selling its goods to France and Britain because they were really interested in American products, and that's why the administration disguised neutral duties in ways that tended to favor the Allies.
In short, the Declaration of Independence states that the United States of America is a country in its own right, independent of England, and includes a list of grievances against the king of England, while the U.S. Constitution formed our federal government and set the laws of the land.
