what were john lockes theories and how did they contribute to the american revolution and decleration of indep
361463
John Locke was an English philosopher who created the theory of natural rights. It's the thought that God gives each man the right to life, liberty, and property. "Property" was amended in the Declaration of Independence and changed to "the pursuit of happiness" (which was property at the time of the revolution).
687587
Sometimes I think it is all the fault of the American patriots, that they stooped to the (then unheard-of) tactics of shooting at the British from behind trees and bushes. They used these underhanded techniques, largely learned from the savages of the American continents, to compensate for their numerical inferiority. \n\nThough I share the beliefs and values of the Founding Fathers and their armies, though I cherish the freedoms we have as Americans, this still bothers me.\n\nThe success of the American colonials inspired the French Revolution, which was so bloody it is now known in history as the Reign of Terror. If only Louis had thought to give them a whiff of grapeshot and then fix bayonnets and charge the rabble away! There would still be a Louis on the throne of France. Instead, it only encouraged that unpleasantness with the Corsican adventurer and all the rest that followed.\n\nFor generations afterward, whenever a coup took place in South America, the mustachio'd 'gentlemen' would say, "We are not revolutionaries! We are freedom fighters! Not conqustadors, patriots! Not oppressors, liberators!" \n\nCommunism picked that theme up and ran with it for decades. Until it fell apart. Even now, there are some that think Communism has not been discredited; only that it has not been tried hard enough, long enough.\n\nCommunism funded many people and movements in Africa. And there was, and is, the tension between Islam and the rest of the world. Strategic materials such as chromium and uranium have provoked many a conflict. Less strategic materials such as gold and diamonds have also done so.\n\nIn the final analysis, I would have to say-- as old as it sounds, it is still profound-- the ends do not justify the means. Some may think that we, as Americans, cannot point the finger (given our own beginnings.) \n\nBut if we want there to be an end to this, someone must start. If we wait to begin until there is a nation that has never done such things, we will be waiting a long time.
801856
Check out the Wikipedia article on John Locke.  His ideas in government were best laid out in his "Two Treatises on Government," so check out what he said there.  \n\nHe was one of the influential Social Contract theorists, if you understand what that means, versus a State of Nature, you'll be very close to not only having the answer, but understanding it as well.  I'm sure that Wikipedia has good articles on those two subjects.  You'll be able to find much more online as well.\n\nHave at it!
692888
http://www.whitehouse.govJohn Adams \n\nLearned and thoughtful, John Adams was more remarkable as a political philosopher than as a politician. "People and nations are forged in the fires of adversity," he said, doubtless thinking of his own as well as the American experience. \n\nAdams was born in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1735. A Harvard-educated lawyer, he early became identified with the patriot cause; a delegate to the First and Second Continental Congresses, he led in the movement for independence. \n\nDuring the Revolutionary War he served in France and Holland in diplomatic roles, and helped negotiate the treaty of peace. From 1785 to 1788 he was minister to the Court of St. James's, returning to be elected Vice President under George Washington. \n\nAdams' two terms as Vice President were frustrating experiences for a man of his vigor, intellect, and vanity. He complained to his wife Abigail, "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." \n\nWhen Adams became President, the war between the French and British was causing great difficulties for the United States on the high seas and intense partisanship among contending factions within the Nation. \n\nHis administration focused on France, where the Directory, the ruling group, had refused to receive the American envoy and had suspended commercial relations. \n\nAdams sent three commissioners to France, but in the spring of 1798 word arrived that the French Foreign Minister Talleyrand and the Directory had refused to negotiate with them unless they would first pay a substantial bribe. Adams reported the insult to Congress, and the Senate printed the correspondence, in which the Frenchmen were referred to only as "X, Y, and Z." \n\nThe Nation broke out into what Jefferson called "the X. Y. Z. fever," increased in intensity by Adams's exhortations. The populace cheered itself hoarse wherever the President appeared. Never had the Federalists been so popular. \n\nCongress appropriated money to complete three new frigates and to build additional ships, and authorized the raising of a provisional army. It also passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, intended to frighten foreign agents out of the country and to stifle the attacks of Republican editors. \n\nPresident Adams did not call for a declaration of war, but hostilities began at sea. At first, American shipping was almost defenseless against French privateers, but by 1800 armed merchantmen and U.S. warships were clearing the sea-lanes. \n\nDespite several brilliant naval victories, war fever subsided. Word came to Adams that France also had no stomach for war and would receive an envoy with respect. Long negotiations ended the quasi war. \n\nSending a peace mission to France brought the full fury of the Hamiltonians against Adams. In the campaign of 1800 the Republicans were united and effective, the Federalists badly divided. Nevertheless, Adams polled only a few less electoral votes than Jefferson, who became President. \n\nOn November 1, 1800, just before the election, Adams arrived in the new Capital City to take up his residence in the White House. On his second evening in its damp, unfinished rooms, he wrote his wife, "Before I end my letter, I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof." \n\nAdams retired to his farm in Quincy. Here he penned his elaborate letters to Thomas Jefferson. Here on July 4, 1826, he whispered his last words: "Thomas Jefferson survives." But Jefferson had died at Monticello a few hours earlier.
694272
The two main ideals from the Magna Carta that affect American law is the right to due process, and the idea that the executive's power is limited. As a note, even in the UK, the Magna Carta has mostly been repealed (since much of it is irrelevant nowadays).
56142
It's a great book, one which inspired the American Revolution (repudiated the Divine right of kings to rule without consent of the governed).\n\nAlso, to do good with all one's wisdom and strength is the highest religion.  And the doctrine of a savior is unjust: no honest man can accept another's dying for him.\n\nThese were (and are) revolutionary concepts which helped change the history of our early republic.
