source : scoutingweb.com
🏈 Which Word Best Describes Early American Foreign Policy?
This flashcard is meant to be used for studying, quizzing and learning new information. Many scouting web questions are common questions that are typically seen in the classroom, for homework or on quizzes and tests. Flashcards vary depending on the topic, questions and age group. The cards are meant to be seen as a digital flashcard as they appear double sided, or rather hide the answer giving you the opportunity to think about the question at hand and answer it in your head or on a sheet before revealing the correct answer to yourself or studying partner. Some questions will include multiple choice options to show you the options involved and other questions will just have the questions and corrects answers. Simply reveal the answer when you are ready to check your work. Absolutely no cheating is acceptable.report this ad
Английский (топики/темы): Political System of the USA… – In some ways the United States is like 50 small countries. The government of the USA act according to the Constitution which was signed by the first thirteen representatives of thirteen original American states in 1787.In early July, Schwab and French author Thierry Malleret released a book outlining the vision of The "Another set of policy measures that would stimulate more resource-efficient food systems entail The Great Reset is another name for Reality Revisionism as described brilliantly by Crystal Clark on her…This video is part 3 of a 4 part interview with Walter Russell Mead.Watch more of 'The American Mind' on our website…
Covid-19, The Great Reset and The New Normal — Puppet… — Sott.net – US Secretary of State Antony Blinken outlined the urgent priorities of US foreign policy, arguing that American prosperity at home depends on global leadership, promotion of democracy and protecting the world order from China.Early American foreign policy would probably be considered around the early 19th century. This time period in American histoy was focused more on developing a consistent government structure under the US Constitution, expanding US power and influence westward in the North American continent…The foreign policy of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) shows U.S. foreign policy under a He also explores the potential dangers for American foreign policy that could result from an over-active interventionist policy.
3. The Four Schools of American Foreign Policy – YouTube – The 13 American colonies became the 13 United States of America in 1783. There was no common currency; there was no national military force; there was little centralized control over foreign policy; there was no national system for imposing and collecting taxes.The US (4)(know) for its wealth, its abundance of food and its opportunity for everybody to build a good life. The goal is to operate a free enterprise economy in Some people believe that increased direct expenditure by the federal government is the best means to eliminate poverty. Others say the welfare…" The new American Administration has been in power for almost two months, the symbolic milestone of Commenting on the situation itself, the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson described the The same day, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied to the report of secretary general of NATO…
The War of 1812 – Crash Course US History #11 – Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course US History and today we're going to talk about what America's best at: War.
[Patriotic Rock Music] Uh, Mr. Green, the United States has actually only declared war 5 times in the last 230 years. Oh me from the the past, you sniveling literalist. Well today we're going to talk about America's first declared war, The War of 1812, so called because historians are terrible at naming things. I mean the could have called it The Revolutionary War: Part Deux, or The Canadian Cataclysm, or The War to Facilitate Future Wars. But no, they just named it after
the year it started. [Theme Music] I know this disappoints the military historians among you, but as usual, we're gonna spend more time talking about the causes and effects of the war than the actual, like, killing parts, because ultimately it's the ambiguity
of The War of 1812 that makes it so interesting. The reason most often given for The War of 1812 was the British impressment of American sailors, whereby American sailors would be kidnapped and basically forced into British servitude. This disrupted American shipping and also seems like a reasonably obvious violation of American sovereignty, but it's a little more complicated than that. First of all, there were many thousands of British sailors working aboard American ships so many of the sailors that the British captured were in fact British. Which gets to the large point that citizenship at the time was a pretty slippery concept especially on the high seas. Like, papers were often forged, and many sailors identified supposed American-ness through tattoos of like eagles and flags. And there were several reasons why a British sailor might like to become, or pretend to be, an American, including that the Brits at the time were fighting Napoleon in what historians, in their infinite creativity, called The Napoleonic Wars. And on that topic, Britain's impressment policy allowed them both to disrupt American shipping to France and get new British sailors to strengthen their war effort, which was annoying to the Americans on a couple
levels especially the French-loving Republicans, which is a phrase that you don't hear very
often anymore. Another reason often given for the war, was
America's crazy conspiratorial Anglophobia. There was even a widespread rumor that British agents were buying up Connecticut sheep in order to sabotage the textile industry, lest you worry that America's fascination with conspiracy theories is new. So those pushing for war were known as war hawks, and the most famous among them was Kentucky's Henry Clay. They took the impressment of sailors as an affront to American national honor, but they also complained that Britain's actions were an affront to free trade, by which they meant America's ability to trade with Europeans other than Great Britain. And to be fair, the British were trying to
regulate American trade. They even passed The Orders in Counsel which required American ships to dock in Britain and pay tax before trading with other European nations. Britain, we were an independent nation!
