A poem to share and analyse today by Ella Wheeler Wilcox:
A poem to share and analyse today by Ella Wheeler Wilcox:
Unit III Key terms and Concepts
First Bank of the United States
Hamilton’s Reports (Public Credit, the Bank, Manufactures)
Whiskey Rebellion/excise tax
Hamiltonian v. Jeffersonian philosophy
Loose v. strict construction
Republican (Democratic-Republican) Party
The First Party System
the “elastic clause”
Washington’s Farewell Address
Bill of Rights
Napoleonic Wars and U.S. foreign policy
Neutrality Proclamation of 1793
Elections of 1796, 1800, and 1820
X, Y, and Z Affair
The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
The Alien and Sedition Acts (know specific acts)
The “Quasi War”
Convention of 1800
Convention of 1818
Adams-Onis Treaty (1819)
Tariff of 1816
Second Bank of the U.S.
Macon’s Bill #2
War of 1812 – causes and effects
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Fletcher v. Peck (1818)
Dartmouth v. Woodward (1817)
The “American System”
John Quincy Adams
John C. Calhoun
The “Era of Good Feelings”
Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
She was five at the time. It was her first day of kindergarten on an otherwise normal day. She was waiting by the school gates waiting for the sight of her mother’s red hair. Her backpack was an unfamiliar weight on her back. She shifted the straps uncomfortably. Several of her new classmates waved to her as they passed her, hand in hand with their own parents. She waved back with her right hand.
It’s funny how she could still remember each of their faces clearly. The boy with sandy-colored hair, the girl with freckles and an overbite, the curly-haired girl in her flowery skirt, the boy with the Pokemon cap and his deck of cards. She smiled. That same boy lived next door to her now. She had taken a liking to him the first time she’s seen him. It was a child’s infatuation. She liked the way his eyes lit up when he talked about his cards, the way he frowned in concentration and the way he treated everyone fairly. Maybe a shadow of that childhood infatuation still remained. She shook her head. That doesn’t matter anymore. She looked down at her left hand.
Through her five-year-old eyes, she saw her pudgy fingers holding tightly onto her masterpiece as if it would fly away. A voice called her name. She looked up, neck craned, searching for the source of the voice. “Here, mommy!” Her mom’s red hair came bobbing into view and her fingers loosened. The piece of paper flew away, carried away by a sudden breeze. Thinking back on it now, it seemed like Fate was taunting her. When she was little, she thought that if she hadn’t let go of that piece of paper, her mother would still be here. Her paper with her happy stick family floated away, lost forever to her grasping fingers.
But those thoughts didn’t occur to her until she was older, much older. At the time, a strange man was hovering by her mother. As she came closer, her five-year-old self could see the empty sockets where the eyes should have been, the grinning face and what scared her most, the scythe that he carried in his bone-white hands. The scythe’s curved blade fit snugly around her mother’s slim waist. The man held chains in his hands, chains that ended in shackles on her mother’s wrists, ankles and throat. She pointed to them and asked her mother what they were used for. Her mother, taking it as a child’s figment of imagination, replied as such. But the man turned his empty eye sockets on her, taking notice of her for the first time. She waved at him. Her mother looked over her shoulder, trying to see who she was waving to. But besides a sudden chill, didn’t detect anything else. Her mother took her left hand and led her to the car, chatting happily. And that’s where the memory ended. They could have been walking forever to the car.
She focused again on her left hand. On it, was a scar. One that curved through her palm. Like the strange man’s scythe. A touch on her shoulder caused her to turn her head. A similar grinning face looked back at her. Attached to the face was a cloth-covered body and out of the body was the same bone-white hand, holding a scythe. In the other hand, was the same chains ending with the shackles in the same places. Looking back at her hand, she saw the grained wood handle of a scythe. Oh, that’s right. She was friends with the death gods. The reapers that took her mother’s soul when she died. But that doesn’t matter anymore. The reaper stood up, chains rattling. She stood up at well but her chains were empty. She needed to find someone and soon. As her friend faded away, she followed. The branch that she was sitting on rustled as if shaking off a pest. The boy next door shivered. Maybe he would be suitable.
Thank you for the eight years of your life that you spent for America. Thank you for taking care of us, for putting up with us and never losing faith in us. Most of all, thank for listening to us and keeping your head on your shoulders and never losing sight of the future. Thank you for standing strong for eight years. We will miss you being in the White House.
No Spoilers Ahead
I finished reading The Girl Who Played With Fire a couple of weeks ago. I really liked the book, but the big ham about women being underrated in their careers was focused on way too much (the same happened in The Fountainhead where the big ham was about how communism and conformity are the worst things ever and God help you if you support socialist ideas). In any case, after finishing the book, there was one thing that remained on the back of my mind. It was Fermat’s Theorem that was introduced early on in the book. I haven’t read the third book yet so I haven’t been given an answer by Lisbeth herself (if she gives an answer in the third book).
