<p>wait, what was so difficult about the application of the time events? You did have to extrapolate to colonial times to fulfill the "to what extent" part of the prompt (you can't compare/contrast without bringing up earlier period to comapre w/), but other than that...what events were troublesome?</p>
<p>what kind of changes did you guys talk about? just wondering</p>
<p>I completely bombed the DBQ because I didn't know anything about post-war society. My thesis focused on the minority groups (women, slaves, and native Americans), therefore I said the Revolution didn't change society for those people much. </p>
<p>I grouped them as political, social, and economic on the test but i'll just group them according to the minority groups: </p>
<p>Women:
Constitution did not guarantee anything
Used Doc A to say that women had to fight on their own and were given no rights to do so.<br>
Used the Abigail Adams letter </p>
<p>Slaves:
-Great Compromise (3/5) was used to just help the white land-owning voters
-Counter Argument for the Northwest Ordinance Document by pointing out that once the states could earn statehood, they would just vote on whether or not to accept slavery </p>
<p>Native Americans:
-Failed to be mentioned in the Treaty of Paris
-Not mentioned in the Constitution
-Used the Document that presented false hope for the Natives </p>
<p>I used other stuff too like the Articles and other stuff I totally am blanking out about.</p>
<p>yea what did you guys say for economic changes? that one stumped me...</p>
<p>economically the country began to glorify the idea of being an agrarian nation</p>
<p>it just changed what the economy of the nation was to be based off for decades to come (until the indy rev)</p>
<p>i said that:</p>
<p>The American Revolution did not have significant effect on politics,economics,and sociology in the USA. But economy was still slightly effected..</p>
<h2>For Economic i said:</h2>
<p>=Agriculture was promoted b4 Revolution and after revolution
=Economy became drastic after Revolution due to the Articles of Confderation.. No universal currency. Too many excise taxes.. Farmers mad (document used)</p>
<h2>Social</h2>
<p>=No new black rights (Document used)
=No new womens rights (Document Used)</p>
<h2>Political</h2>
<p>=No peace w/ Indians.. (document used)
*something else...</p>
<p>What do you think I'll get on the DBQ???
5???</p>
<p>And for the essays, I said:</p>
<p>Mexico essay:</p>
<p>South wanted slavery in new territory to expand plantations.. Passed Calhoun Davis Proviso..
North wanted no slavery in new territory and wanted balance between slave states and free states to maintain balance... They passed Wilmot Proviso offering prohibition of slavery..
West was split over issue due to distinct society...</p>
<p>The debate was ended w/ Compromise of 1850 in which all three sides got part of their wants...</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>Immigration Essay:</p>
<p>In the early 1800s, immigrants were primarily Irish. In the late 1800s, they were primarily Russian, Southern and Eastern European...
(in the early 1800s, other small imigration incidents occured such as California Gold Rush, but irish was the most major one)</p>
<p>Irish came due to british oppression and potate famine
Russians came due to Pogroms..</p>
<p>Both faced problems:</p>
<p>Irish = conflicts w/ British
Russians = Red Scare</p>
<p>Both were disliked by lower class
Both brought family members over..
Both settled in towns..</p>
<p>Irish tended to work more in manual labor while Russians tended to live in more industrial labor...</p>
<p>Late 1800 immigration was more diverse and many more distinct communities were formed..</p>
<p>What do you think I got on those??
5s???</p>
<p>no, you will get a 1.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>why a 1???
1 is way below average... lol..</p>
<p>Economic:
- agrarian society, although starting to think about industrialization due to the break with the mother country britain
- westward expansion = increase in farming - land ordinance of 1785, northwest ordinance of 1787 = only form of government income under the articles
- no trade regulation under the articles and unstable currencies = no tariffs, no federal money for internal improvements and military(shays rebellion) etc...
- post constitutional convention --> more government regulation, gives the feds the power to collect revenue</p>
<p>Social:
- increased agrarian society and westward expansion = institution of slavery increased
- Despite Womens protests, still no rights
- Dec of Independence made white males think about natural rights --> property, liberty, and life.
- Westward Expansion mutes the proclomation of 1763 and makes it acceptable for americans to move on to Native American Lands
- I think I had more but forgot</p>
<p>Political:
- Articles - Unicameral legislature, they fail
- Constitutional Convention - written by wealthy aristocrats - more government power compromised with the Bill of Rights
- Beginning of the Two party system - Federalists and Anti Federalists
- Separation of Powers - legislature, executive, judicial.