You can't do that kind of stuff! We have a special relationship but it's not
that special! But the problem with saying that this caused the war was that The Orders had been in effect for five years before the war started. AND they were rescinded in 1812 before the
US declared war. Although, admittedly, we didn't know about it
because it didn't reach us until after we declared. There was no Twitter. Another reason for the war was Canada. That's right Canada, American's wanted you and who can blame them we your excellent healthcare and your hockey and your first rate national anthem. Stan this is fun but enough with the #1812problems. According to the Virginia Congressman John Randolph, "Agrarian cupidity not maritime rights urges the war. We have heard but one word: Canada, Canada,
Canada." I'm not here to criticize you John Randolph
but that's actually three words. Now some historians disagree with this but the relentless pursuit of new land certainly fits in with the Jeffersonian model of an agrarian republic. And there's another factor that figured into
America's decision to go to war: expansion into territory controlled by Native
Americans. Oh, it's time for the mystery document? The rules here are simple: I try to guess the author of the mystery document. Usually I'm wrong and I get shocked. All right, let’s see what we got here. "You want, by your distinctions of Indian tribes, in allotting to each a particular tract of land, to make them to war with each other. You never see an Indian come and endeavor
to make the white people do so." It's Tecumseh.
Drop the mic… [dinging noise] is something that I would do except that the mic is actually attached to my shirt so there's n– there's no drama in this. Clearly a Native American criticism of white people, and I happen to know that that particular one comes from Tecumseh and I don't get shocked today. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that Americans were continuing to push westward into territories where Indians were living. I mean, this was a big reason for the Louisiana
Purchase after all. By the beginning of the war, more than 400,000 settlers had moved into territories west of the original 13 colonies and they outnumbered American Indians by a significant margin. Some native groups responded with a measure
of assimilation. Cherokees like John Ross wanted to become
more "civilized", that is, more white and farmer-y. And some of them did even adopt such civilized practices as written languages and slavery, the most civilized practice of all. [sigh] People are always like, "Why aren't
you more celebratory of American History?" Well, why isn't there more to celebrate? But other Indians wanted to resist. The best known of these were the aforementioned
Tecumseh and his brother Tensk – Stan, can you just put it on the screen? [Tenskwatawa on screen] Yes.
Let's just enjoy looking at that. Right, that's just for all you visual learners. So he was also known as The Prophet, because of his religious teachings, and also because of the pronunciation issues. The Prophet encouraged Indians, especially those living in and around the settlement of Prophetstown, to abandon the ways of the whites, primarily in the form of alcohol and manufactured consumer goods. So stop drinking alcohol and eating refined
sugars – this guy sounds like my doctor! Tecumseh was more militant; attempting to revive Neolin's idea of pan-Indianism and actively resisting white settlement. As he put it, "Sell a country, why not sell
the air, the great sea, as well as the Earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for
the use of his children?" The Americans responded to this reasonable
criticism in the traditional manner – with guns. William Henry Harrison destroyed the native settlement at Prophetstown in what would become known as the Battle of Tippecanoe. He would later ride that fame all the way to the
presidency in 1840 and then – SPOILER ALERT: He would give the longest inauguration address
ever, catch a cold, and die 40 days later. Let that be a lesson to you, American
politicians: Long speeches? Fatal! So I just painted a pretty negative picture of the American treatment of the Indians – because it was awful. But I haven't mentioned how this relates to
the War of 1812. The Americans were receiving reports that the British were encouraging Tecumseh, which they probably were. And the important thing to remember here is that the War of 1812, like the Seven Years War and the American Revolution was also a war against Indians. And as in those other two wars, the Indians
were the biggest losers. And not in the cool way of biggest loser where, like, Trainer Bob helps you lose weight, but in the really sad way, where your entire civilization gets John C. Calhouned. So the War of 1812 was the first time that
the United States declared war on anybody. It was also the smallest margin of a declaration of war vote: 79 to 49 in the House and 19 to 13 in the Senate. Northern States, which relied on trade a lot, didn't want to go to war, while southern and western states, which were more agrarian and wanted expansion to get land for farming and slavery, did. The closeness of the vote reflects a profound
ambivalence about the war. As Henry Adams wrote, "Many Nations have gone to war in pure gaiety of the heart, but perhaps the United States were the first to force themselves into a war they dreaded, in the hope that the war itself might create the spirit they lacked." Don't worry, Henry Adams! In the future we're gonna
get pretty gaiety of heart-ish about war. Anyway, as an actual war, the War of 1812
was something of a farce. Let's go to the Thought Bubble. The US army numbered 10-12 thousand and its officers were sunk into either sloth, ignorance, or habits of intemperate drinking. The US navy had 17 ships.
