Making Connections - GED Social Studies
Card 0 of 140
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
The first colonists sailed for Virginia in December, 1606. They were months on the way and suffered terrible hardships. At last they reached Chesapeake Bay and settled on a peninsula on the James, about thirty miles from its mouth. Across the little isthmus which connected this peninsula with the mainland they built a strong fence, or stockade, to keep the Indians away from their huts. Their settlement they named Jamestown. The early colonists of Virginia were not very well fitted for such a work. Some of them were gentlemen who had never labored with their hands; others were poor, idle fellows whose only wish was to do nothing whatever. There were a few energetic men among them as Ratcliffe, Archer, and Smith. But these spent most of their time in exploring the bay and the rivers, in hunting for gold, and in quarreling with one another. With the summer came fevers, and soon fifty of the one-hundred-and-five original colonists were dead. Then followed a cold, hard winter, and many of those who had not died of fever in the summer died of cold. The colonists brought little food with them, they were too lazy to plant much corn, and they were able to get only small supplies from the Indians. Indeed, the early history of Virginia is given mainly to accounts of "starving times." Of the first thousand colonists not one hundred lived to tell the tale of those early days.
Which of these is not a problem that the author mentions when highlighting the difficulties faced by the colonists?
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
The first colonists sailed for Virginia in December, 1606. They were months on the way and suffered terrible hardships. At last they reached Chesapeake Bay and settled on a peninsula on the James, about thirty miles from its mouth. Across the little isthmus which connected this peninsula with the mainland they built a strong fence, or stockade, to keep the Indians away from their huts. Their settlement they named Jamestown. The early colonists of Virginia were not very well fitted for such a work. Some of them were gentlemen who had never labored with their hands; others were poor, idle fellows whose only wish was to do nothing whatever. There were a few energetic men among them as Ratcliffe, Archer, and Smith. But these spent most of their time in exploring the bay and the rivers, in hunting for gold, and in quarreling with one another. With the summer came fevers, and soon fifty of the one-hundred-and-five original colonists were dead. Then followed a cold, hard winter, and many of those who had not died of fever in the summer died of cold. The colonists brought little food with them, they were too lazy to plant much corn, and they were able to get only small supplies from the Indians. Indeed, the early history of Virginia is given mainly to accounts of "starving times." Of the first thousand colonists not one hundred lived to tell the tale of those early days.
Which of these is not a problem that the author mentions when highlighting the difficulties faced by the colonists?
Tap to see back →
Throughout this passage, the author highlights how difficult life was for the early colonists. They were unprepared for the work; they neither had enough food nor planted enough corn; the best men spent their time hunting, fighting, and searching for gold; in the summer, they were killed by fevers and in the winter by the cold. The author does not suggest that they were attacked by Native Americans. He notes that they put up a fence to protect them, but does not say if it was necessary to do so; furthermore, he tells us that they were able to get "small supplies" from the Native Americans—suggesting that the Native Americans were actually of some limited help, rather than a difficulty.
Throughout this passage, the author highlights how difficult life was for the early colonists. They were unprepared for the work; they neither had enough food nor planted enough corn; the best men spent their time hunting, fighting, and searching for gold; in the summer, they were killed by fevers and in the winter by the cold. The author does not suggest that they were attacked by Native Americans. He notes that they put up a fence to protect them, but does not say if it was necessary to do so; furthermore, he tells us that they were able to get "small supplies" from the Native Americans—suggesting that the Native Americans were actually of some limited help, rather than a difficulty.
The biggest threat to humanity in the twenty-first century is almost certainly the rising demand for and use of the Earth’s dwindling natural resources. Currently China, and to a slightly lesser extent India, are hurtling through their own Industrial and economic revolutions, powering this change with a greater and greater consumption of natural resources. This transition is already well under way in parts of South America and Africa as well, and will most likely accelerate in the next few decades. Put simply, the planet cannot sustain this growth.
The people of the Western world have lived a privileged life of abundance and materialism for over a hundred years now, and if the whole world wants to live like a middle-class American then the demand for resources will outstrip supply very quickly. What is needed then is a change, a global change, in what is considered an acceptable and sufficient standard living. We all need to downgrade our expectations and our desires, to accept less for the greater good. Human history suggests this is highly unlikely: competition and warfare has always driven our relationships with one another, and it is quite likely that we will fight endless wars over the rights to oil, water, gas, and so on; but, human history also shows a constant trend of human ingenuity prevailing over all manner of natural and man-made disasters, so there is cause for optimism too. We cannot say with certainty which way mankind will go, competition or cooperation; we can only try to do our part and hope for the best.
Who does the author identify as the greatest consumer of natural resources in this essay?
The biggest threat to humanity in the twenty-first century is almost certainly the rising demand for and use of the Earth’s dwindling natural resources. Currently China, and to a slightly lesser extent India, are hurtling through their own Industrial and economic revolutions, powering this change with a greater and greater consumption of natural resources. This transition is already well under way in parts of South America and Africa as well, and will most likely accelerate in the next few decades. Put simply, the planet cannot sustain this growth.
The people of the Western world have lived a privileged life of abundance and materialism for over a hundred years now, and if the whole world wants to live like a middle-class American then the demand for resources will outstrip supply very quickly. What is needed then is a change, a global change, in what is considered an acceptable and sufficient standard living. We all need to downgrade our expectations and our desires, to accept less for the greater good. Human history suggests this is highly unlikely: competition and warfare has always driven our relationships with one another, and it is quite likely that we will fight endless wars over the rights to oil, water, gas, and so on; but, human history also shows a constant trend of human ingenuity prevailing over all manner of natural and man-made disasters, so there is cause for optimism too. We cannot say with certainty which way mankind will go, competition or cooperation; we can only try to do our part and hope for the best.
Who does the author identify as the greatest consumer of natural resources in this essay?
Tap to see back →
Although the greatest consumer of natural resources in the world remains the United States, the author does not explicitly mention that in this text. Instead, in the opening paragraph, he says that "currently China, and to a slightly lesser extent India, are hurtling through their own Industrial and economic revolutions, powering this change with a greater and greater consumption of natural resources."
