Read the following passage from Sarah Pike Conger’s letter home: We sailed from Nagasaki and clean, beautiful Japan, the night of the twentieth of June, passed through the Yellow Sea, and reached Shanghai, China, on the twenty- third. We left our steamship, the Doric, some three miles out in the bay, and with regrets we waved our last good-byes as we sailed out from under her protection. She had been a home to us and seemed like a part of our own dear country. Many times we had gone out into the unknown cities and back again to her as a refuge. We remained in Shanghai eight days, but were only in the foreign concession. This concession is a modification of both the Far East and the West. I never saw men work before! They do the work of beasts and are treated like beasts. China is thickly populated and the people cry out against any device that takes labor and support from their poor coolie classes.3 Which of the following claims might this excerpt support? A. Few Europeans or Christians lived in Shanghai. B. Europeans thought the Japanese were superior to the Chinese. C. The Chinese lower classes were treated well by Europeans. D. Europeans wanted to Christianize China and the Far East.
Please login to view the answer
“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us-that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion-that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” From the Providence Journal “We know not where to look for a more admirable speech than the brief one which the President made at the close of Mr. Everett’s oration … Could the most elaborate and splendid be more beautiful, more touching, more inspiring, than those thrilling words of the President? They had in our humble judgment the charm and power of the very highest eloquence.” Write an essay of at least two to three paragraphs analyzing this newspaper remark from the Providence Journal. Use specific quotations from the Gettysburg Address to support or refute the newspaper’s claim.
Please login to view the answer
Use the following image to answer the question. In the early 1990s, the state of Wyoming sued the state of Oklahoma for passing a law. Wyoming claimed the Oklahoma law reduced the amount of money Wyoming could collect in taxes. Wyoming claimed this violated a federal commerce law. This case was decided by a state trial court in Oklahoma, represented by section F, because it has original jurisdiction in lawsuits regarding Oklahoma state laws a federal appellate court in Wyoming, represented by section B, because it has original jurisdiction in lawsuits involving federal laws the Wyoming Supreme Court, represented by section E, because it has original jurisdiction in cases involving Wyoming’s interests the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., represented by section D, because it has original jurisdiction in cases between state governments