The attack didn’t make sense to Americans because they knew that Japan believed that the U.S. was stronger, but to the Japanese, Adkison 5 the Pearl Harbor attack probably seemed like their best option at the time. Not only would the attack diminish the American defenses on the West Coast, but it would force the U.S. into a twofront war, one in the Pacific and the other in Europe. Logically, a nation whose military is split between two fronts would be weaker than if its military only needed to worry about fighting on one front. Maybe Japan thought that between its alliance within the Axis powers and the U.S. fighting on two fronts, there was a distinct chance at victory and moving up in the world as a powerful nation. A surprise attack on the fleet could weaken Americans and give the Japanese the power that they craved.
It gained a great deal of criticism from the Democratic-Republicans. The two factions took a strong defense to whether the Sedition Act was justifiable by the Constitution or not. Federalist Congressman Allen defended the Sedition Act by condemning Americans for their acts of libel and “most shameless falsehoods against the representatives of the people.” Allen stated that “freedom of the press and opinions was never understood to give the right of publishing falsehoods and slanders, nor of exciting sedition, insurrection, and slaughter…” (Doc. 6). A Democratic-Republican supporter George Hay of Philadelphia argued that any kind of legislation against a protected freedom, in this case freedom of the press and opinion, is “extremely forbidden by the constitution” (Doc.
Washington retired partly for the political reason but also personal ailments of age and sickness hindering him as well as the attacks on his character accusing him of being a traitor and a monarchal king abusing his powers and loving every minute of it. Sadly, these slanders of Washington drove him to resignation and retirement as his ultimate response stating that his intentions were truly republican at heart. His Farewell address consists of his last words and ideas for the Nation to follow. It consisted of his call for national unity. Also, he emphasized about his dislike of the formation of political parties fearing the repercussions of such an establishment.
He aggressively protested that they had no right to make a law which needed a license but at the end, Andrew Jackson stepped in and ruled that the Cherokee were a “distinct community” as America had the upper hand in the ruling. The Supreme Court Case made its final call which I think was correct because I think that Samuel Worcester was just trying to test the boundaries of the laws that the Americans made. On his part though, I think he and the other six missionaries were just being un-smart and it seemed to me that they did not know what they were dealing with. It seemed like Worcester was trying to be a smart-alec because he could have easily have
Prelude to Civil War DBQ By the 1850's the Constitution, originally framed as an instrument of national unity, had become a source of sectional discord and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it has created. It is known that the union did not last that’s why the Civil War happened. If everyone could agree on what the constitution implied, then there probably would not have been a civil war. From many of the documents, there are arguments about what the constitution states. "To the Argument, that the word 'slaves' and 'slavery' are not to be found in The Constitution, and therefore it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that no such words are continued in the instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, to meet the necessities of slavery."
A) What is ironic is that Jefferson, one of the men who was most apposed of the Alien and Sedition Acts, looked down on immigration. He believed that immigrants will bring in ideas from their previous government, and will cause the United States to slowly become an anarchy or a monarchy. (Doc. B) This leads in to another underlying concern with the Alien and Sedition Acts: the fear that the newly formed United States democracy would cave into a monarchy. The Sedition Act made it illegal to insult the federal government verbally or published in writing.
He did not see how it was morally right to get involved with Europe’s war when the war first broke out. The Central powers proved him wrong. Germany did not believe in restricted war zones and that started to affect the lives of the US citizens. As William Jennings Bryan states “now can we complain, if in confusion one of our boats is sunk by mistake?” German U-boats had attacked American ships because the American ships had entered areas of war. Americans were warned by Germany though just chose to ignore their warning.
The Justice Department had argued Alvarez's statements deserved no legal protection because they had little value, and that there was a larger societal need to "protect speech that matters," in this case the valor and integrity of military heroes who rightfully earned their medals. The high court earlier last year struck down another federal law, this one designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty. The 8-1 majority said it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The federal Stolen Valor Act was designed to "protect the reputation" of military decorations, citing "fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor (and other congressionally authorized military medals, decorations, and awards)." Similar laws have been in place since 1948.
The most widely area of criticism that Lincoln received was his use of unconventional and sometimes illegal methods in order to achieve his goals. Lincoln justified ignoring the process of going through congress to make such decisions in that he felt the war needed immediate and direct decisions and did not have time to go through the process for congress’ approval. The criticism appears to be fair as they come from a variety of different groups from the democrats and Lincoln’s unjust ways of handling the war as well as his own party, the Republicans for his handling of the south. In assessment of Abraham Lincoln’s tenure as president and handling of the civil war tragedy, it can be determined that although heavily criticized by his peers the civil war would not have been the “civil war” without him. The inevitability of the civil war came to light when Lincoln was elected President and indirectly caused the civil war to start.
William Seward was a leading anti-slavery figure who later became secretary of state in the Lincoln administration. He believed that the two systems held by the North and the South (free labour and slavery) were “incompatible”. He stated that eventually America would have to become either fully a free labour nation or a slaveholding nation. While not everyone felt so strongly about this in the North (many didn’t care about the slavery issue at all) it was a reason that soldiers and leaders on either side went to war and fought for (in the North to end it, in the South to defend it). Lincoln was of the opinion that while he would never accept the extension of slavery he would make no direct attempt to interfere with it where it existed.