Loading...
Important People of the Revolutionary War
Quiz by J Crissman
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
Important People of the Industrial RevolutionImportant People of the American Civil WarPeople of Southeast Asia By the late 20th century, Southeast Asiaâs population (including Indonesia and the Philippines) was approaching a half billion, or about one-twelfth of the worldâs total. This population, however, was unevenly distributed within the region. By far the nation with the largest population was Indonesia, with about two-fifths of the regional total; in contrast, Bruneiâs population was only a tiny fraction of that. Nearly half of the regional population was accounted for by the mainland states, with Vietnam and Thailand being the most populous. Settlement patterns Southeast Asia is predominantly rural: three-fourths of the people live in nonurban areas. Moreover, population is heavily clustered in fertile river valleys and especially in delta areas, such as those of the Mekong and Irrawaddy rivers. Historical, cultural, and environmental influences also have affected the settlement patterns. Java and other core areas such as the Bangkok (Thailand), Hanoi, and Manila metropolitan areas contain high population densities. While the rate of urbanization in Southeast Asia is relatively low compared with those of other developing regions, it is increasing rapidly. Singapore is unique in that it is essentially totally urban. In addition, the Philippines has a much higher than average level of urbanization, in part because of its Spanish and American colonial history. The largest citiesâJakarta (Indonesia), Bangkok, and Manilaâare among the worldâs most populous. The growth of cities of all sizes is being fueled primarily by natural increase, but rural-urban migration also is a significant contributor. Rural dwellers continue to be attracted by the promise of employment and other opportunities, but for many migrants the informal (undocumented) economic sector in these large cities is the only hope for some form of employment. Settlement patterns in rural areas tend to be associated with agricultural practices. Shifting cultivation is still common in some parts of the region (notably the remote interior areas of Myanmar, Vietnam, and the island of Borneo), although the amount of land so utilized is gradually shrinking. The village is the unit of settlement and often functions collectively, and typically it is moved from time to time. By contrast, wet-rice cultivation, the dominant form of agriculture in Southeast Asia, is sedentary and results in relatively large rural agglomerations with well-developed village life and customs. Dry and upland farming often produces scattered homesteads. Population resettlement to provide agricultural employment and access to land is important in some Southeast Asian countries, notably Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. By far the largest program has been conducted in Indonesia, where more than four million people have been voluntarily resettled from Java and Bali to the less populated islands. Despite considerable success, the program has been plagued by such problems as improper site selection, environmental deterioration, migrant adjustment, land conflicts, and inadequate financing. A program in Malaysia also has been quite successful, in part because it has set much smaller resettlement targets and has been better funded. Vietnamese development policy also has utilized the resettlement of people in an effort to revitalize areas outside the major population centres.Fed. 51: To the People of the State of New York: TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention. In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them. It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test. There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE. PUBLIUS.Think about the geography and location of the city or town you live in. Are there bodies of water like rivers and lakes or a coast nearby? Perhaps you live in a place with vast open fields suitable for farming or raising livestock. The natural environment is important when understanding how cities and towns developed. The earliest North American colonies depended on their natural environment. The type of soil, climate, length of seasons, and proximity to bodies of water all played a role in how each colony prospered. By the 1700âs, the American colonies grew into three distinct regions. The New England, Middle, and Southern regions each had different geographical and cultural characteristics that determined the development of their economy, society, and relationships to each other. The New England Colonies included Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. The geography of this region featured dense forests and hills. Combined with the hard rocky land, cold climate and long winters, New England was a poor area for large farming operations. However, many colonists known as "yeoman farmers" had small family-owned farms that grew a variety of crops. Many other colonists relied on fishing and whaling off the New England coast. Others settled in small towns and became craftsmen or merchants. The forests provided excellent lumber for building boats and homes for the growing population. Many of the settlers to the New England Colonies were Puritans, hardworking, and very religious. Close families and strong communities were very important to them. The Middle Colonies included Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, and New Jersey. The geography of this region featured a warmer climate with fertile soil, flat land, easily navigable rivers, and wide valleys making it perfect for farming and growing crops. Wealthy farmers grew cash crops and raised livestock. Mining and trading were also important aspects of the economy here. Over