I was actually trying to figure it out. Since she said that Fermat’s Theorem was less about math and more about philosophy, then that means the answer isn’t supposed to be a supposed proof of the theorem but rather what it means in relation to the theme of the book. So I tried searching up the actual proof of the theorem and along the way found that there was a proof to the theorem (Wile’s proof) and that it was of no help to me. That was a dead end for me. So what did Lisbeth mean by it being philosophical?
Of course, Lisbeth would know very well what philosophical meaning there is behind something that people try to categorise and classify, but whatever name or condition they come up with to describe it, they just aren’t true and they don’t fit. Like Wile’s initial proof, people’s assumptions and expectations of her are often based on mistaken premises and false facts. Furthermore, since the theorem states that the formula Fermat came up with has no solutions, people trying to come up with a proof has to prove that there are, in fact, no solutions which means that they have to exhaust every means of finding a solution that solves the equation. Lisbeth, in all her peculiarity, has nothing of the conditions that her foster parents and her psychologists attribute to her, but they keep trying to cure her of the things that she doesn’t have. And like the theorem, Lisbeth is hard to understand and her behaviour is hard to prove and disprove and that means that once rumours establish themselves, her peculiar behaviour is hard to explain if one doesn’t know the context and that leads to much of her bad publicity in the book.
And that’s it. That’s why Stieg Larsson decided to include the Theorem in his books. To the people who published his story of Lisbeth Salander after his death, thank you for not including the answer to the question in the second book. I’ve had a bit of fun with this, but I did get frustrated when I didn’t know what Lisbeth meant while I was still reading the book (hence the title of this post). Only when I’ve had time to think things through weeks later did the answer come to me. Hopefully, I’ll be able to get my hands on the third book sometime this year and finish the series.
That’s all for this time. Read on!
To read more about Fermat’s Last Theorem, here is the Wiki page: Fermat’s Last Theorem
To read more about Wile’s proof, here is the Wiki page for that: Wile’s proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem
So this is the first of the APUSH posts. I don’t have Unit I or II up because at the time, I didn’t do a lot of preparation for the first couple of units and what I did have was not sufficient for any sort of studying. Because of that, I’ll start with Unit III. I should also say that I won’t give you everything you need for each of these prompts because that’ll be no fun and it defeats the purpose of being an AP student. I’ll only give you the basic points and the synthesis and contextualization. Oh and any events I list may or may not be in chronological order, so be careful of that as well.
I was given these prompts, you might have gotten something different for Unit 3:
(1) “Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will be the duty of a wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good.” -Alexander Hamilton, 1787
How was this viewpoint manifested in Hamilton’s financial program as Secretary of the Treasury?
(2) Evaluate the relative importance of domestic and foreign affairs in shaping American politics in the 1790’s.
For this prompt, you need to state whether domestic or foreign affairs was more important in shaping American politics in the 1790s. I’ve listed what was happening in both categories. And depending on which one you thought was more important, the synthesis point I used may have to be tweaked.
(3) To what extent was the election of 1800, sometimes known as the “Revolution of 1800”, a turning point in U.S. History?
(4) Compare and contrast the contributions of two U.S. Presidents between 1788-1810 in helping to establish a stable government after the adoption of the Constitution. (GW, Adams, Jefferson)
(5) Analyse the impact of the American Revolution on both slavery and the status of women in the period 1775-1800.
(6) Evaluate the extent to which there was continuity in the conduct of United States foreign policy between 1789 and 1823.
I’m a huge bookworm and recently, due to circumstances out of my control, I haven’t been able to read as much as I’d like. But there are plenty of books I have read and from time to time, I’ll share some with you. There will be a link to my GoodReads page in the sidebar somewhere and if you’re a sci-fi, mystery and fantasy geek like me, you’ll enjoy the list I’ve compiled. Of course, the ones that I’ve marked with less than four stars isn’t recommended, but that is also up to you. I’ll also occasionally add quotes of the day as well. That’s all for this time and happy reading!
Hey! So this year was my first year taking AP Classes. And I decided to take three at once… And one of them is APUSH (AP US History). Since I’ve had trouble finding information for essays and things, I’ve decided to upload synthesis and contextualization for each unit as well as any relevant points so that other people might have an easier time. I hope you guys find this helpful.
Hello everybody! Hope you’ve all had a pleasant week so far. Today, I’m going to tackle the issue of abortion. My stance is generally pro-choice and I will explain why. To those who immediately felt a rush of animosity at my words, please restrain yourself from any unreasonable actions. To those who haven’t read the About page on this blog, please do. There are clear rules on this blog as to freedom of speech and I will not censor opposing opinions as long as there is logic to back it up. However, if any comments contain hate speech and/or argues points that I’ve already explained (seriously, please don’t be repetitive), I will delete them. Let’s start.
The main opponent to abortion, it seems, is the idea that it is equivalent to murdering a human being. That is not true. A person is considered irreversibly dead when their brain activity stops, therefore it stands to reason that a person is considered alive when their brain starts exhibiting regular signs of said activity or scientifically speaking, when electroencephalography (EEG) activity starts. That occurs at around 25 weeks, about halfway through the pregnancy. The definition of death is not disputed and so, will serve as a consistent marker in my argument. So that means that people who oppose abortion in all instances on moral grounds won’t be able to argue that the baby is veritably alive until at least halfway through the pregnancy. Therefore, abortion should be allowed at least during the first trimester.
