Letter XLVII
1. By what process could slaves become free citizens in ancient Rome?
Slavery in ancient Roman society was different than slavery in America. Although in both circumstances, the slaves were treated harshly, the difference was the fact that the roman slaves could be granted freedom, or manumission. Most slaves in Rome were let go by there owners outright, and were freed that way. Another way they were freed is that they were able to buy their freedom from their owner. That process might have taken a while, but once done, they were free. This was known as informal manumission. Formal manumission was being freed by a magistrate. (manumission )
The difference in informal and formal manumission is what happened after the slave was freed. The informally freed slave would have fewer rights, wasn't a citizen, and would have to give everything they owned back to their owner when they died. The formally freed slave was a citizen, but couldn't run for office. Also the formally freed slave's children would be considered full citizens and could run for office. (manumission
Sources
1. Manumission, Slaves and Freemen, www.pbs.org
Thursday, December 1, 2011
For research Constitution
2. Why did the Anti- Federealist demeand a bill of rights be added to the Constitution?
The Constitution initially started off as being too weak, so The Anti-federealist demanded a bill of rights because they thought the central government would get to be to strong, and the bill of rights would protect the citizens from being taken advantage of. They did this after the Articles of Confederation was put in place and gave the central government too much power.
In order to get the new Constitution ratified, and everyone be satisfied, the Anti-Federalist argued for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights would guarantee that the president wouldn't become a monarch, and the citizens of America would have their rights.
Sources
1. Cox, Kathryn, Apush
2. Federalist and Anti-Federalist, www. library.thinkquest.org
3. Feinberg, Barbara, Explaining the bill of Rights, www. schoolastic.com
The Constitution initially started off as being too weak, so The Anti-federealist demanded a bill of rights because they thought the central government would get to be to strong, and the bill of rights would protect the citizens from being taken advantage of. They did this after the Articles of Confederation was put in place and gave the central government too much power.
In order to get the new Constitution ratified, and everyone be satisfied, the Anti-Federalist argued for the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights would guarantee that the president wouldn't become a monarch, and the citizens of America would have their rights.
Sources
1. Cox, Kathryn, Apush
2. Federalist and Anti-Federalist, www. library.thinkquest.org
3. Feinberg, Barbara, Explaining the bill of Rights, www. schoolastic.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)