Great Britain had 1,000. Also, America had very little money, Britain
collected 40 times more tax revenue than the US. But Britain was busy fighting Napoleon, which is why they didn't really start kicking America's butt until 1814, after Napoleon was defeated. Napoleon's defeat was also the practice of impressment, since Britain didn't need so many sailors anymore. Initially, much of the war consisted of America's attempts to take Canada, which any map will show you went smashingly. Americans were confident the Canadians would rush to join the US. When marching from Detroit, General
William Hull informed the Canadians that, "You will be emancipated from tyranny and oppression and restored to the dignified station of free men." And the Canadians were like, "Yeah, we're
okay actually." And so the British in Canada, with their Indian allies, went ahead and captured Detroit and then forced Hull's surrender. America's lack of success in Canada was primarily
attributable to terrible strategy. They might have succeeded if they'd taken Montreal, but they didn't want to march through northern New York because it was full of Federalists who were opposed to the war. Instead they concentrated on the West, that is, the area around Detroit, where fighting went back and forth. The British found much more success, even seizing Washington DC and burning the white house. In the course of the battle, British admiral George Cockburn, overseeing the destruction of a newspaper printing house, told the forces that took the city, "Be sure that all the Cs are destroyed, so that
the rascals cannot any longer abuse my name. It's hard out there for a Cockburn. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Given these problems it's amazing there were
any American successes, but there were. The battleship USS Constitution broke the myth of British naval invincibility when cannonballs bounced off it and earned it the nickname "Old Ironsides". Oliver Hazard Perry defeated a British fleet,
in, of all places, Lake Erie. At the battle of the Thames, William Harry
Harrison defeated Tecumseh. And the battle of Horseshoe Ben showed one of the reasons why Indians were defeated when Andrew Jackson played one group of Creeks against another group of Creeks and Cherokees. 800 Indians were killed in that battle. And speaking of Jackson, the most notable American victory of the war was the Battle of New Orleans, which catapulted him to prominence. He lost only 71 men while inflicting 2,036
British casualties. Of course, the most memorable thing about the battle is that it took place two weeks after the peace treaty ending the war had been signed. But hey, that's not Jackson's fault. Again – no twitter, #1815problems. The treaty of Ghent, which ended the war, proved just how necessary the war had been: not at all. No territory changed hands when
negotiations started. And in August 1814, the British asked for Northern Maine, demilitarization of The Great Lakes, and some territory to create an independent nation for the Indians, and the Northwest. But none of that happened, not because the U.S.
