Upgrade to remove ads
Only $2.99/month

APUSH READING QUIZ, CHAPTER 10

Terms in this set (5)

What important protections were added to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights?
Thanks to the bill of Rights, the Constitution protects Americans' rights to practice any religion, voice their true opinions without consequence, bear arms, have a jury during trials, assemble, and ask the government to make changes when they are unhappy. The Bill of Rights also prevents the government from administering cruel punishments and taking back private property when it is not absolutely necessary. Madison added the Ninth Amendment to make it clear that these are not the only rights protected, that rights not listed are also implied. Finally, the tenth amendment ensures that any power not given to the federal government is automatically granted to the people.
What two constitutional theories were presented by Jefferson and Hamilton when Washington asked about the constituitionality of creating a national bank?
Jefferson argued using the theory of "strict construction", meaning he believed that the Constitution should be followed word for word. He argued against the creation of a national bank because there was no need to waste time and energy on it if the Constitution did not specifically call for it. He also believed that Congress lacked the power to create a bank because the Constitution did not grant it to them, so if it were to be done, it would have to be done by the people (Any power not outright granted to the government automatically belongs to the people - Amendment 10). On the other hand, Hamilton argued for the theory of "loose construction", using the "elastic clause", or the idea that the words of the Constitution were up to interpretation if it served the common good. Hamilton believed that since the Constitution did not prohibit the making of a bank, it could be done. It would help the government control trade and tax collection, which the government had to do. The establishment of a bank is "necessary", therefore justified.
Why did Washington opt for neutrality during the French Revolution?
Washington knew that at the time, the nation's military, economy, and sense of unity was weak. He did not want to risk losing these things when the nation was still young and had just established proper foundations. He reasoned that if America avoided involvement in European affairs for at least a generation, it would become militarily and financially strong enough to pay its debt to France. Valuing strategic patience was common among the Founding Fathers, even polar opposites like Hamilton and Jefferson.
Who would likely support Hamiltonian federalists, and who would likely support Jeffersonian Republicans? What were the philosophical differences between these two political parties?
The elite, especially from the North, were likely to support the federalists while the poorer farmers of the South were likely to support the Republicans. Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the Constitution should be taken literally. Any power not specified by the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belonged to the people. They were in favor of the states having more power and not being taxed heavily by the central government. The opposing side, the federalists, believed that the Constitution was up to interpretation if the actions made around it were "necessary" for the benefit of the country. For example, taxes had to be properly collected to keep the central government from becoming too weak like it was under the Articles of Confederation.
How wise was Washington's insistence on neutrality? What about the fact that, while this foreign policy stance may not have violated the letter of alliance with France, it did violate the spirit of alliance? Do you agree that, as the authors contend, "self-interest is the basic cement of alliances"? Does a nation have an obligation to maintain alliances previously established, even when it is no longer in that nation's self-interest?
I think Washington's insistence on neutrality was wise. If America had fought for France, it would not have been as much of a help as to France as France had been to America during the American Revolution. Its military was significantly weaker than the two European powers' and it would quickly fall. The textbook did say that American neutrality actually allowed France to keep their access to much-needed Yankee foodstuffs. While the spirit of alliance may have been broken, it is true that France never outright called the Americans into action and might not have even expected backup. However, I do not believe that self-interest should be the reason used to justify neutrality because America's freedom during their revolution was not necessarily in France's self-interest. I think the reasons should just be what I mentioned above - that America would not have made much of a difference and was supportive in the small way it was able to.
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR