The United States Constitution Vs. The Articles of Confederation

The US Constitution Vs. The Articles of Confederation
Question 1:
What is the difference between the two?
The biggest difference between the Articles and the Constitution was the control that the state and the federal government had. The Articles were not strong enough to support such a young country. Each state was classified as separator independent states. But, when a law wanted to get passed you had to have 9 out of the 13 states to pass the law. When laws were passed it was hard to enforce them due to each state being there own. With the Constitution ever state was put under the federal government with representatives and senator that proposed, passed, and mad sure the law's were enforce.
Articles of Confederation:
1. Did not have a President of the United States
2. Every state was independent (sovereign)
3. ALL states had to agree to change the A. of C.
4. Treaties could NOT be made on behalf of the United States
5. Trade agreements could NOT be made on behalf of the United States
6. The A did NOT unite the states but instead allowed them to remain independent and self-governing.
7. There was no military.
8. There was no power to tax.
9. One house legislator
10.Between two and seven members per state members of congress
11. One vote per state

The US. Constitution:
1. Established a Congress, a Supreme Court, and a President
2. Could be changed much more easily than the A. of C.
3. Gave powers to the government to tax.
4. Gave powers to the government to add land.
5. Gave powers to the government to make treaties, tariffs, and trade agreements.
6. Established the military with the President in charge.
7. Established a House of Representatives and a Senate
8. Left the door open to change (or amend) the Constitution in the future which we have 27 times.
9. Two house legislator
10.Two Senators per state, Representatives apportioned according to population of each state
11.One vote per Representative or Senator

Question 2:
How are the similar?
There are not many way's they are similar. They are both defining an individuals rights so that whomever comes into power can't abuse the people of the United States of America.

Question 3:
Why did one fail while the other succeeded?

The main reason that the Articles of Confederation failed was due to the fact they focused on that states as individual instead of them as one. The United States being as young as it was when they were formed they needed to be together as a whole. So that they could support each other’s laws and in case of a war.

Eli Whitney's Cotton Gin

The Cotton Gin

Eli Whitney was the inventor of the cotton gin and a pioneer in the mass production of cotton. Whitney was born in Westbrook, Massachusetts on December 8, 1765 and died on January 8, 1825. He graduated from Yale College in 1792. By April 1793, Whitney had designed and constructed the cotton gin, a machine that automated the separation of cottonseed from the short-staple cotton fiber. Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin revolutionized the cotton industry in the United States. Prior to his invention, farming cotton required hundreds of man-hours to separate the cottonseed from the raw cotton fibers. Simple seed-removing devices have been around for centuries; however, Eli Whitney's invention automated the seed separation process. His machine could generate up to fifty pounds of cleaned cotton daily, making cotton production profitable for the southern states. Therefore, slavery numbers exploded to outrageous numbers in just a few years. Without the cotton gin the south wouldn't have had nearly the amount of slaves that it had by the Civil War. Some say that the invention of the cotton gin caused the Civil War. Because the invention of the cotton gin caused tensions to grow between the North and the South. The industrial cotton manufacturing companies were in the North, the South would send their cotton to the North. Then Congress passed high tariffs to help American manufacturing. The tariffs were good for the Northern industry but consumers, including Southerners, had to pay more for the cloth.. After the cotton gin was invented, the demand for cotton grew because it could be de-seeded faster. Well...who picked the cotton? Slaves. More cotton meant more slaves were needed and the northern states did not like that fact.

The French and Indian War

1.http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/frin.htm

2.http://www.kidport.com/reflib/usahistory/frenchindian/frenindwar.htm

1. The French and Indian war changed the economic, political, and social relationship between England and its colonies. The French and Indian was war very expensive for Britain so to pay off their debit they increased taxis for the colonies. They raised taxis on anything form sugar to tea. Once the taxes were so high the colonist started smuggling in sugar and tea so they didn’t have to pay the high tax. Britain also wanted to keep peace in North America, especially the western colonies, in order to appease some of the Indian tribes the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued, prohibiting colonists for moving further west past the Appalachian Mountains.

2. The French and the Indian war was fought in America. It was the British and the colonists versus the French and the Indians, their two threats. France and Britain were both wealthy nations and they wanted land in America. The British colonist kept pushing into the French colonist's territory. The Native Americans took sides with the French when the problem arose, so it was caused the French and Indian war because the British were fighting their two enemies, the French and the British.

3. The most important and immediate effect that the French and Indian War had was to emphasize many of the grievances that the American colonists had with their mother country. It was clear by the end of the war that the Americans who had fought in the conflict no longer believed that the fight had anything to do with them, and in fact, this was true. The war was an extension of a set of larger conflicts that had been taking place in Europe, called the Seven Year's War, and had little or nothing to do with what would become the United States. In fact, the eventual result of the French and Indian War was a reduction of the French presence in the Caribbean - a great boon for the British, but ultimately useless to the American colonists. The men and women of the colonies who had fought in the war no longer felt like they owed allegiance to the British, especially after being conscripted to fight in their European war.

