European adventurers who visited America faced little resistance from the local populations. This fact has been attributed to some vulnerabilities which made it difficult for Native Americans to wage a war against the European foreigners (Digital History, n.d). The wrangles among the local communities have been cited as among the factors that lowered the defense capacity of Native Americans. These communities fought over such resources as water and land for farming. For instance, the Hopi and Zuni communities had an uneasy relationship that was characterized by conflicts (Digital History, n.d). These conflicts made it easy for such European foreigners as the Spanish to conquer the local communities. The second vulnerability that Native Americans suffer is that they lacked sophisticated weapons and tools (Cleary, n.d). They were unable to wage war against the European adventurers who possessed better equipment. For instance, the Spaniards were able to conquer American lands because they had access to complex equipment that allowed them to travel by sea and wage war (Cleary, n.d). The war between the Aztec Empire and the Spaniards is perhaps the best …show more content…
The document essentially split the nation into two camps. On one hand, there was a group who welcomed the document, seeing it as necessary for progress. On the other hand, there was a camp which opposed the document, arguing that it represented an unwelcome change. The fact that it ushered a new form of governance where authority would be shared between the federal government and state authorities is one of the factors that made the constitution a controversial document (U.S National Archives and Records Administration, n.d). There are those who felt that the constitution took away authority from the state governments and therefore robbed them of their autonomy. These individuals were the staunchest critics of the
Anti-federalists. The Anti-federalists were the founders of popular democracy in the United States. 4 The Anti-federalists denounced the proposed Constitution as a betrayal of the democratic spirit of 1776 and the American Revolution itself.
In the years 1787 and 1788 right after the Constitutional Convention, many people argued over the context of the constitution. The ratification started when the Congress turned the Constitution over to the state legislatures. Because most of the framers had already decided to discard the Articles of Confederation when drafting the Constitution, the lack of people following the articles made the legislatures feel that an unanimous vote was unnecessary. The delegates agreed that approval from only 9 of the 13 states would be adequate to ratify the United States Constitution. However, the process to ratifying the constitution was difficult including groups of people and regions who supported or opposed the ratification.
The relationships between the three major settlers and the Native Americans differed in many ways. All the evidence needed is in the seven documents shown. Each of the documents provides insight to one of the three nationalities. It is fair to assume that the English were focused more on friendship, the Spanish set their eyes on the gold, and the French were insistent on converting the Native Americans to Christianity. Though they may have been cruel to their enemies, the natives were very kind and friendly towards the English colonizers, as stated in Document One.
The Constitution of the United States was written in 1787, but there was a grapple for its ratification that went on until about two decades after the ratification. Members of Congress believed that the first government of the United States or the Articles of Confederation, needed to be adjusted while others did not want anything to change. After the Revolutionary War, the people did not want a strong central government, because it reminded them too much of what they were trying to escape from. Under the Articles, each state had their own laws, and the need for a new Constitution was desired by many. The Constitution of 1787 created huge debates, arguments and splits in the nation that lasted for several year after its ratification between people who
The U.S. Constitution was meant to replaced the Articles of Confederation and provide the people with an insight on all of the rights and for the government to abide by them. However, there were people that did not want the Constitution ratified and there were some who did. The ones who opposed the ratification of the Constitution were referred to as the Antifederalists. They feared that with a strong government, the federal government would have too much power in their hands and would do as they pleased. The Federalists, the ones who supported the Constitution, disagreed with the Anti-Federalists and stated that with a strong federal government, the United States would eventually evolve into a better country in the future.
Throughout the seventeenth century, conflict between Europeans and Native Americans was rampant and constant. As more and more Europeans migrated to America, violence became increasingly consistent. This seemingly institutionalized pattern of conflict begs a question: Was conflict between Europeans and Native Americans inevitable? Kevin Kenny and Cynthia J. Van Zandt take opposing sides on the issue. Kevin Kenny asserts that William Penn’s vision for cordial relations with local Native Americans was destined for failure due to European colonists’ demands for privately owned land.
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
“1491” Questions 1. Two scholars, Erikson and William Balée believe that almost all aspects of Native American life have been perceived wrong. Although some refuse to believe this, it has been proven to be the truth. Throughout Charles C. Mann’s article from The Atlantic, “1491”, he discusses three main points: how many things that are viewed as facts about the natives are actually not true, the dispute between the high and low counters, and the importance of the role disease played in the history of the Americas. When the term “Native American” is heard, the average person tends to often relate that to a savage hunter who tries to minimize their impact on their surrounding environment.
The Native Americans were seen as weak willed, for they barely resisted the conquest of their homes. If the Native Americans showed no incentive of retaliating and were better at manual work, it seemed natural to the Spanish that they be enslaved. The Native Americans, on the other hand, saw the Spanish in a different light as well as they watched many Spaniards become obsessed with gold. The Spanish were given Gold as gifts and went crazy just holding it and lusting for more, like savage monkeys. The Spanish, by nature, couldn’t help but become greedy monsters for gold, because in Europe riches were equivalent to power.
Native Americans flourished in North America, but over time white settlers came and started invading their territory. Native Americans were constantly being thrown and pushed off their land. Sorrowfully this continued as the Americans looked for new opportunities and land in the West. When the whites came to the west, it changed the Native American’s lives forever. The Native Americans had to adapt to the whites, which was difficult for them.
Merrell’s article proves the point that the lives of the Native Americans drastically changed just as the Europeans had. In order to survive, the Native Americans and Europeans had to work for the greater good. Throughout the article, these ideas are explained in more detail and uncover that the Indians were put into a new world just as the Europeans were, whether they wanted change or
The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government an excessive amount of power, and while not a Bill of Rights the folks would be in danger of oppression. Both Hamilton and Madison argued that the Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights, that it might produce a "parchment barrier" that restricted the rights of the folks, as critical protective
The United States confronted many problems once they gained their independence from Great Britain. One of the biggest problems was their form of government at that time, which was stated in the Articles of Confederation. This presented many problem to the states, as stated in a document about the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, some of the problems of the Articles of Confederation were the poor international trade, poor foreign relations, weak economy, and Shay’s Rebellion. The people, specifically the Federalists, wanted a new government because of the weakness of the government at that moment. According to many history books, the government also faced financial problems and tried to resolve them by taxing the states, because
Throughout the late 1400’s and the 1500’s, the world experienced many changes due to the discoveries of new lands and peoples that had been never been visited before. The new-found lands of the Americas and exploration of Africa by the Europeans led to new colonies and discoveries in both areas. It also brought different societies and cultures together that had never before communicated, causing conflict in many of these places. While the Europeans treated both the Native Americans and West Africans as inferior people, the early effects they had on the Native Americans were much worse. Beginning in the late 1400’s, many different European explorers started to look for new trade routes in the Eastern Hemisphere in order to gain economic and religious power.
Why was the Constitution a controversial document even as it was being written? Established in 1787 The Constitution was a controversial document because it was a document that could both solve the nation’s hardships and warped the Republican foundation. The Constitution on one hand would give the people a voice and the other would control the nation through a monarchy system. One of the controversies that arose from the creation of the Constitution was the question of management of commerce.