Although the greatest consumer of natural resources in the world remains the United States, the author does not explicitly mention that in this text. Instead, in the opening paragraph, he says that "currently China, and to a slightly lesser extent India, are hurtling through their own Industrial and economic revolutions, powering this change with a greater and greater consumption of natural resources."
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
Greece is the southern portion of a great peninsula of Europe, washed on three sides by the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded on the north by the Cambunian mountains, which separate it from Macedonia. It extends from the fortieth degree of latitude to the thirty-sixth, its greatest length being not more than 250 English miles, and its greatest breadth only 180. Its surface is considerably less than that of Portugal. This small area was divided among a number of independent states, many of them containing a territory of only a few square miles, and none of them larger than an English county. But the heroism and genius of the Greeks have given an interest to the insignificant spot of earth bearing their name, which the vastest empires have never equalled.
The name of Greece was not used by the inhabitants of the country. They called their land Hellas, and themselves Hellenes. At first the word Hellas signified only a small district in Thessaly, from which the Hellenes gradually spread over the whole country. The names of Greece and Greeks come to us from the Romans, who gave the name of Graecia to the country and of Graeci to the inhabitants.
Which of these statements about authorial bias is most likely true?
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
Greece is the southern portion of a great peninsula of Europe, washed on three sides by the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded on the north by the Cambunian mountains, which separate it from Macedonia. It extends from the fortieth degree of latitude to the thirty-sixth, its greatest length being not more than 250 English miles, and its greatest breadth only 180. Its surface is considerably less than that of Portugal. This small area was divided among a number of independent states, many of them containing a territory of only a few square miles, and none of them larger than an English county. But the heroism and genius of the Greeks have given an interest to the insignificant spot of earth bearing their name, which the vastest empires have never equalled.
The name of Greece was not used by the inhabitants of the country. They called their land Hellas, and themselves Hellenes. At first the word Hellas signified only a small district in Thessaly, from which the Hellenes gradually spread over the whole country. The names of Greece and Greeks come to us from the Romans, who gave the name of Graecia to the country and of Graeci to the inhabitants.
Which of these statements about authorial bias is most likely true?
Tap to see back →
On two separate occasions the author makes a comparison between Greece and some aspect of England or "English." On the first occasion he talks about how the length of the country is "250 English miles." On the second occasion he says "This small area was divided among a number of independent states, many of them containing a territory of only a few square miles, and none of them larger than an English county." The comparisons between Greece and England suggest that the author is writing for an English audience and so wants to compare Greece to things his audience will find familiar.
On two separate occasions the author makes a comparison between Greece and some aspect of England or "English." On the first occasion he talks about how the length of the country is "250 English miles." On the second occasion he says "This small area was divided among a number of independent states, many of them containing a territory of only a few square miles, and none of them larger than an English county." The comparisons between Greece and England suggest that the author is writing for an English audience and so wants to compare Greece to things his audience will find familiar.
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
The physical features of the country exercised an important influence upon the political destinies of the people. Greece is one of the most mountainous countries of Europe. Its surface is occupied by a number of small plains, either entirely surrounded by limestone mountains or open only to the sea. Each of the principal Grecian cities was founded in one of these small plains; and, as the mountains which separated it from its neighbours were lofty and rugged, each city grew up in solitary independence. But at the same time it had ready and easy access to the sea, and Arcadia was almost the only political division that did not possess some territory upon the coast. Thus shut out from their neighbours by mountains, the Greeks were naturally attracted to the sea, and became a maritime people. Hence they possessed the love of freedom and the spirit of adventure, which have always characterised, more or less the inhabitants of maritime districts.
What does the author believe is true of nations that are surrounded by the sea?
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
The physical features of the country exercised an important influence upon the political destinies of the people. Greece is one of the most mountainous countries of Europe. Its surface is occupied by a number of small plains, either entirely surrounded by limestone mountains or open only to the sea. Each of the principal Grecian cities was founded in one of these small plains; and, as the mountains which separated it from its neighbours were lofty and rugged, each city grew up in solitary independence. But at the same time it had ready and easy access to the sea, and Arcadia was almost the only political division that did not possess some territory upon the coast. Thus shut out from their neighbours by mountains, the Greeks were naturally attracted to the sea, and became a maritime people. Hence they possessed the love of freedom and the spirit of adventure, which have always characterised, more or less the inhabitants of maritime districts.
What does the author believe is true of nations that are surrounded by the sea?
Tap to see back →
The author seems to suggest that people who live near the sea are more likely to love freedom and to have an adventurous spirit. He says "Hence they possessed the love of freedom and the spirit of adventure, which have always characterised, more or less the inhabitants of maritime districts." So the correct answer is that the author believes nations that are surrounded by the sea will cause their people to be "bold and independent."
The author seems to suggest that people who live near the sea are more likely to love freedom and to have an adventurous spirit. He says "Hence they possessed the love of freedom and the spirit of adventure, which have always characterised, more or less the inhabitants of maritime districts." So the correct answer is that the author believes nations that are surrounded by the sea will cause their people to be "bold and independent."
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
Nearly five hundred years before the time of Columbus, Leif Ericson had discovered the New World. He was a Northman and the son of Eric the Red. Eric the Red had already founded a colony in Greenland, and Leif sailed from Norway to make him a visit. This was in the year 1000. Day after day Leif and his men were tossed about on the sea until they reached an unknown land where they found many grape-vines. They called it Vinland or Wineland. They then sailed northward and reached Greenland in safety. Precisely where Vinland was is not known. But it certainly was part of North America. Leif Ericson, the Northman, was therefore the real discoverer of America.
The author of this passage could be accused of having a(n) bias.
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
Nearly five hundred years before the time of Columbus, Leif Ericson had discovered the New World. He was a Northman and the son of Eric the Red. Eric the Red had already founded a colony in Greenland, and Leif sailed from Norway to make him a visit. This was in the year 1000. Day after day Leif and his men were tossed about on the sea until they reached an unknown land where they found many grape-vines. They called it Vinland or Wineland. They then sailed northward and reached Greenland in safety. Precisely where Vinland was is not known. But it certainly was part of North America. Leif Ericson, the Northman, was therefore the real discoverer of America.