was in a particularly good negotiating position, but it would have been awkward for Great Britain to carve out pieces of the US, and then tell Russia and Prussia that they couldn't take pieces of Europe for themselves to celebrate their victory in the Napoleonic Wars. There were no provisions in the treaty about impressment or free trade and basically the treaty returned everything to the status quo. So, neither the US or Great Britain actually
won. But the Indians suffered significant casualties
and gave up even more territory, definitely lost. So with a treaty like that, the war must have had a negligible impact on American history, right? Except, no; the war of 1812 confirmed that
the US would exist. Britain would never invade American again
(until 1961). I mean the US were good customers, and Great Britain was happy to let them trade, as long as that trade wasn't helping a French dictator. The War launched Andrew Jackson's career and solidified the settlement and conquest of land east of the Mississippi River. And our lack of success in Canada reinforced Canadian nationalism while also ensuring that instead of becoming one great nation, we would forever be Canada's pants. The war also spelled the end of the Federalist Party, which tried in 1815 with the Hartford Convention to change the constitution. In retrospect, the Hartford Convention proposals
actually look pretty reasonable. They wanted to eliminate the clause wherein
black people were counted as 3/5 of a human, and require a 2/3 congressional majority
to declare war. But Because they had their convention right before Jackson's victory at New Orleans, they only came off looking unpatriotic and out of touch, as the elite so often do. It's hard to argue that the Americans really
won The War of 1812, but we felt like we won, and nothing unleashes national pride like
war winning. The nationalistic fervor that emerged in the early 19th century, was, like most things, good news for some and bad news for others. But what’s important to remember, regardless of whether you're an American, is that after 1812, the United States saw itself not just as an independent nation but as a big player on the world stage. For better and for worse, that's a gig we've
held onto. And no matter how you feel about America's
international interventions, you need to remember, it didn't begin in Afghanistan or even Europe;
it started with freakin' Canada. Thanks for watching, I'll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan
Muller. The script supervisor is Meredith Danko. Our show is written by my high school history
teacher Raoul Meyer and myself. Our Associate Producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Cafe. If you have questions about today's video, you can ask them in comments, where they will be answered by our team of historians. We also accept suggestions for Libertage captions. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we
say in my hometown: Don't Forget To Be Awesome. Goodbye! Don't forget to subscribe! .
The Natives and the English – Crash Course US History #3 – Hi I'm John Green, this is Crash Course US History and today we're going to talk about one of the worst relationships in American history.
No Thought Bubble, not my college girlfriend and me. Mr. Green, Mr. Green! Your relationship with your high school girlfriend? Oh Me From The Past, you and I both know that
I didn't have a high school girlfriend. No, I'm talking about the relationship between
Native Americans and English Settlers. [Theme Music] So as you'll no doubt remember from last week, the first English settlers came to the Chesapeake area – now Virginia – in 1607. The land the English found was, of course, already inhabited by Indian tribes unified under the leadership of Chief Wahunsenacawh, and I will remind you that mispronouncing things is my thing! The English called this Chief Powhatan because, of course, mispronouncing things was also their thing. Powhatan was actually his title and the name of his tribe, but to say that the English lacked cultural sensitivity would be an understatement. So Powhatan didn't get to be leader of over 30 tribes by being a dummy and he quickly realized that: 1. The English were pretty clueless, when it
came to not dying of starvation, and 2. They were useful – because they had guns. So he decided to help them and the English
were indeed grateful. In fact, colony leader John Smith went so far as to order the colonists to stop stealing food from the Indians. Aaauugh, in the book business this is known
as foreshadowing. So as previously noted, relationships, whether between individuals or collectives, tend to go well when they are mutually beneficial, and for a while, both the English and the Indians were better off for these interactions. I mean, you know, post-smallpox. The Virginia Company existed to make money, and since the Chesapeake lacked gold or silver, making money required trade. OK, let's go to the Thought Bubble: We tend to think of trade between Europeans and Natives as being a one-way exchange, like savvy, exploitative Europeans tricking primitive, pure, indigenous people into unfair deals. But that isn't quite accurate. Both sides traded goods that they had in surplus
