CSS Preparation material

islah_G · #4 1 Week Ago

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress on May 30, 1854. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act served to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act infuriated many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South it was strongly supported.

After the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, pro-slavery and anti-slavery supporters rushed in to settle Kansas to affect the outcome of the first election held there after the law went into effect. Pro-slavery settlers carried the election but were charged with fraud by anti-slavery settlers, and the results were not accepted by them.

The anti-slavery settlers held another election, however pro-slavery settlers refused to vote. This resulted in the establishment of two opposing legislatures within the Kansas territory.

Violence soon erupted, with the anti-slavery forces led by John Brown. The territory earned the nickname "bleeding Kansas" as the death toll rose.

President Franklin Pierce, in support of the pro-slavery settlers, sent in Federal troops to stop the violence and disperse the anti-slavery legislature. Another election was called. Once again pro-slavery supporters won and once again they were charged with election fraud.

As a result, Congress did not recognize the constitution adopted by the pro-slavery settlers and Kansas was not allowed to become a state.

Eventually, however, anti-slavery settlers outnumbered pro-slavery settlers and a new constitution was drawn up. On January 29, 1861, just before the start of the Civil War, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state.

islah_G · #5 1 Week Ago

The Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott was the name of an African-American slave. He was taken by his master, an officer in the U.S. Army, from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then to the free territory of Wisconsin. He lived on free soil for a long period of time.

When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back to that slave state, where his master died. In 1846, Scott was helped by Abolitionist (anti-slavery) lawyers to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free since he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former slave owner from Maryland.

In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain a slave.

At that time there were nearly 4 million slaves in America. The court's ruling affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. The ruling served to turn back the clock concerning the rights of African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase. The Court declared it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law.

Anti-slavery leaders in the North cited the controversial Supreme Court decision as evidence that Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and ultimately rule the nation itself. Southerners approved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it.

Overall, the Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.

Openhappiness · #6 1 Week Ago

Asalam-o-Elcum:

Buddy Whats ur Socre in USA History and in What year?. Can you tell me whats the syllabus of USA History, also which books are Proper for Css about USA History. IS u have any notes etc. Any proper teacher/csp/ or nay accdmy you know in lahore who is teaching USA History. I am very thankfull For ur Favour....

islah_G · #7 1 Week Ago

Quote:

Originally Posted by Openhappiness

Asalam-o-Elcum:

Buddy Whats ur Socre in USA History and in What year?. Can you tell me whats the syllabus of USA History, also which books are Proper for Css about USA History. IS u have any notes etc. Any proper teacher/csp/ or nay accdmy you know in lahore who is teaching USA History. I am very thankfull For ur Favour....

my score was 57 in css-2008

the sallybus and important topics regarding CSS paper will be posted soon.

Books....History of US by Majumdar and Sarivatva plus Pocket History of USA by allen Navin and Henry steel commegar.

Notes....i prepared for myself in outline form.

Teacher or academy in Lahore.....sorry i am not from Lahore but u can consult any history teacher.....

Regards

islah_G · #8 1 Week Ago

King William's War (1690-1697)

King James II of England, unlike his profligate brother, Charles II, was extremely religious, and his religion was that of Rome. The large majority of the people of England were Protestants; but they would have submitted to a Catholic king had he not used his official power to convert the nation to Catholicism. From the time of James's accession, in 1685, the unrest increased, until, three years later, the opposition was so formidable that the monarch fled from his kingdom and took refuge in France. The daughter of James and her husband, the Prince of Orange, became the joint sovereigns of England as William and Mary. This movement is known in history as the English Revolution.

Louis XIV, the king of France, was a Catholic and in full sympathy with James. Moreover, he denied the right of a people to change sovereigns, and espoused the cause of James; and war between the two nations followed. This war was reflected in America, as King William rejected an offer of colonial neutrality, and it is known as "King William's War." The English colonies had long watched the French encroachments on the north; the French determined to hold the St. Lawrence country, and to extend their power over the vast basin of the Mississippi; and each was jealoous of the other concerning the fisheries and the fur trade. To these differences must be added an intense religious feeling. The English colonies were almost wholly Protestant except Maryland, and even in Maryland the Protestants were in a large majority. New France was purely Catholic, and the two forms of Christianity had not yet learned to dwell together, or near together, in harmony. King James had not confined his designs to the home country; he had not only revoked some of the colonial charters and sent the tyrant Andros to domineer New England, but he had instructed his Catholic governor of New York, Dongan, to influence the Iroquois to admit Jesuit teachers among them, and to introduce the Catholic religion into the colony. It was at this time that Leisler seized the government of New York, and called the first colonial congress. Exasperated by these things, the English colonists were eager for the conflict, while the French Canadians were equally ready to grapple with them. King William's War was very different in aim and meaning in the colonies from what it was beyond the Atlantic. In America it was the first of several fierce contests, covering seventy years; or, it may be said, it was the beginning of a seventy years' war with intervals of peace, for the supremacy in North America.