The author of this passage could be accused of having a(n) bias.
Tap to see back →
The author of this passage focuses on convincing his audience that Columbus was not the real "discoverer" of the Americas. Instead, according to the author, that honor belongs to Lief Ericson. What the author ignores of course is that the Americas were already discovered and inhabited by native people. By focusing only on the European candidates for discovering America the author demonstrates a "European" bias.
The author of this passage focuses on convincing his audience that Columbus was not the real "discoverer" of the Americas. Instead, according to the author, that honor belongs to Lief Ericson. What the author ignores of course is that the Americas were already discovered and inhabited by native people. By focusing only on the European candidates for discovering America the author demonstrates a "European" bias.
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
The vast number of the Greek colonies, their widespread diffusion over all parts of the Mediterranean, which thus became a kind of Grecian lake, and their rapid growth in wealth, power, and intelligence, afford the most striking proofs of the greatness of this wonderful people. Civil dissensions and a redundant population were the chief causes of the origin of most of the Greek colonies. They were usually undertaken with the approbation of the cities from which they issued, and under the management of leaders appointed by them. But a Greek colony was always considered politically independent of the mother-city and emancipated from its control. The only connection between them was one of filial affection and of common religious ties. Almost every colonial Greek city was built upon the seacoast, and the site usually selected contained a hill sufficiently lofty to form an acropolis.
The author's attitude towards the Greeks could best be described as .
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
The vast number of the Greek colonies, their widespread diffusion over all parts of the Mediterranean, which thus became a kind of Grecian lake, and their rapid growth in wealth, power, and intelligence, afford the most striking proofs of the greatness of this wonderful people. Civil dissensions and a redundant population were the chief causes of the origin of most of the Greek colonies. They were usually undertaken with the approbation of the cities from which they issued, and under the management of leaders appointed by them. But a Greek colony was always considered politically independent of the mother-city and emancipated from its control. The only connection between them was one of filial affection and of common religious ties. Almost every colonial Greek city was built upon the seacoast, and the site usually selected contained a hill sufficiently lofty to form an acropolis.
The author's attitude towards the Greeks could best be described as .
Tap to see back →
The author's attitude throughout the text is best described as "admiring" or "reverential." The author clearly respects and admires the Greek people very much. This is demonstrated most obviously by the author when he says "the most striking proofs of the greatness of this wonderful people."
The author's attitude throughout the text is best described as "admiring" or "reverential." The author clearly respects and admires the Greek people very much. This is demonstrated most obviously by the author when he says "the most striking proofs of the greatness of this wonderful people."
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising in Massachusetts, which many historians have claimed dramatically altered the direction of American political history. Shays’ Rebellion took place in the dying months of the Articles of Confederation and ended right as the Constitutional Convention was beginning. It was already clear to many of America’s leading political figures that the Articles of Confederation were too limited and too ineffective to be the primary governing document of a strong modern nation. Shays’ Rebellion only served to further highlight the need to place more power in the hands of the Federal government.
The national government was incapable of raising funds or militia forces to meet the threat of the uprising and was reliant on the good will of the various states. This situation troubled many of the Founding Fathers, George Washington in particular, who demanded that this situation be remedied in the United States Constitution to prevent such an uprising from happening again. Only Thomas Jefferson felt unthreatened by the events of Shays’ Rebellion—which might have been because he was in France on diplomatic work at the time. Jefferson argued that a little rebellion from time to time is healthy for a republic, famously commenting that the tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants.
Why was Thomas Jefferson primarily more comfortable with Shays’ Rebellion than the other Constitutional Framers?
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising in Massachusetts, which many historians have claimed dramatically altered the direction of American political history. Shays’ Rebellion took place in the dying months of the Articles of Confederation and ended right as the Constitutional Convention was beginning. It was already clear to many of America’s leading political figures that the Articles of Confederation were too limited and too ineffective to be the primary governing document of a strong modern nation. Shays’ Rebellion only served to further highlight the need to place more power in the hands of the Federal government.
The national government was incapable of raising funds or militia forces to meet the threat of the uprising and was reliant on the good will of the various states. This situation troubled many of the Founding Fathers, George Washington in particular, who demanded that this situation be remedied in the United States Constitution to prevent such an uprising from happening again. Only Thomas Jefferson felt unthreatened by the events of Shays’ Rebellion—which might have been because he was in France on diplomatic work at the time. Jefferson argued that a little rebellion from time to time is healthy for a republic, famously commenting that the tree of liberty occasionally needs to be watered with the blood of tyrants.
Why was Thomas Jefferson primarily more comfortable with Shays’ Rebellion than the other Constitutional Framers?
Tap to see back →
There are two possible answer choices here based on the essay, you are asked to choose which one of them is more important. You might answer that Jefferson was comfortable with Shays’ Rebellion because he was out of the country. After all, the author does say that "only Thomas Jefferson felt unthreatened by the events of Shays’ Rebellion—which might have been because he was in France on diplomatic work at the time," but this seems more of an offhand humorous comment rather than an explanation of his primary argument. Immediately afterwards the author summarizes Jefferson’s opinions far more seriously when he says that "Jefferson argued that a little rebellion from time to time is healthy for a republic."
There are two possible answer choices here based on the essay, you are asked to choose which one of them is more important. You might answer that Jefferson was comfortable with Shays’ Rebellion because he was out of the country. After all, the author does say that "only Thomas Jefferson felt unthreatened by the events of Shays’ Rebellion—which might have been because he was in France on diplomatic work at the time," but this seems more of an offhand humorous comment rather than an explanation of his primary argument. Immediately afterwards the author summarizes Jefferson’s opinions far more seriously when he says that "Jefferson argued that a little rebellion from time to time is healthy for a republic."