To further expand on the first point, some of the same people who claim abortion shouldn’t be legal on moral grounds also say that the fetus has a “right to life”. If that is the case, then wouldn’t the mother also have the right to her body and her life? Remember, the mother is a fully-formed independent human being with thoughts and dreams and instead, the greater consideration is given to a bundle of cells that is in no way able to live outside the mother’s body and thus far doesn’t have any sort of human thought or personality. Having a “right to life” ultimately means being able to choose for yourself so there is no reason why the mother can’t choose to not have the baby, especially if having the baby means that the mother’s life is threatened.
Another anti-abortion argument is that abortion removes the consequences to having sex. Some people are afraid that if you were able to just get an abortion if you get pregnant, then unmarried people would have sex willy-nilly and the country’s morality would degenerate. Their argument basically says that if you have sex, then you know you risk getting pregnant. Thus, if you do get pregnant, then the responsible thing to do is to have the baby. While I can’t argue for the decision-making skills in teens, I can safely say that having a baby at that time of their life is disastrous. But it’s not only the teen mom’s life that will be ruined, the baby will also be born in subpar conditions and will probably live like that for the rest of their lives. (Fun Fact: For all of America’s reputation as a country of opportunity, the percentage of people who actually move up in life is 4% and that’s not taking into account exactly how much they’ve moved “up”.) This doesn’t apply to just teenagers though; teenagers just happened to be the most understandable scenario. In that case, the more responsible thing, I’d say, is to abort.
That said, having an abortion isn’t an easy thing. Having a procedure isn’t cheap and it requires a certain degree of desperation on the part of the mother. Going through abortion is not only a financial problem but also emotionally taxing.
You could also say that the woman can use contraception to avoid pregnancies, but contraception isn’t effective 100% of the time and even then, you have to assume that the option of contraception is available. Also, Sex Ed. isn’t taught in all schools in the USA either, meaning there is a serious lack of information about such things in the areas of the US that are most affected by unplanned pregnancies. And to those few that say a woman’s body is capable of shutting down a pregnancy if the woman really didn’t want to get pregnant, then you’re probably dumb or drunk or both.
In reality, the underlying argument in the question of abortion is about women’s rights. Does a woman have the right to choose? Does the woman have to sacrifice her goals and dreams and part of her life to take care of an unwanted baby? However, there is one crucial question that is missing, is the man responsible for the baby too? If the man were to be held accountable, then would the same arguments be put forward against abortion?
I won’t say anything about abortion in cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in serious danger because there are clear reasons why abortion in those cases is the best thing to do.
That’s all for this time. Thank you for reading this rather long post. ^_^ Please leave your thoughts and comments below. There are a lot of aspects to this debate that I didn’t cover so I’ll be counting on you guys to help fill in. Remember to back up your arguments!
This is something that everyone can relate to. Simply put, what I mean by relativity is perspective. Your perspective and the perspective of your interlocutor, the context of the situation and possible hidden factors not apparent to the other person.
For example, my mother might be complaining that her parents keep telling her that my uncle has made an “appointment” to Facetime them. Thus, she complains, whenever she wants to talk to her parents, she has to keep in mind the time when my uncle is going to call so that the two calls don’t interrupt each other. By saying this, she implies that her parents are favouring my uncle because they specifically set aside time to talk to him while if my mum wants to talk to her parents, she will have to first make sure she doesn’t call when my uncle is calling. The example is a bit complicated to explain, but that is the case in a lot of interpersonal interactions. However, if you don’t understand the gist of it, please ask.
Now onto the perspective part of the example. My mum’s perspective is quite clear: her parents are prioritising her brother’s calls over her’s. Now here comes the hidden factors. My uncle works long hours each day and therefore means that he cannot call his parents whenever he wants. My grandparents live on the other side of the planet meaning nighttime here is daytime there. My grandparents must also be home and not busy in order to Facetime. There is an inference to be made here: if my uncle wants to make a call to my grandparents, he will have to find a time that fits both him and his parents, ergo an “appointment”.
Meanwhile, my mum is a stay-at-home mother so that means she can call my grandparents whenever she thinks they’re free and whenever she has spare time; a much larger time window than what my uncle has. So of course, her brother’s calls do take precedence to her calls, but the context of the situation and the reason as to why my uncle’s calls take precedence is also different. Therefore, it is not that my grandparents favour my uncle, it is the demand of my uncle’s situation.
Now, in this situation, if my mum was an intensely jealous person or somesuch, there would be a confrontation and other things may follow. Even to a more balanced person, the idea of their parents favouring one of their siblings is unpleasant and can lead to resentment etc. So these sort of small misunderstandings can actually have quite a large impact and that is also why people should, in these situations, resist the urge to react emotionally and instead think logically as to give the truth a chance and avoid any future unpleasantness.
What do you guys think? Do you have any examples from your life? If you have any ideas for future discussions, please feel free to e-mail me at email@example.com and fill in the subject space with Outlet.