for those they did not. The English were happy to give up iron utensils, tools, guns, woven cloth in exchange for furs and, especially in the early days, food, which the Indians could easily part with because they had plenty. Soon, though, there were problems. In order to keep up trade relations, Indian men devoted more time to hunting and less to agriculture which upset traditional gender balance in their society. And European ideas about land use started to overcome traditional Indian ways of life, and that led to conflict. The English liked to fence in some of their land, which kept the Indians off it, and also the English let their pigs and cattle roam freely and the animals would eat Natives' crops. And as Europeans' appetite for furs grew, Indian tribes began to fight with each other over access to the best hunting grounds, leading to inter-tribal warfare, which suddenly included guns. But this was still a relatively calm time. Yes, at one point John Smith was captured by the Indians and had to be "saved" by Powhatan's daughter, Pocahontas, but this was probably all a ritual planned by Powhatan to demonstrate his dominance over the English. Pocahontas never married John Smith by the way, but she was kidnapped by the English and held for ransom in 1613, and she did eventually marry another Englishman, John Rolfe. She converted to Christianity and went to England, where she became a sensation and died of disease. Stupid disease always deciding the course
of human history. Anyway, despite not marrying Pocahontas, John Smith is still important to this story because when he left Virginia for England after being injured in a gunpowder explosion, things between the Native Americans and the English immediately began to deteriorate. How? Well, the English went back to stealing Indians' crops and also began stealing their lives via massacres. Thanks, Thought Bubble – man, you guys sure
know how to end on a downer. Although to be fair, there are not a lot of
uppers in this story. So after a period of peace following Pocahontas' marriage to John Rolfe in 1614, dramatized here, things finally came to a head in 1622, when Chief Opechancanough led a rebellion against the English. It had become abundantly clear that more and more English were going to show up and they weren't just there to trade. They wanted to take Indian land. But the English struck back, as empires will,
and the uprising of 1622 ultimately failed. And after another failed uprising in 1644, the 2,000 remaining Native Americans were forced to sign a treaty that consigned them to reservations in the West. Well, the west of Virginia, at least. But the 1622 uprising was the final nail in the coffin of the Virginia Company, which was a failure in every way. It never turned a profit, and despite sponsoring 6,000 colonists, by 1644 when Virginia became a royal colony, only 1,200 of those people were still alive, proving once again that governments are better at governing than corporations. Up in New England, you'll recall that the Pilgrims probably wouldn't have survived their first winter without help from the Native Americans, which of course led to the first Thanksgiving, and then centuries of mutually beneficial trade and generosity– just kidding. While some of the Puritans that settled in New England – notably Roger Williams – tried to treat the Indians fairly, in general it was very similar to what we saw in the Chesapeake. Settlers thought Native Americans could be replaced because they weren't "properly using the land." Now John Winthrop, who you'll remember from last week, at least realized that it was better to buy land from Indians than just take it. But Puritan land purchases usually came with
strings attached. The main string being that the Native Americans
had to submit to English authority. Now, the Puritans had a rather conflicted
view of the Indians. On the one hand, they saw natives as heathens in need of salvation, as evidenced by the Massachusetts seal, which features an Indian saying "Come over and help us." On the other hand, they recognized that the Native American way of life – with its relative abundance and equality, especially when it came to women – might be tempting to some people, who might want to go native. This was such a concern that in 1642, the Massachusetts General Court prescribed a sentence of three years hard labor for anyone who left the colony and went to live with the indigenous people. There was even anti-Indian propaganda in the
form of books. Captivity narratives, in which Europeans recounted their desire to return to Christian society after living with the Indians, were quite popular. Even though some, like the famous Sovereignty and Goodness of God by Mary Rowlandson, did admit that the Indians often treated their European captives quite well. New England's native population lacked an overarching leader like Powhatan, but by 1637, the inevitable conflict between the English and the Indians did happen. It was called the Pequot War. After some Pequots killed an English fur trader, soldiers from Massachusetts, the newly-formed colony of Connecticut, and some Narragansett Indians, who saw an opportunity to gain an upper hand over the Pequots, attacked a Pequot village at Mystic, burning it and massacring over 500 people. The war continued for a few months after this, but to call it a war is, in a way, to give it too much credit. The Indians were over-matched from the beginning, and by the end, almost all of them had been massacred or sold into slavery in the Caribbean. The War opened up the Connecticut River to
further settlement. It also showed that Native Americans were going to have a tough time resisting, because they were outnumbered and they had inferior weapons. But the brutality of the massacre in Mystic shocked even some Puritans, like William Bradford, who wrote, "It was a fearful sight to see them frying in the fire." But despite the odds, New England natives