Adapted from Independent Bohemia by Vladimir Nosek (1918)
The Czechs freely elected the Habsburgs to the throne of Bohemia, which remained a fully independent state, its alliance with Austria and Hungary being purely dynastic. But soon the Habsburgs began to violate the liberties of Bohemia that they were bound by oath to observe, and this led finally to the fateful Czech revolution of 1618. At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion. All their nobility were either executed or sent into exile, and their property confiscated. The country was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years' War.
In 1627 Ferdinand II greatly curtailed the administrative rights of Bohemia, yet he did not dare to deprive her entirely of her independence. In his "Renewed Ordinance of the Land," Ferdinand declared the Bohemian crown to be hereditary in the House of Habsburg, and reserved legislative power to the sovereign. But otherwise the historical rights of Bohemia remained valid, notwithstanding all subsequent arbitrary centralizing measures taken by the Habsburgs. Bohemia's rights were repeatedly recognized by each succeeding Habsburg. Legally, Bohemia is an independent state today.
During the Thirty Years' War, the population of Bohemia .
Adapted from Independent Bohemia by Vladimir Nosek (1918)
The Czechs freely elected the Habsburgs to the throne of Bohemia, which remained a fully independent state, its alliance with Austria and Hungary being purely dynastic. But soon the Habsburgs began to violate the liberties of Bohemia that they were bound by oath to observe, and this led finally to the fateful Czech revolution of 1618. At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion. All their nobility were either executed or sent into exile, and their property confiscated. The country was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years' War.
In 1627 Ferdinand II greatly curtailed the administrative rights of Bohemia, yet he did not dare to deprive her entirely of her independence. In his "Renewed Ordinance of the Land," Ferdinand declared the Bohemian crown to be hereditary in the House of Habsburg, and reserved legislative power to the sovereign. But otherwise the historical rights of Bohemia remained valid, notwithstanding all subsequent arbitrary centralizing measures taken by the Habsburgs. Bohemia's rights were repeatedly recognized by each succeeding Habsburg. Legally, Bohemia is an independent state today.
During the Thirty Years' War, the population of Bohemia .
Tap to see back →
Answering this question requires you to read the passage carefully. At the end of the first paragraph, you are told that Bohemia "was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years' War." This is a significant decline in population, so the correct answer is the population "fell dramatically" during the Thirty Years' War.
Answering this question requires you to read the passage carefully. At the end of the first paragraph, you are told that Bohemia "was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years' War." This is a significant decline in population, so the correct answer is the population "fell dramatically" during the Thirty Years' War.
Adapted from Independent Bohemia by Vladimir Nosek (1918)
The Czechs freely elected the Habsburgs to the throne of Bohemia, which remained a fully independent state, its alliance with Austria and Hungary being purely dynastic. But soon the Habsburgs began to violate the liberties of Bohemia that they were bound by oath to observe, and this led finally to the fateful Czech revolution of 1618. At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion. All their nobility were either executed or sent into exile, and their property confiscated. The country was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years' War.
In 1627 Ferdinand II greatly curtailed the administrative rights of Bohemia, yet he did not dare to deprive her entirely of her independence. In his "Renewed Ordinance of the Land," Ferdinand declared the Bohemian crown to be hereditary in the House of Habsburg, and reserved legislative power to the sovereign. But otherwise the historical rights of Bohemia remained valid, notwithstanding all subsequent arbitrary centralizing measures taken by the Habsburgs. Bohemia's rights were repeatedly recognized by each succeeding Habsburg. Legally, Bohemia is an independent state today.
The Battle of White Mountain occurred during .
Adapted from Independent Bohemia by Vladimir Nosek (1918)
The Czechs freely elected the Habsburgs to the throne of Bohemia, which remained a fully independent state, its alliance with Austria and Hungary being purely dynastic. But soon the Habsburgs began to violate the liberties of Bohemia that they were bound by oath to observe, and this led finally to the fateful Czech revolution of 1618. At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion. All their nobility were either executed or sent into exile, and their property confiscated. The country was devastated by the imperial hordes, and its population was reduced from 3,000,000 to 800,000 during the Thirty Years' War.
In 1627 Ferdinand II greatly curtailed the administrative rights of Bohemia, yet he did not dare to deprive her entirely of her independence. In his "Renewed Ordinance of the Land," Ferdinand declared the Bohemian crown to be hereditary in the House of Habsburg, and reserved legislative power to the sovereign. But otherwise the historical rights of Bohemia remained valid, notwithstanding all subsequent arbitrary centralizing measures taken by the Habsburgs. Bohemia's rights were repeatedly recognized by each succeeding Habsburg. Legally, Bohemia is an independent state today.
The Battle of White Mountain occurred during .
Tap to see back →
In context, the discussion of the Czech defeat at the Battle of White Mountain occurs in the part of the passage where the author is talking about the Czech revolution. He says, "At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion."
In context, the discussion of the Czech defeat at the Battle of White Mountain occurs in the part of the passage where the author is talking about the Czech revolution. He says, "At the battle of the White Mountain in 1620, the Czechs suffered a defeat and were cruelly punished for their rebellion."
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
The war was over. But the future of the American nation was still uncertain. Indeed, one can hardly say that there was an American nation in 1783. While the war lasted, a sense of danger bound together the people of the different states. But as soon as this peril ceased, their old jealousies and self-seekings came back. There was no national government to smooth over these differences and to compel the states to act justly toward one another. There was, indeed, the Congress of the Confederation, but it is absurd to speak of it as a national government.
The Continental Congress began drawing up the Articles of Confederation in June, 1776. But there were long delays, and each month's delay made it more impossible to form a strong government. It fell out in this way that the Congress of the Confederation had no real power. It could not make a state or an individual pay money or do anything at all. In the course of a few years, Congress asked the states to give it over six million dollars to pay the debts and expenses of the United States. It received about a million dollars and was fortunate to get that.
Based on this text, what was the primary problem with the Articles of Confederation?
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
The war was over. But the future of the American nation was still uncertain. Indeed, one can hardly say that there was an American nation in 1783. While the war lasted, a sense of danger bound together the people of the different states. But as soon as this peril ceased, their old jealousies and self-seekings came back. There was no national government to smooth over these differences and to compel the states to act justly toward one another. There was, indeed, the Congress of the Confederation, but it is absurd to speak of it as a national government.