The war began by a series of Indian massacres instigated by Frontenac, the governor of Canada. The first of these was the destruction of Dover, New Hampshire, a town of fifty inhabitants. One night in July, 1689, two squaws came to the home of the aged Major Waldron and begged a night's lodging. Being admitted, they rose in the night and let in a large number of Indians who lay in ambush. Waldron was put to death with frightful tortures, the town was burned to the ground, about half the people were massacred, and the remainder were carried away and sold into slavery. In the following month Pemaquid, Maine, met a similar fate. In February, 1690, a body of French and Indians, sent by Frontenac, came to the town of Schenectady on the Mohawk. For nearly a month they had faced the wintry blasts, plowing their way through the deep snow on their mission of destruction. At midnight they fell with dreadful yells upon the sleeping village. In a few hours all was over; the town was laid in ashes. More than sixty were massacred, many were taken captive, a few escaped into the night and reached Albany. The towns of Casco and Salmon Falls soon after met a similar fate.

The war spirit was now aroused throughout the colonies. It was determined, through Leisler's congress,1 to send a land force against Montreal by way of Lake Champlain, and a naval expedition against Quebec. The expenses of the former were borne by Connecticut and New York, and of the latter by Massachusetts. Sir William Phipps of Maine, who had this same year, 1690, captured Port Royal in Nova Scotia, commanded the naval force. He had thirty or more vessels and two thousand men. But the vigilant Frontenac, in spite of his fourscore years, was on the alert. He successfully repelled the land force, which turned back disheartened, and then hastened to the defense of Quebec. But here he had little to do. Phipps was a weak commander, and the fleet, after reaching Quebec and finding it well fortified, returned to Boston without striking an effective blow. The people of Massachusetts were greatly disappointed at the failure of the expedition. The debt of the colony had reached an enormous figure, and to meet it bills of credit, or paper money, were issued to the amount of £40,000. Phipps was soon afterward sent to England to seek aid of the king and a renewal of the old charter that Andros had destroyed. King William was hard pressed at home, and he left the colonies to fight their own battles; he also refused to restore the old charter, but he granted a new one, as we have noticed, and made Phipps the first royal governor of Massachusetts.

The war dragged on for several years longer, but it consisted only in desultory sallies and frontier massacres. The towns of York, Maine, Durham, New Hampshire, and Groton, Massachusetts, were the scenes of bloody massacres, and hundreds of people were slain.2

In 1697 a treaty of peace was signed at Ryswick, a village near The Hague, and the cruel war was temporarily over. Acadia, which had been prematurely incorporated with Massachusetts, was restored to France. But this treaty was only a truce. The English and French nations had not learned to love each other, and the questions in dispute had made no progress toward settlement.

After the death of William and Mary the crown of England was settled (1702) on Anne, the sister of Mary. James, the exiled king, died in 1701, and his son, known as James the Pretender, was proclaimed king of England by the French sovereign. This act alone would have brought another war, but there was another provocation. King Louis of France placed his grandson, Philip of Anjon, on the throne of Spain, and thus greatly increased his power among the dynasties of Europe. This was very distasteful to the English, and the war that followed was known as the War of the Spanish Succession. In America, however, it was styled Queen Anne's War (1702).

islah_G · #9 1 Week Ago

Queen Anne's War (1702-1714)

After this brief season of peace the colonists were obliged to face another long and murderous war. In character this war was similar to that which preceded it, a contest over Acadia and New France, consisting of surprises and bloody massacres. Early in the conflict the coast of Maine was swept by bands of savage red men and equally savage Frenchmen, and hundreds of men, women, and children were tomhawked or carried into captivity. On an intensely cold morning in February, 1704, at daybreak, a party of nearly four hundred French and Indians broke upon the town of Deerfield, and with their terrible war cry began their work of destruction and slaughter. Nearly fifty of the inhabitants were slain, and more than a hundred were carried into captivity.1 A few years later Haverhill, Massachusetts, met with a fate similar to that of Deerfield.

In 1704 the colonists made an unsuccessful attack by sea on Port Royal, Acadia, and another in 1707; and three years later the British government, having at last decided to aid the colonies, sent a small fleet under Colonel Nicholson, which was joined by an armament from Boston, and a third attack was made. This was successful Port Royal surrendered, and was named Annapolis in honor of the English queen, while Acadia was henceforth called Nova Scotia.

