American History Homework Ten Answers - Student One

From Conservapedia - Reading time: 4 min

---

AddisonDM (all done!)

1. I don’t really know how I could have improved my preparation for the midterm, because I think I was well prepared. One aspect of the class I could improve on is political parties/political cartoons.

Excellent. It is not easy to improve when you attain nearly a perfect score an exam, as you did. But you still found a way to improve!

2. Well, I only missed one and there was nothing about it I liked, so I’m going to choose as my favorite question number 12, about Christopher Columbus’ quote, because it required thinking and process of elimination, not just memorization.

Superb answer. You're right that your exam paper did not leave many to choose from among incorrect answers! You had almost nothing wrong. I liked that Christopher Columbus question too, because it taught an insight about Columbus's approach.

3. I just want to distinguish the difference between social Darwinism and all that, and the theory of evolution. Yes, eugenics was based at least partially on Darwinian ideas, but the theory of evolution has progressed past Darwin. Thus we shouldn’t implicate modern evolutionary theory based on Darwin or social Darwinism.

I see the same "survival of the fittest" concept today as before. World War II and many of the German atrocities were led by intellectuals who thrived on Darwinism, and felt that the races had to engage in survival of the fittest just as evolution claims nature does. Has the theory of evolution changed that much since World War II? It was only 65 years ago.

4. Looking back, it looks like a good policy to have entered the war, because it ended soon after. Looking at it from the time it was an issue, I can see why Americans would have wanted to go to war (the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram), but I don’t think there was really a compelling reason to go to war, and especially not to institute the draft.

Good.

5. I like him. Even though he increased government power, I think his intentions were good and his principles strong. His establishment of the National Park system is perhaps one of the greatest domestic achievements among all our recent presidents.

Interesting. Could add a bit more detail, but you do give one good example.

6. I choose the 18th Amendment, prohibition. It is clearly meant to be a complete federal ban on alcoholic beverages. My view is that it was harmful and unneeded. It contributed to the rise of organized crime, and probably bred disrespect of the law, since the new crimes the Amendment created were not about a serious matter. It was also about as Big Government as you can get. I think that the states should be able to decide the issue, not the federal government.

Your view is widely held, but I think the actual underlying facts of the harm caused by alcohol are lost in the history. There are still "dry" counties today and the citizens of those counties seem fine with it. I'm not sure the connection with organized crime was as significant as historians claim.

7. The cartoon shows Teddy, in a robe and with angel’s wings, grabbing up Russia and Japan. It depicts Roosevelt mediating the Treaty of Portsmouth in New Hampshire, regarding the Russo-Japanese War. I think it is a positive portrayal, because the Russia and Japan figures are not flattering, and it makes Roosevelt look strong and powerful. If that is so, it would be a Republican point of view.

Superb!

Honors

2. It is understandable for a country at war to want to keep a war effort going, but to eliminate elements of free speech may be going too far. Look at the Espionage Act: its stated purpose was to eliminate treason, and this isn’t a bad goal. But no doubt that once instated, it could begin to apply to more frivolous activities. The Sedition Act is unjustified on its face, and is almost totalitarian. Furthermore, the fact that these laws were passed shows that the war must have been unpopular among a large segment of the population, and that raises the question of whether we should even have been in the war, let alone abridging free speech to uphold the war effort.

Very good.

3. Debate: Was it discriminatory not to include girls and women in the draft? I don’t think so. Actually, I question whether the draft at all is a good thing. But I think it certainly should only apply to men. Since the draft functionally separates families, I would have to say it’s better to remove the man, since that is the traditional role of men, to fight war. I can’t see college girls fighting in the trenches. However, I do believe that the volunteer army should allow everyone to join, regardless of sex or race.

Excellent answer.

5. The Lochner Doctrine decided that state laws regulating working hours for men (and later, laws regulating working hours for women) were unconstitutional. Since it involved federal government invalidating state law, it was a use of the Fletcher v. Peck decision. I think it was a bad decision. Federal government probably shouldn’t be deciding specific working times and forcing them on the states, but the government shouldn’t ban states from having their own working hours laws either.

Terrific answer. Will use as a model!

Perfect paper: 100/100. Congratulations!!!--Aschlafly 12:26, 22 November 2008 (EST)