time, cities grew, and urban merchants sold and traded goods with people throughout the other colonies. Compared to other regions, the people of the middle colonies supported religious freedom and tolerance and had a diverse population with settlers arriving from many areas in Europe. The Southern Colonies included the first English colony of Virginia, and grew to include Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. The geography included rich, fertile soil with broad coastal plains that made it possible for large plantations to grow tobacco, rice, and indigo. Most of these plantations featured a labor force of enslaved Black people. These enslaved men, women, and children had few, if any, rights and often saw their families torn apart at the whim of the plantation owner. Enslaved children were even put to work as young as age three, weeding fields, carrying drinking water, or helping in the home. Smaller farms owned by subsistence farmers also existed across the Southern Colonies. Often, the people working these would grow crops for their families with little left over to sell or trade. Indentured servants also arrived in the South who would work for 5-7 years in exchange for their passage to North America. The Church of England (also known as the Anglican Church) was the dominant religion in the region. Most settlers to the South did not come for religious freedom like they did in the northern colonies. Therefore, they often maintained their allegiance to the established Church of England. Between 1775 and 1782 (the years of the American Revolution) a smallpox epidemic spread across North America. By 1782, the disease had reached the villages of the Mandans and Hidatsas. The death rate was very high. The Dakotas attacked the weakened Mandan villages including On-a-slant village (today the villiage is in Fort Lincoln State Park) and Double Ditch village. By 1790, the survivors (of both disease and war) left the Heart River area and moved north to establish villages near Painted Woods Creek and at the mouth of the Knife River. The Mandans who had once occupied six large villages now lived in two small villages. There were only two remaining Hidatsa villages and another village where both Mandans and Hidatsas lived. The populations of the two tribes had been reduced by 75 percent. The Mandans and Hidatsas also suffered cultural losses because of the smallpox outbreaks. The Mandan villages had always shared some common cultural traits, but each village had a slightly different language. As the survivors were forced to move together for security, the differences disappeared. There were similar cultural losses for the Hidatsas. The Arikaras who lived farther south along the Missouri River also experienced the smallpox epidemic. By 1790, the Arikaras had been reduced from a large population living in 32 villages to a group that occupied two villages. Only 500 men of military age remained of the 4,000 Arikara warriors who had protected their villages in previous decades. In 1801, smallpox struck the people of the northern Great Plains again. This time, the epidemic killed fewer people. It is possible that the survivors of the 1782 epidemic were still immune to the virus this time. In 1830, the Army identified smallpox as a dangerous disease at Indian agencies on the lower Missouri River (in modern-day Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska). The Secretary of War, L. G. Randolph, authorized Indian agents to hire doctors to vaccinate American Indians living at the agencies. However, these agents were not ordered to vaccinate Indians. Many mothers feared the vaccine. They had seen many babies become sick because doctors did not use sterile procedures (which were unknown at the time). Sometimes vaccine was not effective and the children became sick anyway. For a variety of reasons, the Armyâs vaccination campaign did little to stop smallpox epidemics among the Indians of the frontier. Indian agents on the frontier were concerned about smallpox. Non-Indian settlers were approaching the lands where the tribes lived. Disease was spreading and the agents begged the Office of Indian Affairs (part of the War Department) to provide vaccine for Indians. Finally, in 1832, Congress passed the Indian Vaccination Act. The bill appropriated $12,000 to purchase vaccine and hire doctors to vaccinate Indians. Exactly which tribes would be vaccinated was not specified in the bill. Secretary of War Lewis Cass, who administered the program, decided that the vaccination program would be extended to tribes that were friendly to the United States, those with important economic roles, and those tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) that were being forced out of southern states to relocation sites in the West. Cass specifically excluded the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras (along with other tribes living farther up the river) from the vaccination program. Cass believed the fur trade on the Upper Missouri River was no longer economically important. He also stated that the treaties that all three tribes signed in 1825 identified them as hostile towards the U. S. and its citizens. (See Document 1.) Other tribes, including the Teton Sioux (Lakotas) did not have such statements in their treaties. Cass excluded the Upper Missouri tribes from vaccination because he considered them to be far removed (both geographically and socially) from âcivilized man.