- no rights for people who are not white males.</p>
<p>There was never a large amount of Russian immigration in the late 1800's.</p>
<p>Wait.. What do you think about my essays??</p>
<p>Please grade:</p>
<p>DBQ = 0-9
Essay 1 = 0-9
Essay 2 = 0-9</p>
<p>I put that there weren't huge changes during the time period except for the re-writing of the plan of government. Really, did American society fundamentally change from what it had been before? I think I did the best on the essay about the 60s and 70s.</p>
<p>well.. the problem asked 1880 to 1924</p>
<p>i thought the documents were outrageously varied. there was simply too much to discuss on such a topic and i ended up going like 6.5 pages on the DBQ and i had to finish the other two essays (two pages each) in 30 minutes</p>
<p>how hard is it to get a 5 on Essay??</p>
<p>dw51688, I totally agree. In fact, the time period alone, in terms of the prompt, was far too broad. Between 1775 and 1800, it went from no established government, to Articles of Confederation, to Constitution, and under each, things were different politically, socially, and economically.</p>
<p>For economics, I also used that one Document about the plow. This inferred that the U.S was in a time of boycott against British products somewhat which forced them to be self sufficient, making them develop new technology. At least I think this goes under economics I hope.</p>
<p>Socially:</p>
<p>women: women before the Revolution were meant to fill the Victorian archetype of basically doing nothing but bear children (there had been an old MC on this), and Rousseau's (?) "Cult of Domesticity". However after the Revolution, they were assigned a unique role as 'republican mothers' - to raise new loyal, patriotic citizens of the republic. (i.e. the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world) - and then i talked about during the Revolution, they managed the farms while husbands were at war and they became more independent (hence 1st picture w/ woman and rifle and soldiers hat - talked about some women actually fighting in the war) and then about the valedictorian's address, it talked about how after the war, it was socially acceptable everywhere for women to learn how to READ, but she wanted them to write as well. I talked about lack of education for women in pre-colonial era, and thus development into reading, and eventually, to public speaking.</p>
<p>social structure: one of the docs talked about loyalists fleeing. i said that the loyalists were the royal officials/most wealthy, etc. and so after the Rev. social class was very unified - everyone basically farmed/traded/ was on same level. The venerate the plow document supported the idea of a less classist society. outside info was Alexis de Toqueville, who wrote about in his essay (forget the name in the test, but it is Democracy in America) about the lack of an aristocracy in America and that's what separates it from the Old World - and in also colonial, British 'America'.</p>
<p>Economically:</p>
<p>talked about beginning most were farmers (like Washington was 'gentleman farmer') i.e. venerate the plow, but even during the time period (like 1805 or something) Eli Whitney invented interchangeable parts and industrialization started. I talked about the European economic theory of mercantilism, which says the mother countries has colonies to build up her own economy - i.e. colonies provided the raw resources like cotton, they got shipped to England, where they got manufactured into clothes, and were shipped back to the colonies to be sold. So I said the end of British control signalled the beginning of a capacity for industrialization - as an independent country, the raw goods could be manufactured in the US, could be sold to any other coutnries (limited by Navigation Acts), and they could build up their own economy instead of Britain's (i.e. American System). This set us on the path to the economic superpower we are today. W/o Revolution and end of UK control, industrialization would be much delayed, and the US would probably only be a developing country - i.e. India. (which was under UK control for a MUCH longer time than the US)</p>
<p>Political:</p>
<p>Indian policy: One document talked about how Chickasaw Indians looked up to King George as the Great Father or something - shows less aggressive, favorable Indian relations. Talked about Proclamation of 1763, which cut off colonial expansion to help avoid more Indian clashes. Another document talked about how the Indian Nations were disappointed b/c the US hadn't moved to become friendly with them, and had not consulted them - talked about more shunning, aggressive policy was difference. </p>
<p>Religion: There was a portion from the Virginia Bill of Rights, so I talked about that Virginia had been a royal colony, and thus the Anglican Church was the established church there, and so everyone had to pay govt. taxes to help support the Church even if you didn't go to that church/went to a different one/etc. Virginia Bill of Rights talked about freedom of religion, so I said after Rev. there was freedom of religion, and with Bill of Rights amended into Constitution, in all of America.</p>
<p>Central government: talked about Abigail Adams document which was about some rebellion (didn't remember which one, just wrote 'unrest') about like paper money or like equal distribution of wealth. Went off on a tangent that equal distribution of wealth is pretty communist, and on with that these 2 economic demands were never really fulfilled in the time period and the Federalist 10 and talked about how the federal government needed powers in order to control the people before controlling themselves. Said this wasn't a big diff. because govt. got power to tax, same central government (tho def. not as strong) as UK, however said that after Rev. the central government in America taxed itself (i.e. self-government) rather than the 'virtual representation' of Parliament.</p>
<p>Slavery: this point made sense in the test, but i did some extra research and it's BS. the argument makes sense and works in a very limited manner. UK had already banned slavery (checked online; they did it in 1833, so it is in time period, isn't it?) but b/c of mercantilist policy, they were loathe to ban it in the colonies (very true, but they did it, albiet very grudgingly and with lots of delays and excuses) because slavery was integral to the economic system of mercantilism (i.e. getting raw goods) - my case point was British govt. support for Confederacy originally b/c of cotton (though had to back off once Lincoln made it abt slavery in Emancipation Proclamation - the real reason he gave that speech). So when Northwest Ordinance banned slavery in territories, said that wouldn't have happened under UK because she would'nt have banned slavery in her territories.</p>
<p>Yeah. Looking back, the slavery paragraph should've just disappeared, it just used one document and wasn't that great. And it focused on more initial results, when in fact like Addicted points out, there were LOTS of changes. </p>
<p>I think the killer point that is essential to this DBQ (and I missed) was expansionism. US would've never expanded as much or as quickly as a colony - Louisiana Purchase wouldn't have happened because we would be fighting Napoleon for it, not buying it v. cheap off him. Lots of bad tangling Euro alliances....yeah...and UK had limiting expansionism policy anyways. </p>
<p>the time period was past 1800. right? if it wasn't...im screwed.</p>