False..........which is why it took so long to draft the constitution!
2007-09-24 09:25:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by honestamerican 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No they didn't. That is why we have a Republic and not a Democracy. It is the reason our Representatives (Congress and Senate) are set up the way they are. It was so small states could still have a say in government and not be overruled by the interests of larger states. Those who would have us do away with the Electorial College would do well to find out why it was set up in the first place and why it is still critical for States' Rights today. We almost had another revolution just setting the thing up over 200 years ago as the colonies, with their varied populations, interests and economies, did not want one state (or a small group of states) to have too much power over the others. It has worked for over 230 years. To change it would be, in my opinion, disasterous for the rights of individual states, especially those with smaller populations. Each state has it's own Constitution for a reason. As it is, we see a constant erosion of States' Rights with the ever increasing Federal Laws imposed on them. Every time some criminal act is committed, the victims race off to Washington to get their Representatves to pass a sweeping Federal Law that will apply to all states. I believe they should have to go to their own state first and get the law passed. If the crime is committed with the aid or through 2 or more states, then the Feds may be involved. At some point, what would be the use of state governments? Every convievable crime would be covered by a Federal Statute. We would have no use for Governor's (if so, they could be political appontees as during Colonial times), we could do away with state prisons, state representatves, and all state legislative offices. It would all be covered by the Federal Government. If you don't think that is possible, take a look at the control the Federal Government has over your state highways, public school systems, state welfare and housing programs, heck, any state program that gets money from the Federal Government. We need to be very careful about how much state soverignty we are willing to give up. Once it is gone, there is no getting it back. We have already had one war in this country fought over them.
2007-09-24 17:01:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is false. Even in the 13 colonies there were a variety of economic interests based on such things as climate, rivers, soil and natural resources.
There were if I remember correctly three different forms of colonial government.
2007-09-24 17:17:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by DrIG 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
False
2007-09-24 16:26:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
False. They were all different in one form or another through history, purpose of colonization, government, economy, and how old they were which influences culture and tradition. Generally speaking, the Northern colonies were more industrialized (although the term was a bit different back then), and grew more staple crops as opposed to quick cash crops. The North was generally influenced more by religious movements such as the Quakers and Puritans. The Northern colonies were generally younger in population than the Southern counterparts. The demographics were much different as well.. much more diverse in terms of European populations (dutch, german, Irish, English, French).
The Southern colonies were generally started as either military outposts, or chartered companies interested in cash crops such as tobacco and cotton. The population was much more diverse in terms of colour (in some states blacks outnumbered whites). The labour market usually consisted of a rich upper class who owned plantations and means of production, a poorer white class that lived in basic subsistence (or worked menial jobs in the few cities and towns), or the black slaves. In the very beginning it was divided between rich white masters and white indentured servants. The economy of the South was not as diversified as the North.
2007-09-24 23:39:24
·
answer #5
·
answered by MattH 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
False. There were different priorities in each colony. There were governors in each one appointed by the King of England, but beyond that the individual governments had a lot of freedom in their internal affairs.
2007-09-24 16:27:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by fangtaiyang 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
False these colonies had very different views about everything, it took yrs to write the ammendments and longer to come together as one united country.
2007-09-24 16:31:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by DR DEAL 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Definetly false. They even had different currency.
2007-09-24 16:44:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sain 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
False- they still don't.
2007-09-24 16:25:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Beardog 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
falsetto
2007-09-24 16:26:20
·
answer #10
·
answered by Job1000 4
·
0⤊
0⤋