Facing East from Indian Country>>>

Indian Country

1. I learned that there is more then one side to the story. That you can't just believe one side till you hear the other. Also, I learned that Pocahontas really did save John Smith and it wasn't just Disney's view of it. That it was John Smith that asked Queen Anne to treat Pocahontas with dignity on her visit to London. Only a year after being in England she died of small pox.



2. Reading the book "Facing East form Indian Country" put a different perspective on them first settling the "new world". When we learn about the settlers coming over from England we here there side of the story because there is written prof. Not many people tell the Native Americans side cause there was no supporting story's. So reading this helped me understand more of what the Europeans did to the Native Americans. That the Europeans were just as savage and the Native Americans. That in a way the Native Americans had all the right to do that to the Europeans. Maybe if they did not trick them or treat them bad after the Indians helped them, maybe there would have been less Indian attacks. I just think it was mostly the Europeans that cause all the hostility between the two cutlers. They gladly accepted there help but once the Natives could not provide them with enough they pushed them aside.



3. The strengths of using the perspective of the Native Americans looking east helps us understand that they weren't the savage people the Europeans made them out to be. It helps people understand that we came and settled there land they lived and hunted off this land way before the Europeans even knew it existed. The weakness of using this perspective is the lake of evidence. There is not a lot of written documents that support most of the stories in the book "Facing eat from Indian Country". Grant it there is stories past down from generation to generation that give us a better understanding of what the Europeans did to the Native Americans, but it is still not proven facts. I believe that the stories that were past down are true and the the Europeans were just at savage as the Native Americans were.

JAMESTOWN*

JAMESTOWN

1. In my opinion I believe that in a way yes, the videos on (http://www.historyisfun.org/chronicles/main.html) are credible historical sources about how Jamestown was in the past. It give the view point for a common person in the early Jamestown Settlement. You get many points of view form an African American slave named Angela, the Native American Tomocomo, and you even get the view from a women named Ann Burras.

2. Yes and no I have a split opinion o this one. I would have liked to of had a more understanding on the woman's daily routines. I wish when Tommcomo was talking it would have been more about how he met the settlers.

3.well I learned that King James the first did not want another country to settle the "New World" first. I also learned form Ann Burras about how honorably the boat ride form England was. About how most of the people died on the trip and when she reached the "New World" she wanted to turn around and get right back on the ship head home. She said that the conditions of Jamestown were so bad that the ship was more appealing then the living conditions. right before the bad winter she was the first person to get married in Jamestown. That was just a few months before the bad winter. She talked about how there was some men that would eat corps to survive. After the winter there everyone was really skinny and sick but about 50 people survived and a ship form England came in with new people to help populate the settlement.

*\Potawatomi Indians/*

Potawatomi

1. The Great Lakes region was the central location of the Potawatomi Indians. In the 1600's the Potawatomi lived in the northern part of lower Michigan. Due to the Ontario tribes threatening them in 1641 they left there homelands and moved to the west side of Lake Michigan to northern Wisconsin. Then by 1665 all Potawatomi were living on Wisconsin's Door Peninsula just east of Green Bay. By 1716 most Potawatomi were located in a area between Milwaukee to Detroit. During the 1760s they expanded into northern Indiana and central Illinois.

2. The Potawatomi originally were hunters and gatherers because they were too far north for reliable agriculture. There diets come form wild game, fish, wild rice, acorns, and maple syrup, but Potawatomi were very adaptive. After they relocated to Wisconsin, they learned farming form neighboring tribes like the Fox and Winnebago. By time the French arrived in Green Bay, Potawatomi women were tending to large fields of corn, beans, and squash. By the 1660's the Potawatomi were agricultural some people think that them moving west on the shores of Lake Michigan was due to them having the desire to find richer soil. Women tended the fields, while the men kept their role as hunters and warriors. They lived in villages of framed, brush-covered houses in the summer, and separated into family hunting groups in the winter, when they used domed wigwams. In the late 18th century they acquired horses, and used them for buffalo hunting on the plains of Illinois and Indiana.

3. The Citizen Potawatomi Nation produced this website to inform people about the Midwest Patawatomi tribe. It was posted for people to use as research material like this blog. (http://www.tolatsga.org/pota.html) While the Native American Facts for Kids was developed so people children can learn interesting facts about Native Americans like the Potawatomi for school and reports (http://www.bigorrin.org/potawatomi_kids.htm). Native Languages of the Americas:Potawatomi (Nishnabek, Pottawatomie, Pottawatomi) (http://www.native-languages.org/potawatomi.htm) was developed to inform people about the history of the Potawatomi tribe.

4.The Potawatomi joined other northeast Indian peoples in resisting English settlement, participating in battles such as Pontiac's Rebellion (1763), fought under the Ottawa chief Pontiac. So I guess you could say they were the "typical" Native Americans. But, like ever other Native American they were only fighting for there land that the French and English took away form them so in my opinion they had every right to be hostile and be the stereotypical Native American.