A beginning of English success was thus made, and the bold scheme of oonquering Canada was now conceived. Sir Hovendon Walker arrived at Boston with a fleet and an army, and these were augmented by the colonists at the bugle call of Governor Dudley of Massachusetts, until the fleet consisted of nine war vessels, sixty transports, and many smaller craft, bearing in all twelve thousand men. Nothing like it had ever before been seen in American waters. In August, 1711, this imposing fleet moved to the northward, and at the same time a land force of twenty-three hundred men under Colonel Nicholson started for Montreal by way of Lake Champlain.

It would seem that New France must certainly fall before such a power, and all Canada be added to the British dominions in America. But there was one fatal obstacle to success, and that was the want of ability in Admiral Walker. He not only lacked capacity to command such a force, but he was wanting in courage. The whole movement came to nothing. Walker lost eight ships and a thousand men in a dense fog at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and refused to go further, believing that the disaster was a blessing in disguise, a merciful intervention of Providence to save his men from "freezing, starvation, and cannibalism."2 Nicholson, hearing of the return of the fleet, was greatly enraged, and burned his wooden forts, led his army to Albany, and disbanded it.

Vaudreuil, the governor-general of Canada, had heard of the enemy's approach and had prepared for him as best he could. The people were thrown into a state of wild consternation; but when they heard of the disastrous failure of the fleet, they rejoiced and praised God that He had preserved them and dashed their enemy to pieces, and a solemn mass was ordered to be said every month for a year, to be followed by the song of Moses after the destruction of Pharaoh and his host.3

Both nations were now weary of the war, and the Treaty of Utrecht was the result. By this treaty Acadia, Newfoundland, and the Hudson Bay territory were ceded by France to England; and the Five Nations were acknowledged to be British subjects. The aged king of France used the last efforts in his power to avoid giving up Acadia, but all to no purpose.

The Peace of Utrecht, like that of Ryswick sixteen years before, was but a temporary peace. The great problems in America were left unsettled. The treaty fixed no limits to Acadia, nor did it mark the boundary between the British colonies and Canada. These were questions that must sometime be settled; but there was another question of far greater importance, and that was whether France or England would obtain control of the great valley of the Mississippi. The embers of war were thus left unquenched, and the time was bound to come when they would burst forth into flame.4 The Treaty of Utrecht brought a nominal peace that was unbroken for thirty years; but meantime the two nations, like crouching tigers, made ready each to spring upon the other.

The king of France had sullenly given up his beloved Acadia, but he retained Cape Breton Island, still more important because it commanded the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Here, on a tongue of land in the southeastern portion of the island, the king determined to build a fortress far more imposing than any other in America, and to call it after his own name -- Louisburg. This project was scarcely on foot when Louis XIV died, and the plan was carried out by his successors. The great object of this movement was to furnish a base from which to guard the St. Lawrence Valley against all comers, and to reclaim, if possible, the fair land of Acadia.

But the French did not stop with the founding of Louisburg; they spent this season of peace in strengthening their hold on the Mississippi Valley. As early as 1698 a naval officer named Iberville had been sent by his king to carry out the great work attempted by the ambitious La Salle -- to plant a colony on the lower Mississippi. Iberville made great haste lest the English precede him to the coveted land. He reached the mouth of the great river, and ascended it for some distance. The chief of an Indian tribe gave him a letter that had been written thirteen years before by Tonty, while searching for the lost colony of La Salle. Iberville found no suitable place on the banks of the river, and settled his colony on Biloxi Bay. A few years later a colony was planted on Mobile Bay. In 1718 New Orleans was founded by Bienville, a brother of Iberville, and four years later it was made the capital of the vast region known as Louisiana.

France had now two heads, as Parkman puts it, to her great North American possessions -- one amid the Canadian snows and the other in the tropical regions of the South. But two thousand miles of untrodden wilderness lay between the extremes of this boundless domain, and the French knew that to hold it something more than merely claiming it must be done. They began, therefore, the erection of a chain of forts, or military posts. They built forts at Niagara, Detroit, and other points, to guard the great lakes, and they even encroached on the soil of New York and built a fort at Crown Point. In the Illinois country they founded Vincennes and Kaskaskia, and pushed farther southward, while from the Gulf of Mexico they moved northward, establishing one post after another, until by the middle of the eighteenth century there were more than sixty forts between Montreal and New Orleans. France now claimed all of North America from Mexico and Florida to the Arctic Ocean, except the Hudson Bay region and the narrow English margin on the east between the mountains and the sea; and it must have seemed to human eyes that the future development of the continent must be modeled after the Latin civilization rather than the Anglo-Saxon. But a great struggle was yet to determine the trend of American civilization. Before treating of that, however, we must take note of another preliminary skirmish, known in our history as King George's War.

CSS Preparation material

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Monday, October 26, 2009

What is Pasturization?

What is Pasteurization?

What is radioactivity

What is Radioactivity?

USA Hisotry 1 - notes

AddThis

Blog Archive

Followers

About Me