<p>we can talk about this right?
if so, let's.</p>
<p>!
10 char</p>
<p>Which one did you write about?</p>
<p>i did the whiskey rebellion one
and all i wrote about was how shays and whiskey showed the need for a sdtring centralized gov
i didnt even remember where shays tooks place
but i worte how it pointed out the weaknesses of the Articles
but overall, i had like 0 details</p>
<p>did anyone say the Teddy Rose reversed the fed gov's role in gov and itnl affairs?
because im not sure how well i prved that</p>
<p>For the FR I did 2 and 4. 2 I couldn't remember the year of Shay's Rebellion, is that ok? I addressed the causes, but briefly. Then I talked a lot about how the rebellions resulted from the structure in government and how they changed the structure of government. Does that sound reasonable? For 4, I did trusts and foreign affairs. I just realized I put in the Mann-Elkins Act, even though that wasn't under TR. I said that it was in 1910 but somehow wasn't thinking clearly and it didn't click that that was Taft. But since I put the year, do you think they'll realize that I know it wasn't under TR? I said that the attitude towards trusts changed the role of government a lot, but in terms of foreign affairs it barely changed, as earlier presidents had already started imperialism. I did talk about big stick policy, Panama, Cuba, etc, so I hope that's ok.</p>
<p>^^yeah..govnt before was more lassiez-fair, but TR changed that by trust busting..panama canal..and stuff like that.</p>
<p>I actually knew a lot about Shay's and Whiskey rebellion. Shays' showed the weakness of the federal govnt while Whiskey strenghtened the executive power, or at least showed the public that there was a strong executive power.</p>
<p>"Shays' showed the weakness of the federal govnt while Whiskey strenghtened the executive power, or at least showed the public that there was a strong executive power."
i said all that, but i didnt have any detials, and I only stated calling in loans as the reason for shays and taxation as the reason for Whsikey</p>
<p>Shays's I said the same thing. For the Whiskey Rebellion, I said it actually led to less power of the central government. I said it was a show of strength, but it led to the creation of the Jeffersonians, which led to more of a balance of power, factions, emphasis on civil and state's rights in an actual political party, etc.</p>
<p>ugh
is there like a rubric or anything?</p>
<p>Well, do they really care that much what you argued as opposed to how you argued it. I mean, if you argued something that's a bit unusual but had evidence and good analysis to back it up, would they really mark you completely wrong just because you didn't do the norm?</p>
<p>@Laura,</p>
<p>I don't think the Whiskey Rebellion led directly to the creation of Jeffersonians and all that. I remember when my class studied that rebellion, our AP teacher strongly emphasized that the Whiskey Rebellion strenghthened the executive power.</p>
<p>Damnit, I remembered that wrong, it was the stupid Bank that led to the creation wasn't it? However, it still turned many people away from the federal government and towards the Democratic Republicans, so maybe I'll salvage some points. In my notes I have that it was a great show of strength, but many despised it, and turned to the Anti-Federalists as well.</p>
<p>hey i did 2 and 4. but what was the exact wording of the question?
2i think was "backwood country farmers had it rough. analyze causes and significance of 2 of the following:"</p>
<p>and 4 i think was "analyze the extent that theodore roosevelt changed the role of the fed. govt in 2 of the following:"</p>
<p>becus in ur essay u have to address all parts of the ques. so the wording is important.</p>
<p>My FRQ responses weren't very detailed.</p>
<p>For #3, I wrote about "the cult of domesticity", saying that the Second Great Awakening changed the role of the family with women staying in the home, raising the children, and doing housechores...and men being the only ones to work. An then for utopian communities, I stated that the Second Great Awakening changed peoples' thinking and stressed perfection as the way to get into heaven. lol And I went on and on about communities like Brook Farm and Oneida and how all the utopian communities failed because of lack of communication and central leadership.</p>
<p>For the last part, I chose #5 because the other one was really hard. I wrote about FDR and Lyndon Johnson and how they invalidated that statement that landslide elections don't produce successful presidents or whatever it said. I knew Johnson was a bad president, but I wasn't about to pick Nixon or Reagan (who I knew nothing about). So I talked alot about FDR and his first hundred days, the bank holiday (taking away banks' gold and replacing it with paper money), his New Deal, and the AAA and Social Security Act. For Johnson, I wrote about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his headway in improving domestic issues. I stayed away from talking about Vietnam since I didn't want to make a weak essay by disproving my thesis. lmao</p>
<p>I hope I did okay......</p>
<p>anyone do rebuttal paragraphs?</p>
<p>How harsh is the grading on these? I mean, I know it's hard to get like a 7-9, but how tough is it to get a 5 or 6?</p>
<p>Honestly, I am hoping for a 5/9 on my DBQ and a 4/9 on both my FR</p>
<p>IMO easy MC
Hard essays... I felt the DBQ wasn't to bad... but I didn't have a ton of outside information to put in (the documents really put in all the outside info I knew =/)</p>
<p>Same here. I thought I'd really gotten it on the essays, but now everyone has something different than me, and I'm freaking out. I hope for 4s and 5s too, because if the multiple choice went as well as I think, I can still get a 5. I'm praying at this point. I was so confident before. I think I'll go out and do other work and get some ice cream now, because this is just depressing me.</p>
<p>Teddy Roosevelt was really easy.
World Affairs:
- Roosevelt Corollary
- Big Stick Policy
- Russo-Japanese War
- Panama Canal
- "Great White Fleet"</p>
<p>Trusts:
-Nickname = "trustbuster"
-distingush between good and bad trusts
-sherman anti-trust act
-clayton anti-trust act
- square deal</p>