The Continental Congress began drawing up the Articles of Confederation in June, 1776. But there were long delays, and each month's delay made it more impossible to form a strong government. It fell out in this way that the Congress of the Confederation had no real power. It could not make a state or an individual pay money or do anything at all. In the course of a few years, Congress asked the states to give it over six million dollars to pay the debts and expenses of the United States. It received about a million dollars and was fortunate to get that.
Based on this text, what was the primary problem with the Articles of Confederation?
Tap to see back →
The author notes that "it fell out in this way that the Congress of the Confederation had no real power. It could not make a state or an individual pay money or do anything at all." So, the national government cannot make the states do things and has "no real power;" therefore, the correct answer is that "the national government had no authority over the states."
The author notes that "it fell out in this way that the Congress of the Confederation had no real power. It could not make a state or an individual pay money or do anything at all." So, the national government cannot make the states do things and has "no real power;" therefore, the correct answer is that "the national government had no authority over the states."
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
There were no political parties in the United States in 1789. All the leading men were anxious to give the new Constitution a fair trial. Even Patrick Henry supported Washington. Many men believed a monarchy to be the best form of government. But they saw clearly that the American people would not permit a monarchy to be established. So they supported the Constitution although they thought that it was "a frail and worthless fabric." But they wished to establish the strongest possible government that could be established under the Constitution. This they could do by defining in the broadest way the doubtful words in the Constitution as Hamilton had done in the controversy over the bank charter. Hamilton had little confidence in the wisdom of the plain people. He believed it would be safer to rely on the richer classes. So he and his friends wished to give to the central government and to the richer classes the greatest possible amount of power. Those who believed as Hamilton believed called themselves Federalists. In reality they were Nationalists.
Alexander Hamilton would have favored which system of government?
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
There were no political parties in the United States in 1789. All the leading men were anxious to give the new Constitution a fair trial. Even Patrick Henry supported Washington. Many men believed a monarchy to be the best form of government. But they saw clearly that the American people would not permit a monarchy to be established. So they supported the Constitution although they thought that it was "a frail and worthless fabric." But they wished to establish the strongest possible government that could be established under the Constitution. This they could do by defining in the broadest way the doubtful words in the Constitution as Hamilton had done in the controversy over the bank charter. Hamilton had little confidence in the wisdom of the plain people. He believed it would be safer to rely on the richer classes. So he and his friends wished to give to the central government and to the richer classes the greatest possible amount of power. Those who believed as Hamilton believed called themselves Federalists. In reality they were Nationalists.
Alexander Hamilton would have favored which system of government?
Tap to see back →
The author notes that "Many men believed a monarchy to be the best form of government," but the author does not mention, specifically, that Hamilton was one of these "many men." Instead, he tells you this later in the passage by describing how Hamilton did not trust the common man to make wise democratic decisions and that Hamilton favored a strong central government ruled over by the wealthy. It is clear from context that Hamilton would have been one of the "many men" who favored establishing a monarchy in the United States.
The author notes that "Many men believed a monarchy to be the best form of government," but the author does not mention, specifically, that Hamilton was one of these "many men." Instead, he tells you this later in the passage by describing how Hamilton did not trust the common man to make wise democratic decisions and that Hamilton favored a strong central government ruled over by the wealthy. It is clear from context that Hamilton would have been one of the "many men" who favored establishing a monarchy in the United States.
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
There were no political parties in the United States in 1789. All the leading men were anxious to give the new Constitution a fair trial. Even Patrick Henry supported Washington. Many men believed a monarchy to be the best form of government. But they saw clearly that the American people would not permit a monarchy to be established. So they supported the Constitution although they thought that it was "a frail and worthless fabric." But they wished to establish the strongest possible government that could be established under the Constitution. This they could do by defining in the broadest way the doubtful words in the Constitution as Hamilton had done in the controversy over the bank charter. Hamilton had little confidence in the wisdom of the plain people. He believed it would be safer to rely on the richer classes. So he and his friends wished to give to the central government and to the richer classes the greatest possible amount of power. Those who believed as Hamilton believed called themselves Federalists. In reality they were Nationalists.
Based on the text what do you think was the major disagreement that led to the formation of the first two political parties?
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
There were no political parties in the United States in 1789. All the leading men were anxious to give the new Constitution a fair trial. Even Patrick Henry supported Washington. Many men believed a monarchy to be the best form of government. But they saw clearly that the American people would not permit a monarchy to be established. So they supported the Constitution although they thought that it was "a frail and worthless fabric." But they wished to establish the strongest possible government that could be established under the Constitution. This they could do by defining in the broadest way the doubtful words in the Constitution as Hamilton had done in the controversy over the bank charter. Hamilton had little confidence in the wisdom of the plain people. He believed it would be safer to rely on the richer classes. So he and his friends wished to give to the central government and to the richer classes the greatest possible amount of power. Those who believed as Hamilton believed called themselves Federalists. In reality they were Nationalists.
Based on the text what do you think was the major disagreement that led to the formation of the first two political parties?
Tap to see back →
The author tells us that "But they \[Hamilton and his supporters\] wished to establish the strongest possible government that could be established under the Constitution." He also tells us that "Those who believed as Hamilton believed called themselves Federalists." You should know from your American history knowledge that the first two American political parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. It seems reasonable to conclude from this text that the original political parties in America were established over the disagreement of how strong and centralized the power of the national government should be.
The author tells us that "But they \[Hamilton and his supporters\] wished to establish the strongest possible government that could be established under the Constitution." He also tells us that "Those who believed as Hamilton believed called themselves Federalists." You should know from your American history knowledge that the first two American political parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. It seems reasonable to conclude from this text that the original political parties in America were established over the disagreement of how strong and centralized the power of the national government should be.
