<p>ah well...lets just wait and see...</p>
<p>haha its going to be an adventure to see my score :)</p>
<p>later people i'll be back when the scores come out!</p>
<p>good luck!</p>
<p>oK ,good luck</p>
<p>ok now i'm really angry. first it was the stupid knowledge that upton sinclair's initial motives weren't met clouding my mind and judgment to not pick him as a muckracker(!?!), then it was asking about Ralph Nader (my abysmal AP US history class didn't even get past WWII!, and i've never listened to or read about the guy), followed by an insane preoccupation with SPain and colonialism (we started at just about the American Revolution in my class... the school sucks), but nothing can compare to my frustration over seward's folly. How can they test the ability to lift ALaska out of its place, adjust for latitude and longitude morphs, and superimpose it on the Louisiana purchase?!?! although 600,000 sq. miles is 75% of Louisiana Purchase's 800,000, that is still soooo cheap. TAKE MY 2400 SAT 1 BACK COLLEGEBOARD!</p>
<p>it seems the collective mind of humanity (aka wikipedia) has decreed against a common consensus here. THe answer to the Spanish-American War being a "Splendid little war" was its popular support, not speedy interests accomplishments. "</p>
<p>The Spanish–American War was a “splendid little war” according to Theodore Roosevelt. The press showed Northerners and Southerners, blacks and whites fighting against a common foe, helping to ease the scars left from the American Civil War, replacing them with brand new scars of US vs Spain, non-state vs state, and throwing America's hat into the ring as another Imperialist nation." </p>
<p>"Colonial Virginia planters quickly discovered that they needed many permanent workers to help grow tobacco and get it ready to be shipped to England. As time went on, the successful planting of tobacco depended on a reliable and inexpensive source of labor. Many Africans were brought over on crowded ships against their will to eventually become that source of labor needed for growing tobacco. However, the newcomers to Virginia were not treated as slaves immediately. Some were indentured servants and eventually obtained their freedom. " inexpensive labor final answer for Virginia a slave colony</p>
<p>Remi im 99.9% sure that ur wrong about the S-A war. The answer was that it was a easy/fast victory (i posted a quote that i found in AMSCO by some government official who coined the frase a few pages back).</p>
<p>And i still think the slave question was that there was a labor shortage but w/e. Most books pretty much say both labor shortage and inexpensive labor so its a tough call.</p>
<p>^ I agree.</p>
<p>Secretary of State John Hay called it "a splendid little war" because in less than a hundred days the U.S. liberated 13 million people and 165,000 square miles of colonies from Puerto Rico to Guam and the Philippines, and with only 379 combat deaths.
<a href="http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/042804_little_war.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.ccmep.org/2004_articles/iraq/042804_little_war.htm</a></p>
<p>What was the answer to the question that asked about African Americans voting and what led to the trend. I think the choices were: FDR campaign's or the great depression.</p>
<p>about the question regarding the slaves in virginia: it can't be inexpensive labor because first of all slaves were expensive and they didn't pay them at all, so inexpensive is the wrong term there. i asked my teacher and she said it was the disease thing for sure.</p>
<p>Sorry is this was already posted....when can we see the June SAT 11 scores on the college board site?</p>
<p>slaves were by all means not expensive. If they were expensive the Virginia colony could have never formed. The settlers were usually poor and money-hungry. Expensive slaves would have disillusioned these settlers and an alternate source would have needed to be found.</p>
<p>I think its June 21st.</p>
<p>slaves were expensive. Landowners changed to slaves because indentured servants were too rebellious as shown in Bacon's Rebellion.</p>
<p>Well I'm happy to be wrong here on the Spanish-American War because i put A for being relatively quick (i was just noting the irony of the collective mind of humanity attributing the quote to Theodore and supporting the other answer).</p>
<p>Now for the slavery thing again, i think the shift was too gradual to single out disease causing a shortage that necessarily mandated slaves to constitute the newly engendered labor force; it wasn't a typical labor shortage per se as in loss of labor as it was the natural progression and growth of the tobacco industry requiring an increase in the labor force, which African slaves would provide in full force. Also, with relation to expense, the gradual shift and initial relative paucity of true demand with the addition of a huge supply of African slaves open for shipment en masse would make slaves relatively inexpensive as they initially began their "take-over" of the labor force; now once demand went shooting up and especially when the end to the slave trade was looming over everyone's heads, the price of slaves would quickly change to being expensive. In addition, everyone was involved with the cultivation of tobacco initially so slaves could not be that expensive at the beginning.</p>
<p>how many ques do u think we went over in this thread.....so i can estimate about how many i got wrong</p>
<p>790 biatches!</p>
<p>congrats, ny10804! I got a 740...I'm pretty happy :)</p>
<p>Eight Hundred!</p>
<p>omg...i thought i was going to get 800!!
and...it was.....690! ***! now i'm realli scared about what i ACTUALLi get versus what i THOUGHT i got on APUSH. ugh.</p>