1168747
I agree with Pandak, all except for one thing.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were the  inalienable rights described to us in the Declaration of Independence by our forefathers.  John Locke (not the character from "Lost", the theorist) theroized that we have only three natural rightas (inalienable rights).  The right to Life, Liberty, and Property.  The Pursuit of Happiness was not one of the three.  \n\nBut on all other counts, I agree with all of his other points.
315608
When the framers decided to declare independence the only government that they had known was the oppressive monarchy of England.  When they set up the first government they wanted to get as far away from that structure as they could, which is why they created a very very weak central government, with most of the power vested in the states.  There was no central executive or judicial branches, and only a unicameral legislature, with essentially no power.  After they saw what a mess this created, with no regulation of commerce among the states; different currencies for different states; states discriminating against citizens of other states; and having nothing 'united' about the states at all; they realized that a change was necessary.  Experiencing these two extremes of the government, along with help from philosophers like Locke and Hobbes, showed them what a federal government had to have the power to do, but at the same time showed them what the federal government could not have the power to do.  It was the perfect 'happy medium' from the two far extreme possibilities.  There is no other way that the government could have remained essentially unchanged for the past 200+ years.
374831
John Locke writings indicate clearly that he was for democratic rule where fraternity, liberty and equality abound for the individual, you can compare Locke work with Voltaire, Montesquieu, and other 18th century writers. Locke works mostly boarded on the formation of civil society where there should be law and other, a society where the individual powers and limits does not ends with where his abilities can take him or her, but where there is a state institution to protect the poor and the weak from the strong and the oppressors.
65751
http://www.house.gov/house/Educate.shtml \nalong with access to the Federalist Papers Declaration of Indepence and other American Historical documents
82308
these sites may help:\nhttp://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502192_2/Colonial_America.html\n\nhttp://www.gutenberg.org/etext/8659
356262
Methods of Constitutional Interpretation - Doctrinalism \n  \nBobbitt, Constitutional Fate Bobbitt\nStrauss, "Conmon Law, Common Ground, and Jefferson's Principle" \n search about the names to find out it...
889541
1. To relieve the British Empire of the costs in political capital with the United States that having clear colonial possessions in North America meant/\n2. To re-gear the internal political structure of the British North American possessions so as to decrease francophone control of the political agenda and institutions without depriving them of their political rights\n3. To create a more streamlined political institution capable of a greater assertion of political sovereignty over the vast resources of the northern half of North America.\n4. To create a more streamlined political institution capable of displacing and "civilising" the aboriginal societies of the continent more effectively.\n5. To streamline the government of the colony so as to ensure the continued ascendancy of Protestant Anglo-Saxon businessmen in trade and commerce\n6. To provide for a greater economic hinterland for the newly developing industrial heartland of Southern Ontario.\n\nThose aren't what you'll find in your socials text, but maybe you should try them on your teacher.....
984168
John Hancock was one of the leading men that spurred on the American Revolution. I looked at a couple of links, but the one below is short and concise and speaks directly with details regarding most of his patriotic activities (if you can get a copy of his speech after the Boston Massacre - that is what really brought him to the attention of the public at-large).
960278
Welll, I'll give it a go.  I think early America -- meaning pre-1776 (before the Declaration of Independence and the advent of the Constitution) -- was a "working democracy".  Technically, during this time, most of the country was under the monarchy of the English king.  And, the British Parliament increasingly enacted most of the laws that governed the area.  So, I would say it was not a democracy; it was, in fact, a monarchy under a king.\n\nHowever, the reason I believe it was a "working democracy" is because the colonists, being far from their homelands, had to rely on each other and, in effect, form a working democracy to communally enact laws and rules of living in order to survive the harshness of their circumstances.  In doing so, they became fiercely loyal to each other, rather than to the King.  They also loved the freedom they were experiencing, despite the hardships.\n\nAs time went on and the colonies grew, the British Parliament became ever more intrusive into their lives.  They began to resent the ever-increasing restrictions, rules, and especially taxations burdened on them by the British Parliament.  And so, they joined together to rid themselves of the British monarchy forever and to form a new nation.  They formed the "United Colonies" and then the "United States.  \n\nI'd say they were a working democracy (meaning that the people, i.e., the colonists, from the very first settlement in the New World formed their own  government of the people and by majority rule, based primarily on the need for the majority to survive) that then became a formalized democracy through the Declaration of Independence and the enactment of the Constitution.
900945
web.gc.cuny.edu/Americanstudies/f04desc.htm - 32k \n\nhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b-DTQwA4lDEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&sig=8XamFcHRWByMhSjN-tmp-Zj1BR4&dq=+influences+of+society+on+Thea+Adventures+of+Tom+Sawyer+by+Mark+Twain%3F+&prev=http://scholar.google.com/scholar%3Fq%3D%2Binfluences%2Bof%2Bsociety%2Bon%2BThea%2BAdventures%2Bof%2BTom%2BSawyer%2Bby%2BMark%2BTwain%253F%2B%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D\n\n\nor just google it
991672
Instead of being like everyone else and grab a copy of a history book or look the answer up on the Internet and copying it word for word, let me sum it up for you in a way that if you are writing a report you can use in the info without the plagiarism.\nNow as to your question... The American Revolution was to escape  prosecution from "Mother England". Out forefathers wanted the right to have their own religious beliefs, be free from taxes from England and to create a country of our own with our own laws and government. To create a government for the people and to take power away from one person(a king) and give it to many people so that we wouldn't have to live under the beliefs of one person and one person alone.\nHope this helps