Adapted from A Short History of the United States by Edward Channing (1908)
In the seventeenth century, the geography of America was very little understood in Europe, and the persons who drew up colonial charters understood it least of all. Charter lines frequently overlapped and were often very indistinct. This was particularly true of the Maryland and Pennsylvania boundaries. Penn and Baltimore tried to come to an agreement, but they never could agree. Years afterward, when they were both dead, their heirs agreed to have a line drawn without much regard to the charters. This line was finally surveyed by two English engineers, Mason and Dixon, and is always called after their names. It is the present boundary line between Pennsylvania and Maryland. In colonial days, it separated the colonies where slavery was the rule from those where labor was generally free. In the first half of the nineteenth century, it separated the free states from the slave states. Mason and Dixon's line, therefore, has been a famous line in the history of the United States.
Throughout American history, the Mason-Dixon line has served as the de facto border between .
Adapted from A Short History of the United States by Edward Channing (1908)
In the seventeenth century, the geography of America was very little understood in Europe, and the persons who drew up colonial charters understood it least of all. Charter lines frequently overlapped and were often very indistinct. This was particularly true of the Maryland and Pennsylvania boundaries. Penn and Baltimore tried to come to an agreement, but they never could agree. Years afterward, when they were both dead, their heirs agreed to have a line drawn without much regard to the charters. This line was finally surveyed by two English engineers, Mason and Dixon, and is always called after their names. It is the present boundary line between Pennsylvania and Maryland. In colonial days, it separated the colonies where slavery was the rule from those where labor was generally free. In the first half of the nineteenth century, it separated the free states from the slave states. Mason and Dixon's line, therefore, has been a famous line in the history of the United States.
Throughout American history, the Mason-Dixon line has served as the de facto border between .
Tap to see back →
The passage says that at various points in American history, the Mason-Dixon line has served as the border between the territory of Penn and the territory of Baltimore, as well as the boundary between slave states and free states. From this information, you can infer that the correct answer is therefore that it has served as the de facto border between "the North and the South."
The passage says that at various points in American history, the Mason-Dixon line has served as the border between the territory of Penn and the territory of Baltimore, as well as the boundary between slave states and free states. From this information, you can infer that the correct answer is therefore that it has served as the de facto border between "the North and the South."
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
Albania is a relatively small country in southeastern Europe; however, the people who live there believe their country should be much larger. They contend that the countries of Kosovo, Macedonia, and parts of Northern Greece all belong to the larger territory of Greater Albania. This suggests potentially destructive conflicts in the near future. After all, Serbia also claims Kosovo as part of it’s territory; Kosovo generally favors close relations with Albania, but believes itself to be an independent country; Macedonians think of themselves as closer to Greece than Albania, and Greeks certainly would resist any territorial incursions. Of course, this is not a part of the world unfamiliar with the convulsions of war. Perhaps the only saving grace is that the people of Albania consider themselves as averse to conquest. They generally believe they are a defensive nation, an opinion reinforced by history, concerned with protecting what they have and unwilling to take land from others.
The author of this passage is primarily concerned that
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
Albania is a relatively small country in southeastern Europe; however, the people who live there believe their country should be much larger. They contend that the countries of Kosovo, Macedonia, and parts of Northern Greece all belong to the larger territory of Greater Albania. This suggests potentially destructive conflicts in the near future. After all, Serbia also claims Kosovo as part of it’s territory; Kosovo generally favors close relations with Albania, but believes itself to be an independent country; Macedonians think of themselves as closer to Greece than Albania, and Greeks certainly would resist any territorial incursions. Of course, this is not a part of the world unfamiliar with the convulsions of war. Perhaps the only saving grace is that the people of Albania consider themselves as averse to conquest. They generally believe they are a defensive nation, an opinion reinforced by history, concerned with protecting what they have and unwilling to take land from others.
The author of this passage is primarily concerned that
Tap to see back →
The author of this passage is primarily worried about conflict breaking out between Albania and it’s neighbors over Albanian claims to the territory of other nations. The author notes that “they contend that the countries of Kosovo, Macedonia, and parts of Northern Greece all belong to the larger territory of Greater Albania. This suggests potentially destructive conflicts in the near future.” The author also seems concerned that the people of Kosovo might be threatened by Serbia and Albania, but this is not the author’s primary concern.
The author of this passage is primarily worried about conflict breaking out between Albania and it’s neighbors over Albanian claims to the territory of other nations. The author notes that “they contend that the countries of Kosovo, Macedonia, and parts of Northern Greece all belong to the larger territory of Greater Albania. This suggests potentially destructive conflicts in the near future.” The author also seems concerned that the people of Kosovo might be threatened by Serbia and Albania, but this is not the author’s primary concern.
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. The roles of the Federal Reserve include regulating the monetary policy and supply, preventing financial panics, and supervising banking institutions. The Federal Reserve was created early in the twentieth century primarily in response to the frequent financial panics that would cripple the U.S. economy, most prominent of which was the Panic of 1907. The powers of the Federal Reserve have expanded throughout the years, usually in response to other financial disasters like the Great Depression. Recent evidence suggests the Federal Reserve is essentially powerless to prevent the destabilizing force that is our boom and bust economy.
With which of these statements about the Federal Reserve would the author most likely agree?
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. The roles of the Federal Reserve include regulating the monetary policy and supply, preventing financial panics, and supervising banking institutions. The Federal Reserve was created early in the twentieth century primarily in response to the frequent financial panics that would cripple the U.S. economy, most prominent of which was the Panic of 1907. The powers of the Federal Reserve have expanded throughout the years, usually in response to other financial disasters like the Great Depression. Recent evidence suggests the Federal Reserve is essentially powerless to prevent the destabilizing force that is our boom and bust economy.
With which of these statements about the Federal Reserve would the author most likely agree?
Tap to see back →
The author of this passage notes towards the end of the passage that "recent evidence suggests the Federal Reserve is essentially powerless to prevent the destabilizing force that is our boom and bust economy." The author does not suggest that the creation of the Federal Reserve was necessarily a mistake or that it needs to be reformed. He simply feels that the Federal Reserve has little power to prevent economic recessions. From the author’s comment about the boom and bust nature of the economy, he would likely contend that the economy needs to be reformed, not the Federal Reserve.