continued to resist the English. In 1675, Native Americans launched their biggest attack on New England colonists in what would come to be known as King Philip's War. It was led by a Wampanoag chief named Metacom, which was why it is also sometimes called Metacom's War. The English called Metacom "King Philip" due
to their fantastic cultural sensitivity. The conflict was marked by brutality on both sides and it nearly ended English settlements in the northeast. The fighting itself lasted 2 years. Indians attacked half of the 90 towns the English had founded, and 12 of those towns were destroyed. About 1,000 of the 52,000 Europeans and 3,000
of the 20,000 Indians involved died in the War. As I mentioned before, the War was particularly
brutal. The Battle of the Great Swamp was really just
a massacre of Indians by the English. And when King Philip was finally killed, ending the War, his decapitated head was placed on a stake in the Plymouth town square, where it remained for decades. And on the other side? Well, to quote Nathaniel Saltonstall, who
lived through the war, "The heathen rarely [gave] quarter to those that they take, but if they were women, they first forced them to satisfy their filthy lusts and then murdered them." Saltonstall went on to describe a particularly brutal way that natives would kill colonists' cows: by cutting "their bellies and letting them go several days trailing their guts after them." That indigenous people would reserve such brutality for livestock says something really important about this war. The Indians correctly saw European colonization as a threat to their way of life, and that included the animals who trampled Indians' land and whose grazing patterns required the English to take more and more territory. Some of the stories told about Native American brutality also suggest the symbolic nature of this war. Like, one English colonist was disemboweled
and had a Bible stuck in his body cavity. Supposedly, the natives who buried him explained, "You English, since you came into this country have grown exceedingly above the ground. Let us see how well you grow when planted
into the ground." But it wasn't just the Indians who felt their
way of life being threatened. It's time for this week's Mystery Document! The rules here are simple. I read the Mystery Document.
I try to guess its author. If I'm right, I don't get shocked with the
shock pen. If I'm wrong, I do. "The righteous god hath heightened our calamity and given commission to the barbarous heathen to rise up against us and to become a smart rod and a severe scourge to us in burning and depopulating several hopeful plantations, murdering many of our people of all sorts and seeming as it were to cast us off hereby speaking aloud to us to search and
try out our ways and turn again unto the Lord our God from whom we have departed with a
great backsliding." OK, I don't know this one, so I'm going
to have to piece it together. Uh, we have a plural narrator, that's important. Seemingly monotheistic, feels like the heathens
in this context – likely the Native Americans – have been sent as a scourge [scorge], or scourge [scurge], as it is apparently properly pronounced. What, I'm from Alabama, I don't know how to
say a ton of words. I mean, I just recently learned that you don't check your Ya-HOO! mail, you check your YA-hoo! mail, and Yahoo!'s over already! All right so plural narrator, scourge, great backsliding uhh Stan, you're going to get to shock me this time, who is it? [Buzzing Sound] The Laws of War passed by the General Court of Massachusetts in 1675. Are you kidding? From now on, the Mystery Document must always
be written by a single human person! I hate this. I hate this so much. It's worse now, because I've had it before,
so I know it's gonna – GAHHHHHH!!! This shows us the way the Puritans understand the world, but it also show us that within 50 years of its founding, Puritans already felt that the mission of their colony – to be a great Christian community – was already kind of a failure. If they'd been as righteous as they were supposed to be, God wouldn't have sent the Indians to burn their homes and kill them. So it's important to understand that this was a war to preserve a way of life for both the Indians and the English. And that brings us to another question: What's the point of even telling these bloody stories about massacres and atrocities. One point is to remind ourselves that much of what we learn about American history, like all history, has been cleaned up to conform to our mythological view of ourselves. Native Americans have been so successfully marginalized, both geographically and metaphorically, that it's easy to either forget about them or else to view them merely as people to be pitied or reviled. But it's important to know the ways that they resisted colonization, because it reminds us that Native Americans were people who acted in history, not just people who were acted upon by it. And it also reminds us that the history of Indigenous people on this land mass isn't separate from American history; it's an essential part of it. Thanks for watching.
I'll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Meredith Danko, the associate producer is Danica Johnson, and the show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer and myself. Our graphics team is Thought Bubble. If you have questions about today's video,
please ask them in comments. They will be answered by our team of crack
historians. By the way, our team of crack historians is a team of excellent historians, not a team of historians who study crack cocaine. Thanks for watching. As we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome. .
Thomas Jefferson vs Alexander Hamilton (AP US History – APUSH Review) – .