Jessicа recently jоined а new cоmpаny and was first intrоduced to Michelle, her cubicle neighbor. Michelle came across as amiable and cheerful. During lunch she met another colleague, Carrie, who did not come across as friendly as Michelle. In this situation, Jessica's interpretation of Carrie's personality is most likely to be affected by ________.
A nurse is cаring fоr а 6-mоnth-оld client аfter a diagnosis of atrial septal defect. The client is currently asymptomatic, and the parents ask the nurse when they should anticipate surgery. Which of the following times is most appropriate?
Purpоse: This аssignment will help yоu leаrn hоw historiаns analyze primary sources by focusing on author, audience, context, evidence, and central meaning. Instructions: You will be given a set of primary sources for most modules in this course (e.g., letter, speech, diary entry, law, or article). See the list below. Choose one source from the list below. Read the source carefully and write a short analysis addressing the sections below. Maintain the labels (1, 2, 3 etc.) within your response. Your Response Should Include: 1. Author: Who created the document? What do you know about them? 2. Audience: Who was the intended audience? 3. Context: When and where was this document created? What was happening at the time that helps explain this document? 4. Central Meaning: What is the main idea or message of the document? What is the author trying to say or argue? 5. Evidence: Identify 1–2 key quotes or details from the document and explain how they support the central meaning. 6. Significance: Why is this document important? What does it help us understand about the past? Always do your best and do not skip any responses. Simply try your best based on what you know. Answer all prompts, even if you are unsure of your response. This a exercise. For this first Primary Source Reflection TPA, you are scored on the whether you attempted each prompt. Choose one of the sources and answer the prompts above. Do the best you can. Answer all prompts even when unsure. Unit 3 Primary Sources: George Clinton. Cato 1. Anti-federalist Paper. Sept 26, 1787 https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/cato-i/Links to an external site. https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/cato1.pdfLinks to an external site. To the CITIZENS of the STATE of NEW-YORK. The Convention, who sat at Philadelphia, have at last delivered to Congress that system of general government, which they have declared best calculated to promote your safety and happiness as citizens of the United States. This system, though not handed to you formally by theauthority of government, has obtained an introduction through divers channels; and the minds of you all, to whose observation it has come, have no doubt been contemplating it; and alternate joy, hope, or fear have preponderated, as it conformed to, or differed from, your various ideas of just government. . . . Without directly engaging as an advocate for this new form of national government, or as an opponent–let me conjure you to consider this a very important crisis of your safety and character– Deliberate, therefore, on this new national government with coolness; analize it with criticism; and reflect on it with candour: if you find that the influence of a powerful few, or the exercise of a standing army, will always be directed and exerted for your welfare alone, and not to the agrandizement of themselves, and that it will secure to you and your posterity happiness at home, and national dignity and respect from abroad, adopt it–if it will not, reject it with indignation–better to be where you are, for the present, than insecure forever afterwards. Turn your eyes to the United Netherlands, at this moment, and view their situation; compare it with what yours may be, under a government substantially similar to theirs. Beware of those who wish to influence your passions, and to make you dupes to their resentments and little interests–personal invectives can never persuade, but they always fix prejudices which candor might have removed–those who deal in them have not your happiness at heart. Attach yourselves to measures, not to men. This form of government is handed to you by the recommendations of a man who merits the confidence of the public; but you ought to recollect, that the wisest and best of men may err, and their errors, if adopted, may be fatal to the community; therefore, in principles of politics, as well as in religious faith, every man ought to think for himself. Hereafter, when it will be necessary, I shall make such observations, on this new constitution, as will tend to promote your welfare, and be justified by reason and truth. Sept. 26, 1787. Alexander Hamilton. The Report on Manufactures. December 5 1791. Presented to the United States House of Representatives. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/hamiltons-report-subject-manufactures-1791Links to an external site. The SECRETARY of the TREASURY, IN Obedience to the Order of the House of Representatives, of the 15th Day of January, 1790, has applied his Attention, at as early a Period as his other Duties would permit, to the Subject of Manufactures; and particularly to the Means of promoting such as well tend to render the United States independent on foreign Nations, for Military and other essential Supplies: And he thereupon respectfully submits the following REPORT. The expediency of encouraging manufactures in the United States, which was no long since deemed very questionable, appears at this time to be pretty generally admitted. The embarrassments which have obstructed the progress of our external trade, have led to serious reflections on the necessity of enlarging the sphere of our domestic commerce: the restrictive regulations, which in foreign markets abridge the vent of the increasing surplus of our agricultural produce, serve to beget an earnest desire, that a more extensive demand for that surplus may be created at home: And the complete success conspiring with the promising symptoms which attend some less mature essays in others, justify a hope, that the obstacles to the growth of this species of industry are less formidable than they were apprehended to be; and that it is not difficult to find, in its further extension, a full indemnification for any external disadvantages, which are or may be experienced, as well as an accession of resources, favorable to national independence and safety. [p3] It has been maintained that agriculture is, not only, the most productive but the only productive species of industry. The reality of this suggestion, in either respect, has, however, not been verified by any accurate detail of facts and calculations; and the general arguments, which are adduced to prove it, are rather subtil [sic] and paradoxical, than solid or convincing. [p31] It is not uncommon to meet with an opinion that though the promoting of manufactures, may be the interest of a part of the union, it is contrary to that of another part. The northern and southern regions are sometimes represented as having adverse interests in this respect. Those are called manufacturing, these agricultural states, and a species of opposition is imagined to subsist between the manufacturing and agricultural interests. Gilbert Stuart. George Washington, 1796. Oil on canvas, 96 1/4 x 60 1/4 in. (244.5 x 153 cm). Brooklyn Museum. https://www.pafa.org/museum/collection/item/george-washington-lansdowne-portrait Links to an external site. John Marshall. Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Marbury v. Madison. February 24, 1803. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madisonLinks to an external site. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. At the last term on the affidavits then read and filed with the clerk, a rule was granted in this case, requiring the Secretary of State to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing him to deliver to William Marbury his commission as a justice of the peace for the county of Washington, in the district of Columbia. No cause has been shown, and the present motion is for a mandamus. The peculiar delicacy of this case, the novelty of some of its circumstances, and the real difficulty attending the points which occur in it, require a complete exposition of the principles on which the opinion to be given by the court is founded. . . . In the order in which the court has viewed this subject, the following questions have been considered and decided: 1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? 2d. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? 3d. If they do afford him a remedy, is it a mandamus issuing from this court? The first object of inquiry is -- 1st. Has the applicant a right to the commission he demands? . . . It [is] decidedly the opinion of the court, that when a commission has been signed by the president, the appointment is made; and that the commission is complete, when the seal of the United States has been affixed to it by the secretary of state. . . . To withhold his commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right. This brings us to the second inquiry; which is 2dly. If he has a right, and that right has been violated, do the laws of his country afford him a remedy? . . . 3dly. He is entitled to the remedy for which he applies. This depends on -- 1st. The nature of the writ applied for, and, 2dly. The power of this court. 1st. The nature of the writ. . . . This, then, is a plain case for a mandamus, either to deliver the commission, or a copy of it from the record; and it only remains to be enquired, Whether it can issue from this court. The act to establish the judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court "to issue writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." . . . The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. This power is expressly extended to all cases arising under the laws of the United States; and, consequently, in some form, may be exercised over the present case; because the right claimed is given by a law of the United States. In the distribution of this power it is declared that "the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction." James Monroe (authored by John Quincy Adams) Seventh Annual Message to Congress (The Monroe Doctrine) December 2, 1823. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrineLinks to an external site. ...At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the minister of the Emperor residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the minister of the United States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective rights and interests of the two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has been made by His Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been acceded to. The Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly proceeding of manifesting the great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the Emperor and their solicitude to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions to which this interest has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. . . . . .Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course.... Tariff of 1828 also called the Tariff of Abomination. United States Congress, 1828. Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History, 2012. https://www.gilderlehrman.org/sites/default/files/inline-pdfs/Excerpts%20from%20the%20Tariff%20of%201828.pdfLinks to an external site. Sec. 5. And it be further enacted, That, from and after the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the duties now imposed by law, on window glass, of the sizes above ten inches by fifteen inches, five dollars for one hundred square feet: Provided, That all window glass imported in plates or sheets, uncut, shall be chargeable with the same rate of duty. On vials and bottles not exceeding the capacity of six ounces each, one dollar and seventy-five cents per groce. Section 6. And it be further enacted, That from and That, from and after the thirtieth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in lieu of the duties now imposed by law, on all imported roofing slates, not exceeding twelve inches in length, by six inches in width, four dollars per ton; on all such slates exceeding twelve, and not exceeding fourteen inches in length, five dollars per ton; on all slates exceeding fourteen, and not exceeding sixteen inches in length, six dollars per ton; on all slates exceeding sixteen inches, and not exceeding eighteen inches in length, seven dollars per ton; on all slates exceeding eighteen, and not exceeding twenty inches in length, eight dollars per ton; on all slates exceeding twenty inches and not exceeding twenty-four inches in length, nine dollars per ton. And that, in lieu of present duties, there be levied, collected, and paid, a duty of thirty-three and a third per centum, ad valorem, on all imported ciphering slates Section 8. . And it be further enacted, That, in all cases where the duty which now is, or hereafter may be, imposed, on any goods, wares, or merchandises, imported into the United States, shall, by law, be regulated by, or be directed to be estimated or levied upon the value of the square yard, or of any other quantity or parcel thereof; and in all cases where there is or shall be imposed any ad valorem rate of duty on any goods, wares, or merchandises, imported into the United States, to be appraised, estimated, and ascertained, and the number of such yards, parcels, or quantities, and such actual value of every of them, as the case may require. Andrew Jackson. “Proclamation Regarding Nullification” December 10, 1832. excerpted from https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.aspLinks to an external site. Excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation (1832) For what do you throw away these inestimable blessings-for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of a separate independence-a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection- do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject- my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country….the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal--it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory--as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives--as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its convention-bid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor…. Garrison, William Lloyd. “To The Public,” excerpted from the first issue of The Liberator, January 1, 1831. Published in The Words of Garrison: A Centennial Selection (1805-1905) of Characteristic Sentiments from the Writings of William Lloyd Garrison; with a Biographical Sketch, List of Portraits, Bibliography and Chronology. Edited by Francis Jackson Garrison and Wendell Phillips Garrison, 70-73. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/to-the-public/Links to an external site. In the month of August I issued proposals for publishing the “Liberator” in Washington city; but the enterprise, though hailed in different sections of the country, was palsied by public indifference. Since that time, the removal of the “Genius of Universal Emancipation” to the Seat of Government has rendered less imperious the establishment of a similar periodical in that quarter. During my recent tour for the purpose of exciting the minds of the people by a series of discourses on the subject of slavery, every place that I visited gave fresh evidence of the fact, that a greater revolution in public sentiment was to be effected in the free states—and particularly in New England—than at the South. I found contempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave-owners themselves. Of course, there were individual exceptions to the contrary. This state of things afflicted, but did not dishearten me. I determined, at every hazard, to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker Hill and in the birthplace of liberty. That standard is now unfurled; and long may it float, unhurt by the spoliations of time or the missiles of a desperate foe—yea, till every chain be broken, and every bondman set free! Let Southern oppressors tremble—let their secret abettors tremble—let their Northern apologists tremble—let all the enemies of the persecuted blacks tremble. I deem the publication of my original Prospectus unnecessary, as it has obtained a wide circulation. The principles therein inculcated will be steadily pursued in this paper, excepting that I shall not array myself as the political partisan of any man. In defending the great cause of human rights, I wish to derive the assistance of all religions and of all parties. Assenting to the “self-evident truth” maintained in the American Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” I shall strenuously contend for the immediate enfranchisement of our slave population. In Park Street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren, the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice, and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the “Genius of Universal Emancipation,” at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My conscience is now satisfied. I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen,—but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead. It is pretended that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question my influence,—humble as it is,—is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years—not perniciously, but beneficially—not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that I was right. I desire to thank God, that he enables me to disregard “the fear of man which bringeth a snare,” and to speak his truth in its simplicity and power. And here I close with this fresh dedication:— WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON. BOSTON, January 1, 1831 Wilmot, David. "Wilmot Proviso Amendment to HR 534," 29th Congress. August 8, 1846. https://www.archives.gov/files/legislative/resources/education/wilmot-polk/wilmot-proviso.pdfLinks to an external site. “Provided that as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territoryfrom the Republic of Mexico, by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may benegotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the monies thereinappropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall (illegible word) exist in any partof said territory except for crime whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.” Letter from Maria Perkins to Richard Perkins Courtesy of Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives Collection Charllotesville, Oct 8th 1852 To Richard PerkinsDear HusbandI write you a letter to let you know of my distress my master has sold albert to a trader on monday court day and myself and other child is for sale also and I want to you let hear from you very soon before next cort if you can I dont know when I dont want you to wait till christmas I want you to tell dr Hamelton or your master if either will buy me they can attend to it know and then I can go after wards I dont want a trader to get me they asked me if I had got any person to buy me and I told them no they took me to the court houste too & they never put me up a man buy the name of brady bought albert and is gone I dont kow whare they say he lives in Scottesville my things is in several places some is in staunton and if I should be sold I dont kow what will become of them I dont expect to meet with the luck to get that way till I am quite heart sick nothing moreI am and ever will be your kind Wife Maria Perkins Taney, Roger B. Chief Justice Dred Scott v John F. A. Sandford. March 6, 1857. Supreme Court of the United States. Majority Opinion of the Court. National Archives Building, Washington, DC. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandfordLinks to an external site. . . . Our notice of this part of the case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends was decided in this court, upon much consideration in the case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82. In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio, with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition, as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when they were brought back into that State, and not of Ohio; and that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly before the court, and the decision that this court had not jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of the case. So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of Illinois. . . . Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of this court, that it appears by the record before us that the plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it. Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Js. W. Ch. Mr. Taney6th March 1857 Thomas Satterwhite Noble. "The Modern Medea" An engraving of the story of Margaret Garner, from Harper’s Weekly in 1867 (depiction of events from 1858). Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/item/99614263/Links to an external site.