â Smallpox epidemics had struck the tribes of the Upper Missouri at least twice before the terrible epidemic of 1837. The earlier epidemics of 1781 and 1801 took the lives of thousands of Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras and forced them to move north to re-build their villages near the mouth of the Knife River. However, not long after the earthlodge villages became established on the Knife, they experienced the worst smallpox epidemic ever. Fort Clark was a fur-trading post that had been built in 1823 just a few miles south of the mouth of the Knife River on the west bank of the Missouri River. One-quarter mile from the fort was the Mandan village of Mitu'tahakto's (meh TOOT ah hahnk tosh). Within 15 miles of the post were several more Mandan, Arikara, and Hidatsa villages. Earlier epidemics and inter-tribal conflict had forced the earthlodge peoples north to the Knife River. The Yanktonais, Crows, Assiniboines and other tribes traveled to Fort Clark bringing buffalo robes and furs to trade for tobacco, guns, cloth, and other goods. Fort Clark was a busy, densely populated center of international trade. On June 18, 1837, the steamboat St. Peters approached Fort Clark. In addition to supplies, the St. Peters brought Andrew Jackson Chardon, the two-year-old son of Fort Clarkâs superintendent, Francis Chardon. Chardon met the boat some 30 miles downstream. He removed his son from the boat and heard the news that people on the boat were infected with smallpox. When the steamboat landed at Fort Clark, people came and went from the boat to the fort and the villages. Workers from the boat and the post unloaded goods and loaded bales of furs. All of the activity took place in less than 24 hours amid a âfrolickâ of singing and dancing and celebration. Once loaded, the St. Peters headed upstream to Fort Union carrying the deadly virus. On July 14, 1837, Chardon noted in his journal that a Mandan man had died of smallpox in the village. (See Document 2.) Chardon knew that smallpox would become an epidemic and that many more would die, but the extent of the epidemic stunned him. He recorded the deaths of important village leaders including the highly-respected second chief of the Mandans, Four Bears. He heard, probably second-hand, the death-speech of Four Bears (See Document 2, entry for July 30.) and recorded it in his journal. Chardon was unable to keep track of the number of deaths: âthey die so fast that it is impossible,â he wrote. Survivors swore revenge against Chardon for bringing death to their villages. There were murders and threats of murder as the deeply despairing Mandans tried to avenge the deaths of their families and friends. Some people, sick with smallpox or feeling desperate from the loss of every member of their family, committed suicide. Suicide was unknown among the Mandans and Hidatsas before the epidemic. Before the disease reached the post, Chardon sent his oldest son downriver to Fort Pierre. The boy was sent on to his grandparentsâ home in Pennsylvania. The younger son, Andrew Jackson, remained with Chardon (the boyâs mother had died in April before the epidemic). When the disease finally penetrated the walls of the fort, Andrew Jackson sickened and died as did many other young children of the post employees. When the disease reached Fort Union, more people, both Indians and non-Indians, were exposed and suffered. The superintendent at Fort Union tried to inoculate as many people as he could. Many tribes fled the area and probably saved many lives in doing so. The disease however, continued to spread across the northern Great Plains where the Indians had been denied access to the 1832 federal vaccination program. The Mandan people suffered the greatest losses in the epidemic. Frequent, close contact among the people of the villages and the fur trade post helped to spread the disease quickly. About 2,000 Mandans lived in the Knife River villages in the spring of 1837. By October, 138 people remained alive. The survivors moved from the village at Fort Clark to other villages. The Arikaras, who had lost perhaps two-thirds of their population, moved into Mitu'tahakto's. They harvested the Mandansâ garden crops that year and remained in the village near Fort Clark.Juneteenth is an important holiday in American history. It honors the day in 1865 when enslaved people in Texas found out they were free. This day marked a major milestone on the path to ending slavery throughout the U.S. On June 19, 1865, Major General Gordon Granger of the Union army arrived in Galveston, Texas. He informed the enslaved people of Texas about the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was a speech made by President Abraham Lincoln two years earlier, on January 1, 1863. It stated that enslaved people in many of the southern states were now free. President Lincoln gave this speech during the height of the Civil War. But by the time the Union soldiers made it to Texas, the Civil War had ended. It took over two years for this message to reach the people still enslaved in Texas! More than 250,000 people celebrated their newfound freedom on June 19. Soon after, many of these freed people decided to migrate to northern states to start a new life. But they continued to celebrate Juneteenth year after year and to share this holiday with their community. In 1872, a group of formerly enslaved people raised money to buy 10 acres of land near Houston, Texas. They named this land âEmancipation Parkâ. To this day, many Americans celebrate Juneteenth in this park to remember their history. Texas also holds a special parade to celebrate this day. Thousands of people participate and enjoy learning and celebrating African American culture and history. They fly the Juneteenth flag. The Juneteenth flag has a white star that symbolizes freedom and new hope for African Americans. Juneteenth is a day to remember the triumphs and struggles of African Americans. Even though enslaved people in Texas learned of their freedom on Juneteenth, they still faced violence, discrimination and inequality. That is why Juneteenth celebrations are so important to many Americans. Juneteenth recognizes the hardships of gaining freedom and the importance of remembering Black history in the United States.