June 2006 - US History

<p>How do you know they were demoralized? They just won a war, who the heck would be demoralized. And it was a threat. Notice the date. 1946= went form 13 million to 5-3 million. Umm...the war ended 1945. The army hadnt lost much compared to what it had, or else the army would have been smaller. I can't ask my history teacher, he left last year. But i remember going over the fact that army was a threat. Also, what makes actual evidence stronger then a history teacher's view. Common, your history teacher doesn't know everything. Do you still trust him?</p>

<p>and yes, you were just proved wrong by facts.</p>

<p>Yeah, the answer is definitely army.</p>

<p>whats the madison, jackson, hamilton question? I think i remember putting madison..but what was it again?</p>

<p>Ok, the quote. I don't know if a lot of people remember it by I remember exactly what they were saying at the end. They said something along the lines of "the will of the majority will not lead to tyranny, as there are so many different viewpoints and opinions" - Thus, the answer would have to be Jackson, as Madison was AGAINST majority rule, as I have shown in a quote from the federalist papers previously.</p>

<p>The answer should be jackson because he favored majority rule and the rule of the people. But are you sure those are very similar quotes?</p>

<p>As for the Hamilton Question- The possible answers were he wanted to create a strong economy, or get many people involved and have a stake in the new economy- I am sure it was get people involved. This was the trickiest question, and will likely be the one where only 18% got it right.</p>

<p>I read the Jackson one very carefully...</p>

<p>No it's Madison:</p>

<p>Madison was convinced that in a large republic one faction would not stay in place long enough, or grow large enough, to pose a threat.....other factions would be created and they would all "check each other."
<a href="http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/madison.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/madison.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Madison argued that the republican remedy embodied in the Constitution allowed the various factions sufficient room to express their views and to attempt to influence the government. Instead of the majority putting down minorities, the different interests would negotiate their differences, thus arriving at a solution in which the majority would rule but with due care and regard given to minorities. The very number of factions would preclude any one from exercising tyrannical control over the rest. And the medium in which this give and take would occur would be politics, the art of governing.
<a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/7.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Nope, sorry- that wasnt the main gist of the quote. I am well aware of that info as well.</p>

<p>besides, it said who would most likely AGREE with the quote. Jackson certainly would, and Madison didn't like the majority- key word- and setup the electoral college.</p>

<p>yes it was. the quote specifically said something along the lines of "factions in government would prevent tyranny."</p>

<p>no, it said "will of the majority"</p>

<p>Anyone care to debate Hamilton again?</p>

<p>no the quote didnt say anything about will of the majority</p>

<p>it specifically had the words i wrote. "factions in governemnt would prevent tyranny."</p>

<p>what do other people remember about that quote?</p>

<p>Heres the proof- "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" The one in the quote on the test was in favor of majority - another person previously on this board agreed that will of the majority was mentioned, thus substantiating my claims. Why wouldn't Jackson agree with this?</p>

<p>That quote is straight from the federalist papers themselves, and is contradictory to the quot from the test.</p>

<p>i think you remembered the quote wrong</p>

<p>but to be sure, what do others remember about it?</p>

<p>I can't debate against you guys. Ask your teachers, and don't use evidence from the internet. Your teacher is your best bet, they have been studying US history for a long time.</p>

<p>Listen, I was leading toward Madison as well- but I went back and changed my answer because I DEFINITELY say "will of the majority" in the last line of thequote- then it hit me that jackson would agree.</p>

<p>once again...why dont you wait and see what others remember about the quote</p>

<p>anyone agree and remember it saying something like "factions in the republic would prevent tyranny"?</p>

<p>i didnt even take the test but jackson seems right :)</p>

<p>fine, but I changed my answer when i saw those words- so im positive.</p>

<p>greenbay if u didnt take the test how would u know what the quote said? ...</p>