The first logo contained the company name against a backdrop of wooden derricks set among the Santa Susana Mountains that loomed over Pico Canyon.
Visit Website Any federal republic by its very nature invited challenge to central control, a danger that James Madison recognized. He sought at the convention a clause that would prohibit secession from the proposed union once the states had ratified the Constitution.
The Constitution as framed and finally accepted by the states divided the exercise of sovereign power between the states and the national government.
By virtue of the fact that it was a legal document and in most respects enumerated the powers of the central government, the division was weighted toward the states. Yet much of the charter was drawn up in general terms and was susceptible to interpretation that might vary with time and circumstance.
The very thing that Madison feared took on a concrete form during the party battles of the Washington and Adams administrations.
And paradoxically, Madison found himself involved with those who seemed to threaten separation. In their reaction to the arbitrary assumption of power in the Alien and Sedition ActsThomas Jefferson and Madison argued for state annulment of this legislation.
The national judiciary, they felt, was packed with their opponents. Neither resolution claimed original sovereignty for the states, but both argued for a strict reading of enumerated powers. During the War ofa disaffected Federalist majority in New England advanced the compact theory and considered secession from the Union.
As modernization began to take hold in the United States, differences between the two major sections grew more pronounced: A wave of reform activity in Europe and the United States made the abolition or at least the restriction of slavery a significant goal in the free states.
Since abolition struck at the labor system as well as the social structure of the slave states, threats of secession punctuated the political dialogue from through Calhounthe leading spokesman of the slave states, charged frequently and eloquently that the South and its way of life were under assault from an industrializing North.
Like other proponents of endangered minorities, he looked to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and their assertion of the federal compact for the basis of his defense.
He argued that a state or a group of states could nullify a federal law that was felt to be against a particular interest. Although always seeking an accommodation for the South and its slave plantation system within the Union, Calhoun had hoped that nullification was a proper, constitutional alternative to disunion.
But he eventually invoked secession with particular vehemence after the territorial acquisitions of the Mexican War and the formation of the Free-Soil party in They declared that the Constitution operated directly through the states on the people, not upon the states as corporate bodies, and their view gained wide acceptance in the free states.
Calhoun was instrumental in fostering southern unity on a sectional basis and in formulating the call for a convention of delegates from the slave states to be held at Nashville, Tennesseein There is little doubt that had he lived, Calhoun would have been a formidable force for secession as the ultimate weapon.
His death and the working out of a compromise that strengthened moderate opinion in both sections kept the secessionist element at bay temporarily.
But the territorial issue flared up again, this time with renewed fury over the question of whether Kansas should enter the Union as a free or slave state. By now antislavery sentiment had grown significantly in the free states. And opinion leaders in the slave states drew closer together in defense against what they saw as an impending attack on their institutions.
The Kansas question created the Republican party, a frankly sectional political organization, and it nominated John C. Although the Democrats, still functioning along national lines, managed to elect James Buchanan president by a slim margin, the slave states threatened secession if the Republicans should win the election in The South was committed to an agrarian way of life.
It was a land where profitable and efficient plantations worked by slave labor produced cotton for the world market. It was also a land where a majority of its white population was made up of subsistence farmers who lived isolated lives on the edge of poverty and whose literacy rates were low compared with those in the more densely populated North.
The South nevertheless was beginning to industrialize, a factor that added to the social tensions surfacing during the s between the haves—plantation owners and professional groups in the few urban centers—and the have-nots—an increasingly restive yeoman or small-farmer group.
But the issue of black servitude provided cohesion for the white bloc and contributed greatly to a patriarchal system wherein the masses of the whites still looked to a planter-professional elite for political and social guidance. Although the northern masses might also defer to the opinions of the powerful and living conditions among the urban poor were precarious, educational levels were far higher than in the South.
The ethic of free capital and free labor was deeply ingrained in the cities and in farm communities as well. It was this ethic that formed the ideological basis for a broad antislavery movement. Southern leaders were concerned over internal stresses in their society and were increasingly aware of the moral and social repugnance the slave system engendered not only in the North but also in Western Europe.
Southern leadership, though surely not unified in its response to a political victory of antislavery forces inbegan as early as to prepare its section for separation from the Union. Even though the Republican platform of disavowed any move that would interfere with slavery where the custom and the law of a given state upheld it, many of the more extreme opinion makers in the South promoted the idea that a Republican victory meant eventual emancipation and social and political equality for their black population.
So inflamed were the voters in South Carolina that before the election of Lincoln, they had chosen a convention that was committed to secession on news of a Republican victory.War was not, after all, the missing link between two eras of wars and revolutions, namely the French revolutionary and Napoleonic on one .
The definitive history of the Cold War and its impact around the world We tend to think of the Cold War as a bounded conflict: a clash of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, born out of the ashes of World War II and coming to a dramatic end with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Results of World War 1. - Needs to be finished (The Results of World War 1 (Pearsons) continuation) STUDY. PLAY. Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty organized by the victorious Allied Powers after the First World War, .
World War I was fought between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers. The main members of the Allied Powers were France, Russia, and Britain.
The United States also fought on the side of the Allies after One of the hallmarks of a new global history of modernization is the willingness to look beyond the United States; for all of its power in the Cold War, it was not everywhere and at every moment the most important part of the “battle for .
The Meiji Restoration was a coup d’état that resulted in the dissolution of Japan’s feudal system of government and the restoration of the imperial system. Members of the ruling samurai class had become concerned about the shogunate’s ability to protect the country as more Western countries attempted to “open” Japan after more than two hundred years of virtual isolation.