The author of this passage notes towards the end of the passage that "recent evidence suggests the Federal Reserve is essentially powerless to prevent the destabilizing force that is our boom and bust economy." The author does not suggest that the creation of the Federal Reserve was necessarily a mistake or that it needs to be reformed. He simply feels that the Federal Reserve has little power to prevent economic recessions. From the author’s comment about the boom and bust nature of the economy, he would likely contend that the economy needs to be reformed, not the Federal Reserve.
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
On Christmas Day 1914, during the early stages of World War One, the British and German soldiers on either side of no man’s land apparently put down their weapons and walked over to greet one another. Gifts were exchanged, beer was drunk, and at one location a game of football was organized. The incident is now famous in British history and is often reflected on as a sign of our universal humanity. Yet at the time many of those involved were disciplined by their higher officers. Apparently, seeing the enemy as a human being was considered detrimental to the war effort.
The author’s attitude towards the “higher officers” is most likely one of
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
On Christmas Day 1914, during the early stages of World War One, the British and German soldiers on either side of no man’s land apparently put down their weapons and walked over to greet one another. Gifts were exchanged, beer was drunk, and at one location a game of football was organized. The incident is now famous in British history and is often reflected on as a sign of our universal humanity. Yet at the time many of those involved were disciplined by their higher officers. Apparently, seeing the enemy as a human being was considered detrimental to the war effort.
The author’s attitude towards the “higher officers” is most likely one of
Tap to see back →
The author of this passage notes that those involved in the Christmas Day Truce were disciplined by their higher officers. The author then states that "apparently, seeing the enemy as a human being was considered detrimental to the war effort." Here you must use inference to try to determine the author’s attitude. He seems to be deriding the higher officers for disciplining soldiers for treating their enemies like human beings. The use of the word "apparently" also suggests a certain degree of anger or contempt.
The author of this passage notes that those involved in the Christmas Day Truce were disciplined by their higher officers. The author then states that "apparently, seeing the enemy as a human being was considered detrimental to the war effort." Here you must use inference to try to determine the author’s attitude. He seems to be deriding the higher officers for disciplining soldiers for treating their enemies like human beings. The use of the word "apparently" also suggests a certain degree of anger or contempt.
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
The religion of Christianity began as a religion of suffering, pity, and forgiveness. This was Christ’s dominant message: the majority of people live to suffer, and we must take pity on those who are suffering and forgive those who cause it. Thus Christianity, by its basic tenets, was not meant as a religion of power. It was a religion for the powerless, the common man. It was meant to provide meaning to suffering and to give a form of power (power over one's own emotions) to the powerless.
For the first few hundred years after Christ’s death, Christianity lived up to this message. It was widely embraced by the common people around the western world, in particular the Roman Empire, and by and large they were persecuted for it. This was the whole point: you will suffer for me and I will reward you when I return. As generations went by and Christ failed to return, the message was violently corrupted. Constantine the Great, a Roman Emperor in the fourth century, adopted Christianity as the official religion of his army and later of his empire. In doing so, he took Christianity from a fringe religion, with a growing flock of dedicated believers, to the official religion of the world’s largest empire. In so doing he also militarized the cross. He took the religion of Christianity away from suffering, pity, and forgiveness and imbued it with qualities that were never supposed to be there: dominance over your enemies; power; warfare; wealth. This would have untold consequences for the history of the western world and the history of the Christian faith. No longer did its believers have to cower in fear of their enemies, but also no longer were they truly adhering to the teachings of Christ.
How would the author of this passage feel about the Crusades of the Medieval period?
The following question refers to the information contained in this passage.
The religion of Christianity began as a religion of suffering, pity, and forgiveness. This was Christ’s dominant message: the majority of people live to suffer, and we must take pity on those who are suffering and forgive those who cause it. Thus Christianity, by its basic tenets, was not meant as a religion of power. It was a religion for the powerless, the common man. It was meant to provide meaning to suffering and to give a form of power (power over one's own emotions) to the powerless.
For the first few hundred years after Christ’s death, Christianity lived up to this message. It was widely embraced by the common people around the western world, in particular the Roman Empire, and by and large they were persecuted for it. This was the whole point: you will suffer for me and I will reward you when I return. As generations went by and Christ failed to return, the message was violently corrupted. Constantine the Great, a Roman Emperor in the fourth century, adopted Christianity as the official religion of his army and later of his empire. In doing so, he took Christianity from a fringe religion, with a growing flock of dedicated believers, to the official religion of the world’s largest empire. In so doing he also militarized the cross. He took the religion of Christianity away from suffering, pity, and forgiveness and imbued it with qualities that were never supposed to be there: dominance over your enemies; power; warfare; wealth. This would have untold consequences for the history of the western world and the history of the Christian faith. No longer did its believers have to cower in fear of their enemies, but also no longer were they truly adhering to the teachings of Christ.
How would the author of this passage feel about the Crusades of the Medieval period?
Tap to see back →
The author of this passage is clearly focused on how the message of Christianity has been corrupted throughout history by those in power. You likely know that the Crusades were a series of religious wars waged by the Christian nations of Europe to try and retake the Holy Land (Jerusalem) from the Islamic Empires that held it at the time. The author would therefore see the Crusades as a violation of Christ’s teachings and something to be ashamed of, but he would not see them as a great mystery, as he goes to great lengths to explain the manipulation of Christianity by those in power.
The author of this passage is clearly focused on how the message of Christianity has been corrupted throughout history by those in power. You likely know that the Crusades were a series of religious wars waged by the Christian nations of Europe to try and retake the Holy Land (Jerusalem) from the Islamic Empires that held it at the time. The author would therefore see the Crusades as a violation of Christ’s teachings and something to be ashamed of, but he would not see them as a great mystery, as he goes to great lengths to explain the manipulation of Christianity by those in power.
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
Greece is the southern portion of a great peninsula of Europe, washed on three sides by the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded on the north by the Cambunian mountains, which separate it from Macedonia. It extends from the fortieth degree of latitude to the thirty-sixth, its greatest length being not more than 250 English miles, and its greatest breadth only 180. Its surface is considerably less than that of Portugal. This small area was divided among a number of independent states, many of them containing a territory of only a few square miles, and none of them larger than an English county. But the heroism and genius of the Greeks have given an interest to the insignificant spot of earth bearing their name, which the vastest empires have never equalled.
