In Document 3, Cherokee Nation, a cherokee tribal member gave a speech that one part states, “This is the land of our Nativity; the land of our birth. We cannot consent to abandon it for another far inferior [place]”. Meaning they will not give up there land that they were born on, for somewhere else. Theodore Frelinghuysen’s speech, (Document 5, Theodore Frelinghuysen) mentions that a long, long time ago, God placed the tribes where he wanted them, which means they were here way before us, and we should not force them to move. Both documents infer that their land is important and sacred to them.
As I read Federalist 10 pgs. 156-158 we learned that Madison made sure everyone knew his view and perspective on owning property. He argued that between man and natures God life is built on morals and equality between men and must not be abused. The main idea of property is tied to the individuality, equality, protection of life and for all peoples, and for the moral and ethical standards that we strongly hold essential to a way of life that is pleasing to God, and freedoms to pursue moral and religious duties owed to God and neighbor. The Government is made to solely protect the people from dangers.
Driven by the belief that space was bequeathed to them, the Native Americans feel justified in defending their land against the growing encroachment of the white man as the American landscape unfolds. Their motive is the premise that a higher authority has granted them the right to the space, and that the Great Spirit has created the landscape exclusively for them. Fueled by the formation of conflict over land, the Great Ottawa Chief, Pontiac, in his speech at Detroit, seeks to persuade the tribes, including the Ottawa, Huron, and Pottawatomi to agree to resistance. Invoking the words of the Delaware prophet, Neolin, Pontiac recounts the vision which he believes justifies resistance. Neolin urges the tribes to sever all relations to the customs
As Yehuda Berg said, “words have energy and power with the ability to help… [and] to harm.” Expanding upon his reflection to examine varying social perspectives on American expansionist, colonial and slave society contexts, one can see that officials of European descent including Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and John Eliot converted white words and ideas into mutually intelligible Native American terms to persuade tribal leaders to adopt white mores. Accordingly, some Native Americans responded to these jabs of white supremacist coercion through outright resistance while others re-enacted white behaviors to receive preferential treatment from white leaders and gain social influence that had the potential to undermine white hegemony. Transcending
The South was firmly against the admission of California as a free state. Its main fear was the upset of power balance, as Calhoun contended, “the Senate, the last bastion of balance, would be stacked against the South by the end of the decade.” In addition, Meade argued that “[the slaveholding South] needed room to expand,” and that “California was ideal for slavery.” Despite their best efforts, the southerners’ arguments didn’t do much because of the fundamental gap between the North and the South on the issue of slavery; it was nearly impossible for one side to convince the other. In the end, Stephen Douglas put through the admission of California by “getting some men to miss a crucial vote and others to vote with the other side.”
Paper question:::: Explain Madison’s two writings on property that were assigned to you. What is he trying to say in the two documents? In two of his papers addressing property, it is once again abundantly clear just how forward thinking James Madison was. Madison set out to not only demonstrate the need for the government to protect property, but also understood the vital need to plan for the future and advocated for the needed flexibility to stay current with the times. Madison clearly believed it was a primary role of government to protect the property rights of its citizens.
Prior to the Revolution private land ownership was not secure. During the colonial era it was common for a private citizen or the local government to compel another citizen to give up his land (500). The writers of the Constitution understood that there would be times when the government would have to take land for a public purpose so the Constitution includes the clause, ‘without just compensation’ for those times when land taking is a necessity. Eminent domain is not being used as the writers of the constitution had intended, recent court rulings are reminiscent of the colonial days when ownership of private property was not secure.
The Land Ethic Argument Outline Aldo Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” is an essay describing why we should not treat our land as our property. The first part of half of his essay is based on an anecdote that alludes to Odysseus returning from Troy to behead his slaves. His comparison there is that as once it was alright to treat people as property, it is now just fine to do the same thing to your land. Additionally, as ethics of the treatment of people changed as with the ethics of land treatment.
This paper focuses on evaluation of architectural shooting polygon called “Teniente Jerez” from Escuela de Cadetes de Policía General Francisco de Paula Santander” with respect to the requirements and minimum standards proposed for the shooting polygon, because currently existing architectural structure isn´t adequate for practicing shooting polygon. For the solve this situation, makes the proposal enabling improvements to the aforesaid structure, and from this proposal the benefits are examined this adaptation give to who are training in this place, both to expand and raise the level of training, and to be competitive too in security sports games nationals and internationals, such as rifles pre-games, event that began the
Madison beautifully described property as “that dominion in which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” (Madison 1972, 266) He argued that the literal definition of property is enhanced alternative of how a government typically classifies property. The old definition of property only included merchandize, money, or land. In the latter definition, religion is also included, as well as personal values and opinions.
Suppose further that the putative dog is actually a robot dog so perfect that it could not be distinguished from an actual dog by vision alone. James does not know that such robot dogs exist; a Japanese toy manufacturer has only recently developed them, and what James sees is a prototype that is used for testing the public's response. Given these assumptions, (5) is of course false. But suppose further that just a few feet away from the robot dog, there is a real dog, concealed from James's view. Given this further assumption, James's belief in (5) is true.
He then expresses his views on the fact that there are a lot of lands that are owned by the majority and thus these lands remain uncultivated even though there are many people (poor people) that could be cultivating them: this causes an inequality in property which then causes an inequality in society and therefore the advantage of the majority on the minority. The idea of the “tyranny of the majority “is very present in this passage as well. The question here also reside on the fact that these political figures and powerful families that own the majority of the property are not fulfilling their part of the bargain into providing for its people. Hence the example of the day laborer Jefferson referred to in his letter to Madison: She is a day laborer who is getting paid so little by her employer that she cannot sustain her family and provide for her children (the conditions of the laboring poor aren’t being discussed because they not fall in the priority for the majority because they only concern a minor part of the
Many Americans today take the freedoms given in the Constitution for granted. It’s easy to forget how many others around the world don’t have “inalienable rights” given; such as the freedom of religion. In the countries Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, citizens face severe repression, imprisonment, torture, and even death for different religious beliefs than the ones allowed by their government. When something unjust happens in America, such as unlawful police officers using excessive force, NSA surveillance on phone and internet communications, or extreme drug sentences, we wake up and realize how crucial our rights are.
With the year-round pressure pertaining to college applications on high school seniors follows the impending decision of choosing an appropriate college major. Generally, the decision-making process involves prioritizing one field of interest over another, however, due to globalization and constant innovation in technology determining a college major has increasingly become the modern day equivalent of the metaphorical line between life and death. Even so, the obvious choice would be the prestigious STEM fields over liberal arts due to the instant job opportunities which are seemingly ludicrous to a recent graduate. Nevertheless, liberal arts education should be encouraged to be pursued at higher education institutions in USA because it helps
Freedom means the power or right to act, speak, or think without restraint, and the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved. Freedom is the correction to do what he/she wants, live life, and eat what he/she wants. How do we live free? We live free by not judging other people’s freedom rights. Everyone has their own rights.