The name of Greece was not used by the inhabitants of the country. They called their land Hellas, and themselves Hellenes. At first the word Hellas signified only a small district in Thessaly, from which the Hellenes gradually spread over the whole country. The names of Greece and Greeks come to us from the Romans, who gave the name of Graecia to the country and of Graeci to the inhabitants.
The relatively small size of Greece is highlighted in order to .
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
Greece is the southern portion of a great peninsula of Europe, washed on three sides by the Mediterranean Sea. It is bounded on the north by the Cambunian mountains, which separate it from Macedonia. It extends from the fortieth degree of latitude to the thirty-sixth, its greatest length being not more than 250 English miles, and its greatest breadth only 180. Its surface is considerably less than that of Portugal. This small area was divided among a number of independent states, many of them containing a territory of only a few square miles, and none of them larger than an English county. But the heroism and genius of the Greeks have given an interest to the insignificant spot of earth bearing their name, which the vastest empires have never equalled.
The name of Greece was not used by the inhabitants of the country. They called their land Hellas, and themselves Hellenes. At first the word Hellas signified only a small district in Thessaly, from which the Hellenes gradually spread over the whole country. The names of Greece and Greeks come to us from the Romans, who gave the name of Graecia to the country and of Graeci to the inhabitants.
The relatively small size of Greece is highlighted in order to .
Tap to see back →
The key to understanding why the author highlights the relatively small size of Greece can be found in the concluding sentence of the first paragraph. The author says "But the heroism and genius of the Greeks have given an interest to the insignificant spot of earth bearing their name, which the vastest empires have never equalled." The "vastest" (biggest) empires have never matched the achievements of Greece. The author is trying to amplify how impressive the achievements of the Greeks are by highlighting how small the country is.
The key to understanding why the author highlights the relatively small size of Greece can be found in the concluding sentence of the first paragraph. The author says "But the heroism and genius of the Greeks have given an interest to the insignificant spot of earth bearing their name, which the vastest empires have never equalled." The "vastest" (biggest) empires have never matched the achievements of Greece. The author is trying to amplify how impressive the achievements of the Greeks are by highlighting how small the country is.
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
The physical features of the country exercised an important influence upon the political destinies of the people. Greece is one of the most mountainous countries of Europe. Its surface is occupied by a number of small plains, either entirely surrounded by limestone mountains or open only to the sea. Each of the principal Grecian cities was founded in one of these small plains; and, as the mountains which separated it from its neighbours were lofty and rugged, each city grew up in solitary independence. But at the same time it had ready and easy access to the sea, and Arcadia was almost the only political division that did not possess some territory upon the coast. Thus shut out from their neighbours by mountains, the Greeks were naturally attracted to the sea, and became a maritime people. Hence they possessed the love of freedom and the spirit of adventure, which have always characterised, more or less the inhabitants of maritime districts.
The primary purpose of this passage is to .
Adapted from A Smaller History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest (1897) by William Smith.
The physical features of the country exercised an important influence upon the political destinies of the people. Greece is one of the most mountainous countries of Europe. Its surface is occupied by a number of small plains, either entirely surrounded by limestone mountains or open only to the sea. Each of the principal Grecian cities was founded in one of these small plains; and, as the mountains which separated it from its neighbours were lofty and rugged, each city grew up in solitary independence. But at the same time it had ready and easy access to the sea, and Arcadia was almost the only political division that did not possess some territory upon the coast. Thus shut out from their neighbours by mountains, the Greeks were naturally attracted to the sea, and became a maritime people. Hence they possessed the love of freedom and the spirit of adventure, which have always characterised, more or less the inhabitants of maritime districts.
The primary purpose of this passage is to .
Tap to see back →
The author spends the whole of this passage talking about the physical terrain of Greece, but why he does this is best summarized in the first sentence. The author says that "the physical features of the country exercised an important influence upon the political destinies of the people." The author wants to explain how the physical characteristics of Greece shaped the identity of the people who lived there.
The author spends the whole of this passage talking about the physical terrain of Greece, but why he does this is best summarized in the first sentence. The author says that "the physical features of the country exercised an important influence upon the political destinies of the people." The author wants to explain how the physical characteristics of Greece shaped the identity of the people who lived there.
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
The New England colonies were founded by English Puritans who left England because they could not do as they wished in their homeland. All Puritans were agreed in wishing for a freer government than they had in England under the Stuart kings, and in state matters they were really the liberals of their time. In religious matters, however, they were not all of one mind. Some of them wished to make only a few changes in the church. These were called Non-Conformists. Others wished to make so many changes in religion that they could not stay in the English state church. These were called Separatists. The settlers of Plymouth were Separatists; the settlers of Boston and neighboring towns were Non-Conformists.
The settlers of Boston wanted to .
Adapted from A Short History of the United States (1908) by Edward Channing.
The New England colonies were founded by English Puritans who left England because they could not do as they wished in their homeland. All Puritans were agreed in wishing for a freer government than they had in England under the Stuart kings, and in state matters they were really the liberals of their time. In religious matters, however, they were not all of one mind. Some of them wished to make only a few changes in the church. These were called Non-Conformists. Others wished to make so many changes in religion that they could not stay in the English state church. These were called Separatists. The settlers of Plymouth were Separatists; the settlers of Boston and neighboring towns were Non-Conformists.
The settlers of Boston wanted to .
Tap to see back →
The author notes that the settlers of Boston were called "non-conformists." The author also tells us that "some of them wished to make only a few changes in the Church. These were called Non-Conformists." So, we can be relatively confident in saying that the settlers of Boston wanted to make some small changes in their church.
The author notes that the settlers of Boston were called "non-conformists." The author also tells us that "some of them wished to make only a few changes in the Church. These were called Non-Conformists." So, we can be relatively confident in saying that the settlers of Boston wanted to make some small changes in their church.